Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,312 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 2 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
UN blames Ukraine as an equal perpetrator of atrocity in a rare criticism by using a nursing home as a military position
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article263311153.html
Here’s the exposure of another product of the Ukrainian lie factory which was so over the top that the person responsible got the boot, but not before the lie wasn’t uncritically accepted and spread by the biassed Western media.
Ukrainian official behind Western media reports of Russian atrocities fired by Ukrainian parliament
You don’t want to believe a word the Ukrainian authorities come out with any more than what the Russian authorities produce.
I may seem a Moaning Minnie with some of my posts critical of the support being offered to Ukraine’s refugees but it does make me wonder why similar warm welcomes could not have been offered to other nationalities who also have suffered tragically.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-62113329
200 empty flats once earmarked for demolition in North Lanarkshire are being renovated to use to provide homes for Ukrainian refugees.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62118953
Ukraine plans a “million-strong army” equipped with Nato weapons to retake the south of the country from occupying Russians, Oleksii Reznikov, the defence minister says.
If a genuine policy then we are in for a very long and bloody war.
The expense of supporting Ukraine, as ALB has suggested in other posts, may not eventually become as acceptable as the cost of living rises bear down on people and the appeal to emotions wane.
‘I may seem a Moaning Minnie with some of my posts critical of the support being offered to Ukraine’s refugees but it does make me wonder why similar warm welcomes could not have been offered to other nationalities who also have suffered tragically.’
Alan – just for propaganda purposes and also most Ukrainians are very ‘white’.At one time in the past, the ‘liberal’ media would eager to present John Pilger’s views.
But in these times, his uncomfortable analysis can only be aired in the Chinese media
Is it possible that the members of the SPGB are so determined not to fall for Western propaganda that they’re falling for pro-Russian and pro-Chinese propaganda instead?
I feel ambivalent about the war. I know that the SPGB does not take any sides in wars. No capitalist state is worth defending, even if it is a democracy. No side deserves support, even when it is being invaded. No group is to be preferred, even if one side is the one committing the vast majority of atrocities (Hungary 1956, Srebrenica, East Timor genocide, all colonial conflicts ever etc). Every state is equally bad, we should only defend socialism. I don’t know if I can get behind that entirely.
Here is my analysis of what John Pilger had to say.
“Well, if you see it from the Russian side without taking the side of Russia, it looks rather different. ( . . . ) On the other side of the border, there were 60,000 Ukrainian troops who were massing on the line of contact right across Donbas. Now, Donbas, as far as the Russians are concerned, is the last stepping stone. You’re close by Russia. You have a strategic advantage over Russia. Everything in modern Russian history and in not-so-modern history tells us that the Russians will never tolerate this. That they regard this as a threat and they have much of their history to justify that. ( . . . ) Our ignorance of Russia, like our ignorance of China in the West, allows none of that historical sense of how people see the threat and how political forces see the threat. This is not in any way to, if you like, condone Putin’s invasion, but it has to be understood.”
So Pilger is not defending Russia – he’s merely arguing that it made sense to invade Ukraine because Ukraine was doing stuff that was scary to Russia. In the same way, I suppose, that it made sense for the Nazis to mass murder ethnic groups, whose existence they regarded as a threat.
Russia is talked of like a creature whose reactions must be accepted. If you don’t want a bear to hurt you, don’t poke it; if you don’t want Russia to invade you, don’t have troops near the border to an imperialist super power run by a dictator.
What about American backing of coups in Latin American democracies that Pilger has referred to in his career? Has Pilger ever argued that these “need to be understood”? “Well of course they’re helping [insert name of random scumbag general], they are afraid of communism!”
Pilger’s argument is victim blaming.
“What to remember here is the US doesn’t give a damn about Ukraine. Ukraine is simply a pawn in this. But the object, as the US defence secretary [says], and I paraphrase him, is to destroy the Russian Federation. That’s been known for a long time. That is probably the most dangerous project in the world today because the Russians are not going to allow that.”
This is a not all too uncommon journalistic “trick” to say things without saying them. The United States wants to “destroy” Russia. The United States therefore supports Ukraine. Russia will not allow its own destruction.
And so Pilger has planted an idea in our minds without ever having to actually say it: that the Ukrainian state is helping to “destroy” Russia, and Russia’s war is ultimately defensive. I don’t believe that.
I think Sympo has raised a valid issue that we should be very careful about as remaining silent about Russian atrocities could make some of us complicit in their propaganda.
But sadly war is full of atrocities, it is brutal and dehumanising. Fear and revenge are created and no side is immune from its consequences.
If one looks at the cause of the Russian invasion, the most important issue for me was that negotiations did not lead to its avoidance. Diplomacy failed. All the statesmen and politicians to-ing and fro-ing did not succeed in convincing the Russians that it was not in their interests not to take military action.
What we need to ask is why Russia couldn’t trust the reassurances that there was no threat of aggression against it that they then had to evoke their own version of the Monroe Doctrine which had been fully understood by previous generations of governments. Only so far and no more.
I think Pilger’s point is that the media as it is prone to do, views events in black and white, good and evil and has not given a full and proper debate to the reasons why the the Russians invaded.
For our part, we have dismissed Putin’s pretext, that it was to protect the Russian breakaway minority from a Nazi genocide and have looked for other motives.
But this war is just only one of many and in regard to civilians killed, other wars have involved far more deaths and involved much more destruction.
