Ukraine

[Barry Sanchez]

A desperate attempt to claw back some of the Soviet Union and put his name in history, the bear as I have already written only respects force, its laughing at the weak liberal West right now.

Edited 8 April, 2014 by Barry Sanchez

[Barry Sanchez]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26940375

[alpine_saint]

Not good.

[Bearsy]

the bear as I have already written only respects force

 

word

[Barry Sanchez]

Not good.

 

Harsh economic sanctions will screw them but cause major issues in their own Country.

[Window Cleaner]

The Ukrainian army is obviously a bunch of joke warriors so the situation should be left well alone. Which it will be.

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27053500

[pap]

Superb piece on the mess in Ukraine by John Pilger.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger?CMP=fb_gu

[alpine_saint]

Superb piece on the mess in Ukraine by John Pilger.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger?CMP=fb_gu

 

"Its the West's fault"

 

And I didnt even need to read it.......

[pap]

"Its the West's fault"

 

And I didnt even need to read it.......

 

Good job, mate. It's from a broadsheet newspaper. Some big words

[alpine_saint]

Good job, mate. It's from a broadsheet newspaper. Some big words

 

I just had a quick goosie, and I was right. He even managed to get the old "Nazi" perennial in as well.

 

When you've read one Pilger, you've read them all. The Oxford dictionary even had the world "Pilgerism" (to present information in a sensationalist manner to reach a foregone conclusion) in one edition, but the great man whinged and they removed it

[pap]

I just had a quick goosie, and I was right. He even managed to get the old "Nazi" perennial in as well.

 

When you've read one Pilger, you've read them all. The Oxford dictionary even had the world "Pilgerism" (to present information in a sensationalist manner to reach a foregone conclusion) in one edition, but the great man whinged and they removed it

 

I'm a little surprised that a man in your position, geographically speaking, would be entirely happy with the likes of CIA causing mayhem. Ukraine could easily spark into a general war, making your hellish two week return to England seem like Disneyland in comparison.

 

That said, you always stick up for the "good guys", don't you mucker?

 

Too much Red Dawn and Top Gun in the 1980s, I reckon.

[jjsaint]

Superb piece on the mess in Ukraine by John Pilger.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger?CMP=fb_gu

 

I read it this morning. In what misinformed fantasy world would that drivel pass as 'superb'? Come on, you can do better than that.

[pap]

I read it this morning. In what misinformed fantasy world would that drivel pass as 'superb'? Come on, you can do better than that.

 

In what world would you expect me to take your point seriously without any qualification? Come on, you can do better than that.

[jjsaint]

In what world would you expect me to take your point seriously without any qualification? Come on, you can do better than that.

 

I don't mind if you take me seriously or not. I'm just surprised that the 'four legs good, two legs bad' political world of Pilger and his ilk would hold any appeal. I see very little, if anything, in the body of that article which rises above supposition, prejudice, paranoia and sensationalism.

[pap]

I don't mind if you take me seriously or not. I'm just surprised that the 'four legs good, two legs bad' political world of Pilger and his ilk would hold any appeal. I see very little, if anything, in the body of that article which rises above supposition, prejudice, paranoia and sensationalism.

 

I'm not doing your job for you, jj. Let's build on the two sentence post and hear some specifics.

[jjsaint]

I normally pick my battles, as I don’t really have the time or inclination to dispense my wisdom to those who are not in the least interested in what I have to say. But this is such a strange and egregious piece that one feels the need to respond.

 

Cosmetic though it may be, he starts by quoting Harold Pinter, a well-known anti-US nutcase who happened to write some decent plays in the early 60s. It’s rather like quoting John Wayne to make a conservative point. The next two paragraphs I find unspeakably nasty, sullying Britain’s name and referring to Anglo-American foreign policy as terrorism. Dastardly? Sometimes. Terrorism? Never.

