Russia / Ukraine Watch

[Max B Gold]

More balance from a very clever man.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Oh come on, his name even sounds Russian! Of course he’ll side with the commies.

[Currywurst and Chips]

Russia feels insecure, and has done for a good few years now.
Since the second world war ended, NATO or America, to be precise, has moved further and further east, to the point where they are on Russia's borders. ( The Baltic States )
With Ukraine stating a wish to join NATO, Putin is terrified.
He can see no way of getting the Americans to move back, and in desperation, he sees this now, as the only way
Imagine if Russia had missiles in Mexico or Canada pointing at America, how they'd feel, well that's how Russia feels now. Scared out of their wits

If Russia doesn't want NATO on its doorstep why is it planning to invade/occupy a country that has a border with 4 NATO nations?

[Currywurst and Chips]

More balance from a very clever man.

Denying the Ukrainian people agency to make their own decisions on the future of their country

[tuffers#1]

More balance from a very clever man.

Denying the Ukrainian people agency to make their own decisions on the future of their country

If only people thought the same with the 32 counties of Ireland !

[Mistadobalina]

More balance from a very clever man.

What's the balance he's providing? It sounds like a tacit endorsement of Russia's rationale for invading. Fact is the US has been trying to extract itself from Europe for over a decade now and focus on the south Pacific. Putin is actually dragging them back in.

The idea that the people of Ukraine (and Georgia) have to be collateral damage to appease a neurotic kleptocracy run by a gang of thugs that dont even recognise Ukraine's historical right to independence is incredibly depressing.

A key point point some of those on the left are missing - and it's baffling cause they are generally remainers - is that if Ukraine had acceded into the EU, Russia would not invade. It'd be locked into a security apparatus where all 27 member states would have to assist Ukraine. It would be defacto NATO membership, of the sort that Finland and Sweden have. So we are saying Ukraine can't join the EU? If so, then we're basically saying they are a Russian client state.

All this talk about NATO is a red herring, they aren't joining. This is about keeping Ukraine stuck within Russia's decaying, corrupt sphere of influence so that they don't act as yet another reminder to the Russian public that escaping Moscow's grasp - like Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, east Germany, Romania and Bulgaria have managed - will give an almost nailed on improvement in security, prosperity and sovereignty. That is the real danger to Putin. It's not a coincidence this is all happening whilst the opposition leader he tried to get whacked is currently in jail on trumped up charges. He's rattled.

[Dunners]

It's funny how a lot of 'balance' fails to address the point that Eastern European countries begged to join NATO due to their fear of Russia. And that, as a defensive alliance, NATO is only a threat if you think you might fancy invading one of those countries in the future. And that the permanent forward positioning of NATO troops in Eastern European countries only happened because those countries requested it following Russia's invasion in 2014. And that a further invasion of Ukraine simply brings Russia into even more NATO contact.

I'm sure all those armchair commentators that put forward the 'balanced' contrarian counterpoints will acknowledge and respond to those awkward points at some point when posturing behind their fanboys. All points which, when you think about it, completely undermine the whole NATO expansist threat rhetoric.

They will, right? Because otherwise people could be forgiven for thinking that they're not that bright after all.
People may even start to think that they're just spreading spin from a hostile foreign power that thought nothing of commiting murder on UK soil, and could have caused the deaths of many others.

I'm sure the family of Dawn Sturgess and the relatives of those who perished on flight MH370 would appreciate some reassurance on this matter.

And if they're not willing or able to do so, then that makes them little better than the likes of The Sun when it disrespected the victims at Hillsborough in its pursuit of spreading bullsh*t. It also draws parallels between The Sun's willing audience, who were only too eager to lap up the lies about pickpocketing scousers because it fitted their bias, and those who spread Kremlin propaganda without thinking.

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Talking of rattled ^

[tuffers#1]

More balance from a very clever man.

What's the balance he's providing? It sounds like a tacit endorsement of Russia's rationale for invading. Fact is the US has been trying to extract itself from Europe for over a decade now and focus on the south Pacific. Putin is actually dragging them back in.

The idea that the people of Ukraine (and Georgia) have to be collateral damage to appease a neurotic kleptocracy run by a gang of thugs that dont even recognise Ukraine's historical right to independence is incredibly depressing.

A key point point some of those on the left are missing - and it's baffling cause they are generally remainers - is that if Ukraine had acceded into the EU, Russia would not invade. It'd be locked into a security apparatus where all 27 member states would have to assist Ukraine. It would be defacto NATO membership, of the sort that Finland and Sweden have. So we are saying Ukraine can't join the EU? If so, then we're basically saying they are a Russian client state.

