Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,312 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 1 day ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Let’s see what the final outcome of the sabre-rattling and the bluff and counter-bluff is going to be.
I don’t think your wish is going to be granted.
This might be relevant :
“The relief, of course, is that Sikorski confirms: “There is no willingness in Europe to have a war with Russia, this is an absolute red line.”This is good news, as it shows behind the scenes Europe has a few saner and cooler heads than we sometimes imagine, and Sikorski even goes on to admit that much of his posturing is for the public’s sake to make Putin “wonder”—i.e. part of the infamous “strategic ambiguity” that Europe has banked on out of desperation.
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/zelenskys-last-hail-mary-gets-off
But is not this a Russian propaganda channel?
______________________________I think the guy who writes the substack is pro-Russian, yes. Its the first time Ive come across it so I am not all that familiar with it. But it interesting that Sikorski should suggest that what politicians say in public is not necessarily the same thing as what they say in private. The hype about crossing red lines and whatnot may just be a case of posturing
Russia cannot afford to do nothing in retaliation. As a capitalist state, it can’t just roll over. The West is counting on it doing so and is prepared to sacrifice our lives by “calling the bluff.”
Russia’s credibility as a state is on the line for Putin.
If there’s any realism at all in Putin’s mind, he must know that, if he can’t even walk over little Ukraaine (it’s over 2 years now), what chance would he have against NATO.
According to the news, it is the British Labour government, paying heed to hung-ho generals, that is pushing this while the US is not so much in favour. In any event, nothing seems to have been decided yet or, if it has been, is not going to be announced. No doubt for fear of provoking Russia.
Like its predecessor the Starmer government is putting workers in Britain in danger as any retaliation by Russia is likely to be aimed at Britain rather than a direct military attack on some neighbouring NATO country. It is being suggested that, if a British missile is used to attack Russian territory, the response could be a massive cyberattack on government institutions or energy infrastructure or cutting underwater cables.
Meanwhile, ironically perhaps, the Trump team want to move in the opposite direction with his vice-presidential running mate, J. D. Vance proposing a peace plan that guarantees that Ukraine doesn’t join NATO, one of Russia’s aims from the start and what provoked their invasion:
Good question. The UK does not seem to have any particular interests of its own at stake in Ukraine.
Possible explanations are:
1. Britain is acting, with US approval, as the US’s attack dog.
2. The British establishment (like the French) has delusions of grandeur about still being a world imperialist power.
3. Showcasing its weapons will help its arms exports.
Perhaps a combination of all three.
In any event the Labour government is just like the Tory ones on this issue. Even before being elected Starmer was proclaiming Labour as “the Party of NATO”.
Here he is in 2022:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/10/labour-nato-british-left-ukraine-keir-starmer
Given that Britain doesn’t need to take this position, it is a deliberate choice to put guns before butter — to put arms for Ukraine — and in fact “defence” spending generally — before heating for pensioners.
I think number 3 on your list is the strongest motive.
No one ever questions the arms before butter factor, but they do complain about MPs vacations etc.
Workers at arms factories will support Starmer, because it will keep them in work.
That’s an odd sort of argument. In recent decades the British state (under successive Labour and Tory governments) has bombed Serbia, Montenegro, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Yemen. Now it wants to bomb Russia if only by proxy.
I would have thought that amply justified the description of “warmonger”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.