I think we should challenge people’s perceptions.
Why is a Ukrainian life more important than a Yemeni? Why should a Ukrainian refugee be treated more generously than a Syrian refugee? Should we permit ourselves into thinking of people as being somehow different? Should we submit to emotionalism into taking the side of the underdog?
But in raising such questions, I think we must be careful to not diminish the suffering of Ukrainians. I have acknowledged in past posts that it could be seen as doing so. But it is never been my intention. I just wish to express We disquiet about playing ‘favourites’ with the family of humanity. We are all brothers and sisters and we are all Jock Tamson’s bairns.
‘So Pilger is not defending Russia – he’s merely arguing that it made sense to invade Ukraine because Ukraine was doing stuff that was scary to Russia. In the same way, I suppose, that it made sense for the Nazis to mass murder ethnic groups, whose existence they regarded as a threat.’
Sympo – Are you really comparing the non-existent threat of the European Jewish community to the Nazis with the very real threat that NATO poses to the Russian ruling class?
Chomsky may be past his prime, but his many long years of experience of the media do give him a degree of insight.
“…it is almost obligatory to refer to the invasion as the ‘unprovoked invasion of Ukraine’…Of course, it was provoked. Otherwise, they wouldn’t refer to it all the time as an unprovoked invasion…”
He continues
“…Americans are not allowed to know what the Russians are saying. Except, selected things. So, if Putin makes a speech to Russians with all kinds of outlandish claims about Peter the Great and so on, then, you see it on the front pages. If the Russians make an offer for a negotiation, you can’t find it. That’s suppressed. You’re not allowed to know what they are saying. I have never seen a level of censorship like this…”
He may be using hyperbole because I am sure he has previously seen such stringent censorship.
As ALB has pointed out, the same is true of statements by Ukraine officials that do not reflect the view that they are fighting for democracy and run contrary to the opinion that it is a just war. Instead, they are hidden away and never headlined.
‘Rationality is Not Permitted’: Chomsky on Russia, Ukraine and the Price of Media Censorship
Thanks for the replies Alan and Wez
The Nazis were openly antisemitic and treated Jews like garbage even before mass extermination began. Why expect loyalty from groups you treat horribly? Most genocides can probably be justified like this, just like how all invasions of hostile countries can be justified with “they were a threat to us”.
Why does Russia need to control Ukraine in order to survive? The United States doesn’t need South Vietnam (which no longer exists). If Russia is next to NATO countries, what’s gonna happen? Do you believe that NATO is itching to invade Russia? Or is it Ukraine that was/is going to invade Russia?
If the West aims to “destroy the Russian Federation”…why didn’t they do it earlier when Yeltsin ran things? Wasn’t that the perfect time to do it?
It is true that Ukraine is receiving a lot of attention compared to other conflicts. Journalists (and readers) are less morally invested in conflicts far away. It is also depressing to see how people don’t see the hypocrisy of the United States and Britain condemning illegal invasions (Iraq).
Sympo – you seem to be unaware of the struggle between the ruling classes of the USA, Russia and China for global dominance. The propaganda it uses to mobilize the working class to do its killing is only understandable in this context. It is our job to expose the reality that underlies the ideologies of hate.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62083196.amp
Looks as if the Russian army has been copying the British army’s tactics in Afghanistan — carrying out so-called “field executions” of people suspected of killing their troops. At least the Russian Army tied their victims hands behind their backs before they executed them.
In any event both are “war crimes” under the Geneva Conventions. But where are the ICC investigators? Where are the calls to put the leaders of the UK government at the time (Cameron and Clegg, I think) on trial for “ordering” these executions?
No wonder most states and people outside “the West” are not supporting NATO against Russia in Ukraine since they see the West as hypocrites with double standards.
Sorry Alan I did not notice the second post that you made
The BBC did actually mention a peace offering by Putin. The article is called “Ukraine conflict: Putin lays out his demands in Turkish phone call”.
What statements from Ukrainian officials are you thinking of in particular?
Chomsky implies that the best thing for Ukraine to do is to let another state decide its internal affairs in order to avoid Ukrainian suffering. Should this be applied to internal politics as well?
“The Conservative government asks the SPGB to abandon its mission to establish socialism. Otherwise the government will execute hundreds of SPGB members and their families. The SPGB should comply in order to avoid bloodshed.” What is the big difference? Is the idea that most Ukrainians wish to give up?
Wez, I am aware of the battle for dominance between capitalist super powers. But does that mean that one has to say that any non-socialist should view Russia’s invasion as reasonable?
And if no capitalist state is ever worth defending, either militarily or in words, why is it so important to emphasize the “truth” that Russia is being provoked and acting defensively and that it’s all NATO’s and Ukraine’s fault? Why does that matter so much?
Sorry if I sound hostile, it is not really my intention. I think that I write like this partly because I am internally conflicted; a part of me wants to agree with the SPGB, but I feel that a true exorcism can only exist if I put up a fight.
‘Wez, I am aware of the battle for dominance between capitalist super powers. But does that mean that one has to say that any non-socialist should view Russia’s invasion as reasonable?’
‘Reason’ and morality do not enter into the calculations of ruling class actions. Our case is that war is the inevitable result of capitalism for reasons I’m sure you know Sympo. Justifiable feelings of moral outrage and the comprehension of the madness of war has never stopped them and never will. The justification of capitalism (from the right or left) is a justification of war.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.