He goes on to suggest that Putin’s unpopularity in the Western media is another smear campaign down to a concerted, planned attack as he is ‘occupying strategically useful or resource-rich territory, or merely offering an alternative to US domination’. He then mentions Putin in the same breath as Mossedeq, Allende and Chavez. I can almost imagine the rugged freedom fighter Putin with his guitarrón singing ‘¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!’ Or maybe not.

 

But I suppose my main problem with the article is that I don’t believe it, and there is nothing within the article that would make anyone believe it. I have to admit that I don’t buy the idea that the difficulty in the Ukraine is fostered by ‘the West’. Nobody loves a good smokescreen like the Russians, and the mere mention of ‘CIA’ is enough to send the shivers down the spine of most anti-imperialist journos. (Pilger is also careful to name check all the popular enemies of the Left: Reagan, Kissinger – for whom there should be a version of Godwin’s Law – and of course, Nazis, neo-Nazis, fascists etc.) I feel like his main points are as follows: The US has done bad things in the past. Therefore, the US is obviously in the wrong regarding any foreign policy decision. Western European powers agree with the US only because they are puppets, not because they have reached an independent and reasoned similar conclusion. Blair’s gone. Bush is gone. The ‘lap dog’ excuse for simultaneously disagreeing with and exonerating one’s Government is no longer fashionable nor reasonable.

 

At this point it’s really the word of John Brennan against that of ex-KGB agent Putin. Why do we assume the CIA is lying through their teeth, but Putin is a paragon of truth? Might not the actual situation be somewhere closer to the middle of that sweeping spectrum? Is the CIA involved the Ukraine? Certainly. But the idea that the crackdown on separatists has been not only aided but orchestrated by Western intelligence is a bit far-fetched. Is there anywhere in this article, or any link, that lends this any credence? Might it be a more reasonable explanation that William Hague (muppet though he may be, but that’s another post), when he speaks of provocation stoked by Moscow rather than Washington, may know a tiny bit more about the situation in Ukraine and not that he is in thrall of US-led Western intervention?

 

I appreciate the fact that Pilger exists, however odious his Student Union politics may be. I am glad that we live in a society where he is allowed to spout this nonsense (good luck trying that in Russia, Cuba, Iran, etc.), and we do need someone of this level of idiocy occasionally to speak up, if only for the more intelligent and reasoned of us to feel more confident in our sometimes unpopular political leanings.

 

I think at this point in history, the hard Left need to be wary of the idea that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’. It is bad enough that the Left has been cosying up to militant Islamists for the last 13 years, now we have people like Pilger making a hero out of Putin: ‘[T]he only leader to condemn the rise of fascism in 21st-century Europe’? Christ on a bike.

 

Don’t worry, there will be no war. Neither the US nor the UK want it, the public wouldn’t stand for it, and nobody can afford it anyway. Putin knows this, he understands that the West is weary of war. And that is why he has made his move now. He has been playing the waiting game. Let’s not pretend that anything else is at play.

[pap]

For someone that is picking your battles, I'd suggest a bit more ammunition.

 

Cosmetic though it may be, he starts by quoting Harold Pinter, a well-known anti-US nutcase who happened to write some decent plays in the early 60s. It’s rather like quoting John Wayne to make a conservative point. The next two paragraphs I find unspeakably nasty, sullying Britain’s name and referring to Anglo-American foreign policy as terrorism. Dastardly? Sometimes. Terrorism? Never.

 

This is a really naive statement, backed up with nothing and entirely dependent on your definition of the word terrorist. Now I'll admit, if you're constraining yourself to brown people in the desert, then the actions of the US and UK won't appear anything like terrorism.

 

If you broaden your definition, and go with terrorist as "anyone that terrorises people, or supports those that do, for political gain", suddenly the US and UK are right back in the frame. Operation Gladio, Vietnam, collusion with loyalist forces in Northern Ireland, the 1953 overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran, the training of death squads there to suppress the Iranian people, pretty much the same thing happening 50 years later in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That's a small list with millions of victims.

