Ukraine

[Serial_Apologist]

RT UK has indeed been taken off air, with Ofcom hiding behind the suspicious excuse that RT is being investigated on 15 accounts of impartiality, which sounds quite bad until you realise it will no doubt turn out to be ONE bit of reportage that was shown 15 times on a repeating hourly bulletin, much like the BBC 24 hour news format. You don't need to shut down a channel WHILE you investigate it (they didn't when they investigated RT reporting of the Salisbury Skripal poisonings) but only perhaps AFTER adverse conclusive findings.

It seems the UK is following in the footsteps of EU countries in not wanting the public to have access to an alternative narrative and to be able decide for themselves as to the veracity of what they see and hear (apparently we're all too dumb to do that and might believe every word of it!).

US journalist Robert Bridge makes important points on the breathtaking double standards in the West's response to Russian vs US military interventions - but it seems only a Russian website will host such an enlightening article.

It might equally be demanded that NATO chiefs from the last 3 decades be brought on to explain the organisation's continuing expansion after the downfall of the USSR. Nobody in the mainstream media seems to be asking this important question. Was it supposed to protect former Soviet Bloc countries from a Russian threat that would proceed from that country's effective isolation, when the tacit default position granted Russia the welcome back status of having returned to civilisation, having overthrown Communism? Or to defend said countries against rising Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, when militarism's apologists were at the same time arguing that future wars would not be of the massed armies type represented by what is now happening?

I'd really like to know - these aren't rhetorical questions.

[RichardB]

I'd really like to know - these aren't rhetorical questions.

I think the answer has to do with the priorities of the "military-industrial complex".

[teamsaint]

It might equally be demanded that NATO chiefs from the last 3 decades be brought on to explain the organisation's continuing expansion after the downfall of the USSR. Nobody in the mainstream media seems to be asking this important question. Was it supposed to protect former Soviet Bloc countries from a Russian threat that would proceed from that country's effective isolation, when the tacit default position granted Russia the welcome back status of having returned to civilisation, having overthrown Communism? Or to defend said countries against rising Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, when militarism's apologists were at the same time arguing that future wars would not be of the massed armies type represented by what is not happening?

I'd really like to know - these aren't rhetorical questions.

Not enough questions are being asked, as we default ( yet again) to binary positions. ( though obviously Russia should get out of Ukraine ).
It seems to me, for better or worse (probably worse) that Spheres of Influence are a real thing, and if they apply in one part of the world ,( which they do) they can be expected to apply elsewhere. To ignore the fact that Russia would have understandable concerns at having Nato countries so close to Moscow , and at the same time ignoring the regular resort to arms by both Russia and the USA , is one part of what has contributed to this situation.

[Jazzrook]

RT UK has indeed been taken off air, with Ofcom hiding behind the suspicious excuse that RT is being investigated on 15 accounts of impartiality, which sounds quite bad until you realise it will no doubt turn out to be ONE bit of reportage that was shown 15 times on a repeating hourly bulletin, much like the BBC 24 hour news format. You don't need to shut down a channel WHILE you investigate it (they didn't when they investigated RT reporting of the Salisbury Skripal poisonings) but only perhaps AFTER adverse conclusive findings.

It seems the UK is following in the footsteps of EU countries in not wanting the public to have access to an alternative narrative and to be able decide for themselves as to the veracity of what they see and hear (apparently we're all too dumb to do that and might believe every word of it!).

US journalist Robert Bridge makes important points on the breathtaking double standards in the West's response to Russian vs US military interventions - but it seems only a Russian website will host such an enlightening article.

The Robert Bridge article was excellent but it's becoming increasingly difficult to access alternative viewpoints to the mainstream media.

JR

[RichardB]

The Robert Bridge article was excellent but it's becoming increasingly difficult to access alternative viewpoints to the mainstream media.

https://www.counterpunch.org/

https://www.aljazeera.com/

https://novaramedia.com/

[oddoneout]

I haven't read the Robert Bridge and I assume the discussion here is more about the political analysis aspect but I did find this article thought provoking

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/02/civilised-european-look-like-us-racist-coverage-ukraine

This I have to go through more thoroughly but the last sentence struck me

It’s about resisting the temptation to believe that your enemy’s enemy must be your friend.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/02/russian-propaganda-anti-imperialist-left-vladimir-putin

[RichardB]

This I have to go through more thoroughly but the last sentence struck me

I have much respect for George Monbiot but this lashing out at the Stop the War Coalition is hysterical and highly inaccurate. To read his words you would think that the organisation is critical only of NATO, and takes its talking points direct from Russian propaganda, neither of which is remotely the case

[DracoM]

[Ein Heldenleben]

I have much respect for George Monbiot but this lashing out at the Stop the War Coalition is hysterical and highly inaccurate. To read his words you would think that the organisation is critical only of NATO, and takes its talking points direct from Russian propaganda, neither of which is remotely the case

From what I’ve seen of Stop The Wars material it does seem to partially advocate the “West / NATO has provoked Putin “ narrative. There’s not much evidence for that really. Monbiot’s article was in my view spot on. But then I’m one of those people who believe it’s only through the existence of NATO that we are able to have these discussions. The more than doubling of Germany’s defence spending over the weekend was a big historical moment. Finally as Europeans we are standing up to this appalling man and tackling the financial , intellectual, and social media corruption he has spread through our countries.