All this talk about NATO is a red herring, they aren't joining. This is about keeping Ukraine stuck within Russia's decaying, corrupt sphere of influence so that they don't act as yet another reminder to the Russian public that escaping Moscow's grasp - like Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, east Germany, Romania and Bulgaria have managed - will give an almost nailed on improvement in security, prosperity and sovereignty. That is the real danger to Putin. It's not a coincidence this is all happening whilst the opposition leader he tried to get whacked is currently in jail on trumped up charges. He's rattled.

Wasn't part of the Leavers argument about letting any old so & so join the EU ?

P.S you forgot the former Yugoslavia

[Max B Gold]

It's funny how a lot of 'balance' fails to address the point that Eastern European countries begged to join NATO due to their fear of Russia. And that, as a defensive alliance, NATO is only a threat if you think you might fancy invading one of those countries in the future. And that the permanent forward positioning of NATO troops in Eastern European countries only happened because those countries requested it following Russia's invasion in 2014. And that a further invasion of Ukraine simply brings Russia into even more NATO contact.

I'm sure all those armchair commentators that put forward the 'balanced' contrarian counterpoints will acknowledge and respond to those awkward points at some point when posturing behind their fanboys. All points which, when you think about it, completely undermine the whole NATO expansist threat rhetoric.

They will, right? Because otherwise people could be forgiven for thinking that they're not that bright after all.
People may even start to think that they're just spreading spin from a hostile foreign power that thought nothing of commiting murder on UK soil, and could have caused the deaths of many others.

I'm sure the family of Dawn Sturgess and the relatives of those who perished on flight MH370 would appreciate some reassurance on this matter.

And if they're not willing or able to do so, then that makes them little better than the likes of The Sun when it disrespected the victims at Hillsborough in its pursuit of spreading bullsh*t. It also draws parallels between The Sun's willing audience, who were only too eager to lap up the lies about pickpocketing scousers because it fitted their bias, and those who spread Kremlin propaganda without thinking.

I'm not convinced I know how calling people who disagree with your one sided world view thick helps advance an understanding of a complex geo political issue.

For the sake of your sanity can I just say that most of the positions you attribute to me are incorrect. I'm no fan of Putin and Russia but I'm also not a fan of the US and Nato.

[Dunners]

It's funny how a lot of 'balance' fails to address the point that Eastern European countries begged to join NATO due to their fear of Russia. And that, as a defensive alliance, NATO is only a threat if you think you might fancy invading one of those countries in the future. And that the permanent forward positioning of NATO troops in Eastern European countries only happened because those countries requested it following Russia's invasion in 2014. And that a further invasion of Ukraine simply brings Russia into even more NATO contact.

I'm sure all those armchair commentators that put forward the 'balanced' contrarian counterpoints will acknowledge and respond to those awkward points at some point when posturing behind their fanboys. All points which, when you think about it, completely undermine the whole NATO expansist threat rhetoric.

They will, right? Because otherwise people could be forgiven for thinking that they're not that bright after all.
People may even start to think that they're just spreading spin from a hostile foreign power that thought nothing of commiting murder on UK soil, and could have caused the deaths of many others.

I'm sure the family of Dawn Sturgess and the relatives of those who perished on flight MH370 would appreciate some reassurance on this matter.

And if they're not willing or able to do so, then that makes them little better than the likes of The Sun when it disrespected the victims at Hillsborough in its pursuit of spreading bullsh*t. It also draws parallels between The Sun's willing audience, who were only too eager to lap up the lies about pickpocketing scousers because it fitted their bias, and those who spread Kremlin propaganda without thinking.

I'm not convinced I know how calling people who disagree with your one sided world view thick helps advance an understanding of a complex geo political issue.

For the sake of your sanity can I just say that most of the positions you attribute to me are incorrect. I'm no fan of Putin and Russia but I'm also not a fan of the US and Nato.

I'm not specifically calling you thick. I call everyone thick, remember? I'm challenging your claim that Chomsky is a "very clever man". Sure, he's smarter than your average border, but he's certainly not the all-wise font of wisdom he's held up as by some people.

And I think the points I've made (and which Mistadobalina and Pammy have made) which Chomsky, and others like him, have completely failed to address, are valid and telling. Considering what we are facing, I think this is deserving of being called out and challenged. I accept the parallels I have drawn in my comment are harsh, but they're not completely without some merit either (as difficult as that may be to accept).

