alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“You use Marxism to argue against actually existing Marxist societies.”
From my knowledge of the left, you go further than others who describe “actually existing socialism” in their writings.
You are the first I have read to call them “existing Marxist societies” which means they must exhibit certain similar features of what Marx advocated and envisaged future society would be like.
Care to enlighten us on your sources from Marx and what those “Marxist societies” happen to be.
MODERATOR NOTICE
“Bojo’s Brain”
Did I remove it? No.
Do I consider it insulting either to the poster it is intended for or to others who may visit this forum? No.
14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.
15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.
This thread continues because True Scotsman represents a particular viewpoint that exists and is propagated.
It is up to individual forum members to judge whether what he posts is worthy of a reply. Some have already taken up the position to not interact with him.
MODERATOR NOTICE
I permitted your pun for robbo – Robotomy as fair comment from your perspective.
But arising from your query I found the repetition of another pun from BD that I had deleted and now that post is also deleted
Regards your question
12. Moderators may move, remove, or lock any threads or posts which they deem to be off-topic or in violation of the rules. Because posts and threads can be deleted without advance notice, it is your responsibility to make copies of threads and posts which are important to you.
Some may think I am being over-officious but I am trying to minimise the risk of this thread degenerating into meaningless name-calling.
MODERATOR NOTICE
I have deleted a post from True Scotsman as he failed to appreciate my distinction between a pun on a poster screen-name and a needlessly insulting pun on it.
As I said Robbo, “We are no military strategists.”
Others here think differently.
“I try to avoid commenting on the war until I’ve listened to analysis from those with military expertise or who have analysed what such people say. And, having done so, it seems clear that this was an orderly Russian retreat ”
The “retreat” from Kherson , an admission in itself, has not been completed despite TS using past tense.
But one must wonder if it was the original plan as the evacuation of tens of thousands of its inhabitants indicates that a battle for the city was envisaged (already I anticipate TS explanation – the removal was to safeguard them from Ukrainian revenge).
To be objective you have to study ALL aspects even the enemy. TS takes one side’s interpretation as the only one, dismisses the enemy’s understanding as propaganda and fails to take into account that his favoured side is using propaganda too.
TS took no notice of my own important caveat, “for whatever the reason”.
Not pursuing the capture of Kiev was a miscalculation as future events showed.
Russian over-confidence was demonstrated by all the media footage of the first weeks the long supply lines snaking along Ukraine’s main highways for all to see and to target.
Taking face-saving explanations at face-value is not analysis.
“The Russian troops outside Kiev were there to pin down Ukrainian soldiers stationed there in order to prevent them reinforcing the east.”
Check the time-line. The battle for Kiev was over by end of March. The battle for Donbas did not begin until middle of April.
They were not simultaneous and your explanation that it stopped reinforcement does not hold.
Also, it contradicts your earlier claim that Ukraine had massed 125,000 troops on its eastern flank to invade the separatist republics. Where are the reports of those being re-deployed to Kiev?
The swift advance of Russian forces would have succeeded if not for the rapid re-arming of Ukraine by its allies.
As for the peace talks, did the Russians choose to negotiate from a position of strength ie occupying even parts of the capital or negotiate from weakness, being seen to have lost an important battle?
Robbo, i think we should stay well away from one side’s claim of victory, even for one battle for one city.
We are no military strategists.
In all wars, speedy triumph is predicted by generals and politicians. Rarely does “Home by Christmas” comes true.
Even when it appears so as in the relatively fast defeat of Iraq army in 2003, the resistance of the civil population was unexpected and the war took on a different phase.
The failure for whatever the reason of Russia to capture Kiev was a key moment.
There were serious peace talks at the start of the war that were not followed up upon and I would suggest it was because of US/UK were seeking a proxy war against Russia to weaken it plus an optimism within Russian circles that a military solution remained a possibility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_peace_negotiations
What is significant with Kherson that it had been declared now part of Russia. The Motherland will be invaded and occupied by a “foreign” force. That is a propaganda defeat from the perspective of Russia’s public even if on the long term – and unlike TS I do anticipate a long war – Russia will prevail.
I have no idea if the real casualty rate is as high as Milley’s estimate is 100,000 for each side and 40,000 civilian, as well as 15-30 million refugees and IDPs.
Neither side is presenting accurate figures.Of the recent call-up of 300,000 it was expected that they would replaces existing garrison and reserve forces around Russia to permit the reinforcement of the front lines with more combat prepared experienced better equipped troops. However 50,000 of those mobilised have been sent directly to Ukraine.
I was surprised by the relative success of the Democratic Party in the mid-terms. Not the wipe-out many predicted a few months ago.
Can Biden win in 2024?
And how do we know of these edits? Oh, Wikipedia logs them individually for everyone to read and for others to undo
Now the question is, was the information provided about Lancaster and Mintpress from Wikipedia made-up lies when supported by other sources? Can you refute what is said with counter-evidence?
After all, you yourself said previously that the right-wing politics of some commentators you cite for back-up is irrelevant, it is what if they say is true that is important.
People here remember the long career of Robert Fisk and lament his passing because he was a respected war correspondent who could be both critical of mainstream media and still remain objective in his reporting. He was a journalist by trade unlike those deserving to be called hacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk
But of course that bio must be 100% false because it is from CIA Wiki.
Have you ever bothered to read how Wiki entries are discussed and agreed and edited?
Is there political bias? Yes. Is it only from the CIA?
“…DW’s fact-check team analyzed the German, Russian and Ukrainian entries. The German version called Crimea a “Ukrainian peninsula,” while the Russian did not mention its belonging to Ukraine, though it acknowledged a territorial dispute. The entries contained most of the same basic factual information about the region, but the entries differed on more recent events: The Ukrainian version has a section called “Annexation of Crimea,” but the Russian refers to the “Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation.” Most Russian entries on the topic fail to mention that the March 2014 referendum that led to Crimea’s annexation was not considered legitimate by the government of Ukraine and many international institutions, which do not recognize the annexation either…”
Perhaps this other website report quoting journalists who have worked with Lancaster can be considered corroborating evidence of his unreliability.
David Ferris, an American filmmaker and writer, “I remember [Patrick] sort of being compromised from the beginning,”
As for Mintpress News, itself scarcely a neutral objective news agency
Similar debate in Germany
Letzte Generation
https://www.dw.com/en/should-radical-climate-activism-be-penalized/a-63695545
Canada raises the tension
Canada’s foreign minister, Mélanie Joly, has said China has become “increasingly disruptive” on the world stage as she hinted in a speech at a new Indo-Pacific strategy
Joly also noted an increased Canadian military presence in the Pacific
Of two reliable independent reporters cited which of them do we believe?
Phillips calls Lancaster an “illiterate, grifting charlatan, with a journalistic acumen and ability lower than a potted plant.”
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxneb4/ukraine-patrick-lancaster-journalist
Vice website itself has a bias but is its reporting on this accurate?
Moderator Notice
I do not find the intended pun to be personally offensive or abusive under Rule 7
7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
Previous complaints about puns were that they were derogatory and disrespectful, not that the screen name was subject to word-play.
On this occasion, I think it is fair comment as has been disparaging name-calling for those who use the Guardian as a source or RT.