[french frank]

As far as Russia and NATO are concerned, Prospect Magazine has an article by the UK's former anbassador to NATO, Peter Ricketts. He outlines the history at the time of the dissolution of the USSR and describes how the western leaders were 'acurely aware' of the need to welcome the Russia of Gorbachev and then Yeltsin into the now reforming Europe - as well as welcoming the newly independent Soviet-republics. Yeltsin signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act in 1997 and Putin endorsed it in 1999. Its commitments included building together "a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area on the principles of democracy and co-operative security," adding that “Nato and Russia do not consider each other as adversaries.” They also agreed on a several principles, including "respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security.” A NATO-Russia Council was created as a forum for the discussion of problem areas.

Ricketts arrived in 2003 and found the atmosphere between Russia and the West had 'soured'. His explanation: "The way in which the US and UK steamrollered the UN Security Council over the Iraq War in 2003 soured Moscow’s view of the west." Russia lost interest in the NATO-Russia Council. That sounds a plausible explanation, but in the first place it also coincided with the time at which Yeltsin left office and Putin arrived. It also didn't involve any change in NATO: it was actions in the UN Security Council.

Putin then engaged in his 'domestic' war against the Chechen separatists, followed by his support for Georgian pro-Russia separatists, followed by his annexation of Crimea, followed by his support for the Ukrainian pro-Russia separatists, followed by …

I would suggest the problem is not NATO at all. The problem is Putin. In spite of the US right blaming Biden for the Russian aggression, the West and NATO have been very restrained.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Blimey even the Guardian is running articles on the need to increase defence spending and nuclear power. What a difference a week makes.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/03/putin-invation-ukraine-peace-dividend-russia

[Ein Heldenleben]

As far as Russia and NATO are concerned, Prospect Magazine has an article by the UK's former anbassador to NATO, Peter Ricketts. He outlines the history at the time of the dissolution of the USSR and describes how the western leaders were 'acurely aware' of the need to welcome the Russia of Gorbachev and then Yeltsin into the now reforming Europe - as well as welcoming the newly independent Soviet-republics. Yeltsin signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act in 1997 and Putin endorsed it in 1999. Its commitments included building together "a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area on the principles of democracy and co-operative security," adding that “Nato and Russia do not consider each other as adversaries.” They also agreed on a several principles, including "respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security.” A NATO-Russia Council was created as a forum for the discussion of problem areas.

Ricketts arrived in 2003 and found the atmosphere between Russia and the West had 'soured'. His explanation: "The way in which the US and UK steamrollered the UN Security Council over the Iraq War in 2003 soured Moscow’s view of the west." Russia lost interest in the NATO-Russia Council. That sounds a plausible explanation, but in the first place it also coincided with the time at which Yeltsin left office and Putin arrived. It also didn't involve any change in NATO: it was actions in the UN Security Council.

Putin then engaged in his 'domestic' war against the Chechen separatists, followed by his support for Georgian pro-Russia separatists, followed by his annexation of Crimea, followed by his support for the Ukrainian pro-Russia separatists, followed by …

I would suggest the problem is not NATO at all. The problem is Putin. In spite of the US right blaming Biden for the Russian aggression, the West and NATO have been very restrained.

Agreed but wasn’t the NATO -Russia council as much use as the UN ? I think Russia was invading defenceless countries long before the West unseated that other dictator Hussein . The problem was we didn’t have any appreciation of Iraq’s history , its unique position in the Middle East and the hornet’s nest we were stirring up. (Sounds familiar Mr Putin? )

[french frank]

Agreed but wasn’t the NATO -Russia council as much use as the UN ? I think Russia was invading defenceless countries long before the West unseated that other dictator Hussein . The problem was we didn’t have any appreciation of Iraq’s history , its unique position in the Middle East and the hornet’s nest we were stirring up. (Sounds familiar Mr Putin? )

Yes, and on Iraq etc, the (other) problem I have with the Stop the War Coalition is the claim that 'We were right about Iraq, we were right about Afghanistan, we were right about Libya'. No proof of that: just because Solution A was an abject failure doesn't mean that Solution B would have succeeded.

The point is, when you have fighting happening on the ground after one country attacked another, it doesn't do to be 'even-handed'. It reeks of Trump's 'There are good people on both sides' because he didn't want to condemn one side.

[Frances_iom]

Blimey even the Guardian is running articles on the need to increase defence spending and nuclear power. ...

too late - the rot set in years ago with Thatcher when privatisation of the energy supply + distribution would guarantee that short term profits would prevent any long term thought re safety and future needs - likewise research + development were seen as too costly overheads thus we cannot now even design our own nuclear stations let alone make any of the key components.

[eighthobstruction]

.....I wonder what the truth and significance of this....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poXV-cwbQDA

....Ukr cannot have any air power - or those massed "stalled" (4 deep like a traffic jam) vehicles outside Kyiv would have been destroyed....