That's not being one-sided. I know you're no fan of Putin and Russia. And I'm no fan of the US and NATO either. I've given this plenty of thought and have considered things in the round. I was and remain opposed to the Iraq invasion. I accept NATO has its flaws and could/should have handled some things differently.

It’s not about being a fan of anything. Whether or not war happens this time, we're facing a crisis. A real one. We're experiencing domestic and global realignments which are going to throw up new alliances and see new divisions. It's going to be messy, violent and disorientating. It's going to affect our children's futures.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Fair play to anyone with the confidence/arrogance to put Chomsky right on a few points he was unsure of.

[Max B Gold]

Fair play to anyone with the confidence/arrogance to put Chomsky right on a few points he was unsure of.

That wasn't their only crime. They falsely read into his narrative opinions he does not hold to suit the line they are taking. They framed him and tried to make him take the fall like a straw man.

[tuffers#1]

It's funny how a lot of 'balance' fails to address the point that Eastern European countries begged to join NATO due to their fear of Russia. And that, as a defensive alliance, NATO is only a threat if you think you might fancy invading one of those countries in the future. And that the permanent forward positioning of NATO troops in Eastern European countries only happened because those countries requested it following Russia's invasion in 2014. And that a further invasion of Ukraine simply brings Russia into even more NATO contact.

I'm sure all those armchair commentators that put forward the 'balanced' contrarian counterpoints will acknowledge and respond to those awkward points at some point when posturing behind their fanboys. All points which, when you think about it, completely undermine the whole NATO expansist threat rhetoric.

They will, right? Because otherwise people could be forgiven for thinking that they're not that bright after all.
People may even start to think that they're just spreading spin from a hostile foreign power that thought nothing of commiting murder on UK soil, and could have caused the deaths of many others.

I'm sure the family of Dawn Sturgess and the relatives of those who perished on flight MH370 would appreciate some reassurance on this matter.

And if they're not willing or able to do so, then that makes them little better than the likes of The Sun when it disrespected the victims at Hillsborough in its pursuit of spreading bullsh*t. It also draws parallels between The Sun's willing audience, who were only too eager to lap up the lies about pickpocketing scousers because it fitted their bias, and those who spread Kremlin propaganda without thinking.

I'm not convinced I know how calling people who disagree with your one sided world view thick helps advance an understanding of a complex geo political issue.

For the sake of your sanity can I just say that most of the positions you attribute to me are incorrect. I'm no fan of Putin and Russia but I'm also not a fan of the US and Nato.

I'm not specifically calling you thick. I call everyone thick, remember? I'm challenging your claim that Chomsky is a "very clever man". Sure, he's smarter than your average border, but he's certainly not the all-wise font of wisdom he's held up as by some people.

And I think the points I've made (and which Mistadobalina and Pammy have made) which Chomsky, and others like him, have completely failed to address, are valid and telling. Considering what we are facing, I think this is deserving of being called out and challenged. I accept the parallels I have drawn in my comment are harsh, but they're not completely without some merit either (as difficult as that may be to accept).

That's not being one-sided. I know you're no fan of Putin and Russia. And I'm no fan of the US and NATO either. I've given this plenty of thought and have considered things in the round. I was and remain opposed to the Iraq invasion. I accept NATO has its flaws and could/should have handled some things differently.

It’s not about being a fan of anything. Whether or not war happens this time, we're facing a crisis. A real one. We're experiencing domestic and global realignments which are going to throw up new alliances and see new divisions. It's going to be messy, violent and disorientating. It's going to affect our children's futures.

And what of the claims made by him that Nato's continued push East ,
Threatens the security of Russia ?

[Mistadobalina]

Fair play to anyone with the confidence/arrogance to put Chomsky right on a few points he was unsure of.

That wasn't their only crime. They falsely read into his narrative opinions he does not hold to suit the line they are taking. They framed him and tried to make him take the fall like a straw man.

On the clip you've shared, he's specifically talking about a quid pro quo agreed 30 odd years ago which many of the independent states in question had little to no input into. And it ignores the fact that they in 94 Russia then signed an agreement with the Ukraine where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nukes (at this point Ukraine was one of the largest nuclear powers in the world), Russia would ' respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine'.

Russia has already reneged on this agreement by annexing Ukrainian territory. The only conclusion a rational country could arrive at after that is that the agreement wasn't worth diddly squat and that they needed to secure their independence through alternative means. It's only after Crimea was annexed have Ukraine sought NATO membership.

