ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
At least there will be no more talk of an “imminent” invasion until the two meet. Neither side is going to concede anything until they need to and then it will be in the form of a compromise in which both sides gain or can say they have gained something. Ukraine will be satisfied with anything that gives them some guarantee of security.
Russia giving the impression that they are preparing to invade (they know every movement of their troops is subject to satellite observation)is part of the diplomatic manoeuvring and the US will know this.
Interesting that Britain has been excluded from the negotiations over the breakaway areas, in which the Western capitalist bloc will be represented by France and Germany who have more to lose from the economic fall-out of any invasion. In any event, what Britain might want won’t come into it, not that it appears to be any different from what the US tells them.
The view of Boris Johnson:
“Ukraine: Russia plans biggest war in Europe since 1945 – Boris Johnson”
His usual bombastic quasi-Churchill rhetoric. All the others in Munich will be laughing at him. Anyway he might not be there next week.
Forgot to add that it’s Sunday and there was no invasion yesterday as predicted. The likes of Boris and Biden have 7 more tries.
Type “WW3 Russell Brand” into a search engine to listen to his rant against the mainstream media’s reporting on the Ukraine affair and why. He makes some telling points.
Of course there is not going to be a full-scale invasion and there never was. The most that might happen would be an incursion into the breakaway areas but I doubt if Russia would do even that without an ultimatum giving Ukraine a time limit to implement the Minsk Protocol. That would put the US bloc on the spot. Ukraine not honouring an international agreement.
Biden is saying that there will be an invasion next week but this is just to show that the US bloc has already taken this possibility into account. It’s a bargaining ploy. He will only be saying what his Secretary of State and “intelligence” services advise him to. I suppose he could even believe it. I don’t suppose they mind if he makes a fool of himself when no invasion takes place next week any more than it did last Wednesday.
Public opinion doesn’t enter into it. They are manipulating this and in any case don’t care of any side-effects on the mental health of vulnerable people, as you have pointed out.
Here’s an extract from what Ukraine President Zeletsky said at Munich:
“He also said he did not know what Vladimir Putin wanted, which is why he proposed a meeting, saying he was willing to discuss the Minsk agreements with him.”
And here’s what the Chinese foreign minister said:
“At the same time, Wang said “all countries’ sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity should be respected and safeguarded”, and that “Ukraine is no exception to the principle”. He also urged a return to the Minsk II agreement “as quickly as possible”.”
The thing is to keep your nerve as we watch a real life display of capitalist diplomacy based on might is right or at least on as perceived might.
Hasn’t it got a bad enough reputation for appeasement already?
What’s wrong with appeasement? Surely, the socialist movement being so small and ineffective, this is the best outcome we can expect under capitalism? Anything but war. Better anything than the shedding of a single drop of working class blood.
I must confess to being a bit surprised at the intransigence of the US-led NATO bloc and its determination to consolidate its hold on Ukraine even at the risk of provoking an economic crisis in Europe, though I can see why the US and its poodle, Brexit Britain, are not so worried about this since neither are dependent on gas supplies from Russia.
But of course we don’t know what secret talks are going on behind closed doors. But the search for a diplomatic solution seems to be shifting towards the Minsk Protocol which has never been fully implemented and which concerned the breakaway areas in eastern Ukraine. I notice it was negotiated by Germany and France who can be expected to be pushing this as a way out.
More here.
“It comes just a day after the UK and US accused Russia of using false flag tactics to set a pretext for its potential invasion of Ukraine. Boris Johnson said western nations “knew” this was happening after an attack yesterday on a nursery in Donbas – another rebel-held area.”
Why are they still saying that the attack on that nursery was a Russian false flag operation? It was situated in the Donbas area but in territory controlled by Ukrainian forces. So if it was a false flag it would have had to be by them. In fact, it seems to have been a “true flag” operation by Russian proxy forces. That it came from them has been demonstrated by the Belling Cat lot.
So Johnson was either lying or didn’t know what he was talking about. But he of course has a PhD in Lyology (comes in handy during the fog of war).
Just read in my morning paper:
“There was confusion yesterday when Boris Johnson referred to an attack on a nursery as a false flag because the site was in Ukrainian controlled . . . Ukrainian sources questioned why they would hit their own territory.”
Of course our gallant allies in Ukraine would never dream of launching a false flag operation, would they?
If the school had been in Russian controlled territory that argument would hold but wasn’t the school in Ukrainian controlled territory?
Although only aimed at a selected group and so a basic income rather than a universal basic income scheme, the outcome of that experiment in Wales could be interesting because the amount being offered — some £19,000 a year — is not trivial. This is higher than many people are paid as wages (higher than the minimum wage without housing benefit). Even so, I can’t see any government making that universal and paying that amount to everyone.
I am getting confused. What is a “false flag op”? Johnson has said that the shelling of an empty Ukrainian primary school was a “false flag operation designed to discredit the Ukrainians”. But if it was carried out by Russian proxies that wouldn’t be “false” but open.
Logically, if it was a false flag operation it would have to have been one by Ukrainian forces. Russia has alleged this and it does seem odd that the school was empty at the time. Presumably, if they did, the Ukrainian forces would have too squeamish to kill their own school kids.
There is another explanation — that Johnson does not know what a false flag operation is. Or maybe I don’t?
I am getting confused. What is a “false flag op”? Johnson has said that the shelling of an empty Ukrainian primary school was a “false flag operation designed to discredit the Ukrainians”. But if it was carried out by Russian proxies that wouldn’t be “false” but open.
Logically, if it was a false flag operation it would have to have been one by Ukrainian forces. Russia has alleged this and it does seem odd that the school was empty at the time. Presumably, if they did, the Ukrainian forces would have too squeamish to kill their own school kids.
There is another explanation — that Johnson does not know what a false flag operation is. Or maybe I don’t?
