Originally posted by richardfinegold
View Post
Ukraine
Collapse
X
-
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostI don't know why Hitchens gives the impression that he's the only one who's ever propounded these opinions, the only clear-sighted dissident. We do live in a complicated, contradictory world and some politicians/people are unspeakable, whether adding to or attempting to counter the evils in society. We all make a pretty miserable job of it but Hitchens seems, unfailingly, to hit the wrong note in all his righteous fulminations.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by RichardB View PostHis lack of a clear aim and/or exit strategy is a problem familiar from the Iraq invasion of 2003. We don't get anywhere by individualising the invasion by concentrating entirely on Putin as a paranoid megalomaniac (even if he is one). As in Iraq, the focus of the invasion is surely on taking control of natural resources, with some kind of ideological spin as justification for the masses (stopping the production of WMDs and spreading democracy in Iraq, stopping the expansion of NATO and "denazification" in Ukraine). Many of us back in 2003 said that the invasion would lead only to more bloodshed, and profits for a few already wealthy entities, but Bush and Blair went ahead anyway, being under strong influence from those same entities. Putin's invasion of Ukraine is explainable either in such terms, or (as preferred by the media, for obvious reasons) as the result of a Hitler-like figure wanting to lay waste to as much of the world as he can send his tanks into. As stated upthread, it seems to me that getting Putin bogged down in a draining and expensive occupation in Ukraine suits the longer-term geopolitical interests of the Pentagon possibly better than any other outcome. Those people don't care about human lives any more than Putin does, as was demonstrated once more in Iraq during the blockade of the 1990s, famously defended by Madeleine Albright in 1996.
The idea that this war happened and continues ( as many think) simply because putin is a power crazed nut job would get a very poor grade as an answer to a GCSE question.
I don’t know if we discussed this elsewhere, but I sense a distinct generational split on how people view the war, between 40 somethings and older who recall the Cold War and nightmares about nuclear war, and younger age groups who tend to view the world and geopolitics rather differently.I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
I am not a number, I am a free man.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by teamsaint View PostInteresting point. Probably not just the Pentagon either.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by RichardB View PostHis lack of a clear aim and/or exit strategy is a problem familiar from the Iraq invasion of 2003. We don't get anywhere by individualising the invasion by concentrating entirely on Putin as a paranoid megalomaniac (even if he is one). As in Iraq, the focus of the invasion is surely on taking control of natural resources, with some kind of ideological spin as justification for the masses (stopping the production of WMDs and spreading democracy in Iraq, stopping the expansion of NATO and "denazification" in Ukraine). Many of us back in 2003 said that the invasion would lead only to more bloodshed, and profits for a few already wealthy entities, but Bush and Blair went ahead anyway, being under strong influence from those same entities. Putin's invasion of Ukraine is explainable either in such terms, or (as preferred by the media, for obvious reasons) as the result of a Hitler-like figure wanting to lay waste to as much of the world as he can send his tanks into. As stated upthread, it seems to me that getting Putin bogged down in a draining and expensive occupation in Ukraine suits the longer-term geopolitical interests of the Pentagon possibly better than any other outcome. Those people don't care about human lives any more than Putin does, as was demonstrated once more in Iraq during the blockade of the 1990s, famously defended by Madeleine Albright in 1996.
The Pentagon actually acted to defang their own leader, Trump, when the brass sent alerts to the lower ranks that if the megalomaniac in chief gave the order to arm Nukes, they were to await confirmation from the Military, an act which clearly violates the chain of command.
As to whether we can equate Putin with the Russians, that depends upon whether or not one accepts the “Great Man” interpretation of History.
I think there probably were some Frenchman in 1812 that wanted to invade Russia, and certainly many Germans in 1939 itching to start a conflagration. However, I think that absent the personalities of Napoleon or Hitler, those specific conflicts would not have occurred. Megalomania unchecked by other Political Forces is a common feature of Putin, Hitler, Stalin, et. al, and the world as a whole usually suffers for their ambitions
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by richardfinegold View PostAs to whether we can equate Putin with the Russians, that depends upon whether or not one accepts the “Great Man” interpretation of History.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Dave2002 View PostIs this now “yesterday’s news?”.
I hope not. It’s still a major tragedy for many involved and many still need our support.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by RichardB View PostDon't be silly. Just because people aren't posting on this thread doesn't mean they aren't concerned about the issues discussed in it!It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by RichardB View PostWhy?It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
I think that this recent interview should be accessible:
“If plan A doesn’t work, and it hasn’t, Putin is ready to turn Kiev and Kharkiv into Aleppo and Grozny.”
If the link doesn't work, the authorial byline is Jonathan Tepperman, the title, "Putin in His Labyrinth: Alexander Gabuev on the View from Moscow", and it's in 'The Octavian Report', dated 14 March.
I thought it made for interesting if not exactly comforting reading but then nothing about the current tragedy in the Ukraine is anything other than profoundly depressing, apart possibly from the positive response of so many local people in, for example, the Maritime Alps who want to do something to try to help victims of such terrible circumstances.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostBecause you might get very different, even opposing, outcomes?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by RichardB View PostThese "great men" are representative of the processes that put them in their positions of power, and those processes are what drives history, not a sequence of individuals. Of course, arguments on both sides of this issue are hobbled by having to depend on what "might have been" which is rather an ungraspable concept;
Originally posted by RichardB View Postbut what makes these men "great" is to a great extent the circumstances of their birth, upbringing, experience, social environment etc., and, crucially, the people who bestow the accolade of greatness on them, all of which exist at the confluence of the aforementioned processes.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
Comment