Putting aside all the obvious moral arguments about a Russian invasion being horrendous, this whole crisis is the single best argument there has ever been against a country giving up its nuclear arsenal.

[Max B Gold]

Fair play to anyone with the confidence/arrogance to put Chomsky right on a few points he was unsure of.

That wasn't their only crime. They falsely read into his narrative opinions he does not hold to suit the line they are taking. They framed him and tried to make him take the fall like a straw man.

On the clip you've shared, he's specifically talking about a quid pro quo agreed 30 odd years ago which many of the independent states in question had little to no input into. And it ignores the fact that they in 94 Russia then signed an agreement with the Ukraine where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nukes (at this point Ukraine was one of the largest nuclear powers in the world), Russia would ' respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine'.

Russia has already reneged on this agreement by annexing Ukrainian territory. The only conclusion a rational country could arrive at after that is that the agreement wasn't worth diddly squat and that they needed to secure their independence through alternative means. It's only after Crimea was annexed have Ukraine sought NATO membership.

Putting aside all the obvious moral arguments about a Russian invasion being horrendous, this whole crisis is the single best argument there has ever been against a country giving up its nuclear arsenal.

I'm liking your "rational country" construct. Chomsky would have a field day with language like that.

Setting aside the obvious security issue is there anything else in Ukraine that a country led by theiving kleptocrats like Russia might want?

[tuffers#1]

Fair play to anyone with the confidence/arrogance to put Chomsky right on a few points he was unsure of.

That wasn't their only crime. They falsely read into his narrative opinions he does not hold to suit the line they are taking. They framed him and tried to make him take the fall like a straw man.

On the clip you've shared, he's specifically talking about a quid pro quo agreed 30 odd years ago which many of the independent states in question had little to no input into. And it ignores the fact that they in 94 Russia then signed an agreement with the Ukraine where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nukes (at this point Ukraine was one of the largest nuclear powers in the world), Russia would ' respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine'.

Russia has already reneged on this agreement by annexing Ukrainian territory. The only conclusion a rational country could arrive at after that is that the agreement wasn't worth diddly squat and that they needed to secure their independence through alternative means. It's only after Crimea was annexed have Ukraine sought NATO membership.

Putting aside all the obvious moral arguments about a Russian invasion being horrendous, this whole crisis is the single best argument there has ever been against a country giving up its nuclear arsenal.

surely Ukraine reneged on the election win of viktor yanukovych & in 2014 forced him out of office .

[Dunners]

Setting aside the obvious security issue is there anything else in Ukraine that a country led by theiving kleptocrats like Russia might want?

Are you doing that thing again, whereby you ask questions to which you already know the answers?

[Max B Gold]

Setting aside the obvious security issue is there anything else in Ukraine that a country led by theiving kleptocrats like Russia might want?

Are you doing that thing again, whereby you ask questions to which you already know the answers?

It's a teachable moment. So yes

[Dunners]

Fair play to anyone with the confidence/arrogance to put Chomsky right on a few points he was unsure of.

I'm Bertie Big-Bollox round 'ere, and Chomsky would do well to respect that.

[Max B Gold]

Fair play to anyone with the confidence/arrogance to put Chomsky right on a few points he was unsure of.

I'm Bertie Big-Bollox round 'ere, and Chomsky would do well to respect that.

Critique this then.

https://chomsky.info/20211223/

[Dunners]

Fair play to anyone with the confidence/arrogance to put Chomsky right on a few points he was unsure of.

I'm Bertie Big-Bollox round 'ere, and Chomsky would do well to respect that.

Critique this then.

https://chomsky.info/20211223/

Yeah, sure Max. I'll just go through a 2.5K word essay in my lunch break, shall I?

[StockholmO]

Apart from all the deaths in the event of war, think of even higher fuel prices, the refugee crisis, more money being spent on defence instead of schools and hospitals.

I work in the defence industry and I can assure you my boss hasn’t asked me to provide her with performance data for our sales teams for our world leading innovative solutions for battlefield superiority and Ew & Counter measure solutions.

[Rich Tea Wellin]

I'm Bertie Big-Bollox round 'ere, and Chomsky would do well to respect that.

Critique this then.

https://chomsky.info/20211223/

Yeah, sure Max. I'll just go through a 2.5K word essay in my lunch break, shall I?

Just do it during working hours

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

working hours