 

The only way you can pass this off as mere "dastardly" is by being entirely delusional/ignorant about post-war history.

 

He goes on to suggest that Putin’s unpopularity in the Western media is another smear campaign down to a concerted, planned attack as he is ‘occupying strategically useful or resource-rich territory, or merely offering an alternative to US domination’. He then mentions Putin in the same breath as Mossedeq, Allende and Chavez. I can almost imagine the rugged freedom fighter Putin with his guitarrón singing ‘¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!’ Or maybe not.

 

Putin is perhaps the greatest failure of US/UK foreign policy. Anyone that makes him look statesmanlike is doing something incredibly wrong.

 

But I suppose my main problem with the article is that I don’t believe it, and there is nothing within the article that would make anyone believe it. I have to admit that I don’t buy the idea that the difficulty in the Ukraine is fostered by ‘the West’. Nobody loves a good smokescreen like the Russians, and the mere mention of ‘CIA’ is enough to send the shivers down the spine of most anti-imperialist journos. (Pilger is also careful to name check all the popular enemies of the Left: Reagan, Kissinger – for whom there should be a version of Godwin’s Law – and of course, Nazis, neo-Nazis, fascists etc.) I feel like his main points are as follows: The US has done bad things in the past. Therefore, the US is obviously in the wrong regarding any foreign policy decision. Western European powers agree with the US only because they are puppets, not because they have reached an independent and reasoned similar conclusion. Blair’s gone. Bush is gone. The ‘lap dog’ excuse for simultaneously disagreeing with and exonerating one’s Government is no longer fashionable nor reasonable.

 

The US is supporting fascists in Ukraine and Al-Qaeda in Syria. It invades countries without provocation for the gain of its corporates, particularly those in the military industrial complex. The system is rife with lobbying, special interests and corruption.

 

At this point it’s really the word of John Brennan against that of ex-KGB agent Putin. Why do we assume the CIA is lying through their teeth, but Putin is a paragon of truth? Might not the actual situation be somewhere closer to the middle of that sweeping spectrum? Is the CIA involved the Ukraine? Certainly. But the idea that the crackdown on separatists has been not only aided but orchestrated by Western intelligence is a bit far-fetched. Is there anywhere in this article, or any link, that lends this any credence? Might it be a more reasonable explanation that William Hague (muppet though he may be, but that’s another post), when he speaks of provocation stoked by Moscow rather than Washington, may know a tiny bit more about the situation in Ukraine and not that he is in thrall of US-led Western intervention?

 

William Hague is an inveterate liar who uses polysyllabic language to obscure the truth. A member of CFI at the age of 16, he is the last person you'd ever want to trust on foreign policy issues. I'm glad no-one did during the Syrian crisis.

 

I appreciate the fact that Pilger exists, however odious his Student Union politics may be. I am glad that we live in a society where he is allowed to spout this nonsense (good luck trying that in Russia, Cuba, Iran, etc.), and we do need someone of this level of idiocy occasionally to speak up, if only for the more intelligent and reasoned of us to feel more confident in our sometimes unpopular political leanings.

 

I think at this point in history, the hard Left need to be wary of the idea that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’. It is bad enough that the Left has been cosying up to militant Islamists for the last 13 years, now we have people like Pilger making a hero out of Putin: ‘[T]he only leader to condemn the rise of fascism in 21st-century Europe’? Christ on a bike.

 

Don’t worry, there will be no war. Neither the US nor the UK want it, the public wouldn’t stand for it, and nobody can afford it anyway. Putin knows this, he understands that the West is weary of war. And that is why he has made his move now. He has been playing the waiting game. Let’s not pretend that anything else is at play.

 

Well, it has been a nice post, but this largely unsubstantiated diatribe falls a little flat when reviewing 40 years of Pilger's material.

 

I still value his opinion more than yours.

[jjsaint]

As you should do pap. I admit that I'd be disappointed if you changed your opinion, as it would only lessen the credence of my own beliefs to have such an ally.