Anthony McIntyre ✒ Only faux expressions of surprise emit upon learning that the tracks of departing Russian tanks have churned up the ground in Bucha, leaving in full public view the victims of war crimes. 

Presuming that the Russians are guilty – and there are currently few enough reasons to presume otherwise – to leave their track prints at the scene of the crime is either the result of ineptitude or calculation. Both have been consistent travelling companions of the Russian military as it has ravished its way across a society that seems determined to vomit it out.

The ineptitude is self-explanatory. In military-strategic terms, the war on Ukriane has acquired for itself the stamp not quite of failure but certainly fiasco. As one wit quipped:

Day 38 of my 3 day war. My army advances backwards after a glorious defeat in Kiev & I am reminded of when I said I could conquer the city in 2 weeks. I remain a master strategist.

Calculation, because it is more often than not performed out of view, is neither axiomatic nor as visible as the war dead. It might have been factored in at the start of the war that leaving bodies on the streets, along with easily located mass graves would send a terrifying message to a society determined to fight back that resistance is verboten. 

Russia’s claim not to have harmed one single civilian is as believable as Israeli disavowals that it is IDF practice to murder Palestinian children. 

Moscow claimed on Monday that the deaths occurred after its forces left the area, and that Russian soldiers never harmed a single civilian, but an analysis of satellite photos, first reported by the New York Times, shows bodies were strewn across Bucha’s streets and yards long before Russian forces beat a hasty retreat late last week.

And the more Ukrainian cities come to resemble Gaza, the stench of war crimes with a distinctive Kremlin fetor grows even more pungent. The only surprise lies in some being surprised that Russia would commit war time atrocity.  Its wars in Chechnya are not remembered for its observance of rules. In these matters the observation made by Susan Sontag almost two decades ago merits reflection.


War and war crimes are terrible twins conjoined at the hip, a fusion perfected in some heart of darkness. It is hard to think of a war, any war, that comes sans war crimes. It applies to all sides in war. That will be no less true for Ukrainian armed forces than it does for the Russian military. The difference will as ever lie in degree not kind. War crimes have different degrees of severity, but as I commented to a Quiller this morning “war criminals are all cut from the same cloth - one, figuratively, with a huge swastika embroidered on it.”

In calling for Putin to be tried for war crimes, US President Joe Biden must be finding it difficult to maintain his balance on the moral quicksand upon which he stands. The one institution capable of conducting any investigation and prosecution, the International Criminal Court, apart from being underfunded and understaffed, does not have the approval of the US government which refused to sign up to the Rome Statute. It wants to try others for war crimes but not be tried itself. A damning indictment of a unipolar international arena.

Last year the Biden administration opposed and was disappointed by the ICC decision to investigate allegations of war crimes against Israel. It opted instead to provide succour for the Israeli gangster Benjamin Netanyahu in his own disingenuous rant that the ICC was exhibiting “pure anti-Semitism”. There is no clear blue sea of ethics between the US slinking alongside Bibi Netanyahu and Putin courting Semion Mogilevich. 

Ned Price, shilling for the Biden administration at the time, met his comeuppance in a where do they go? moment. It was a pristine takedown of a vile double standard. 

Putin should be investigated for war crimes but not because Joe Biden believes all war criminals should be prosecuted. He believes no such thing.

⏩ Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

War Crimes ✑ & Where Do They Go?

Anthony McIntyre ✒ Only faux expressions of surprise emit upon learning that the tracks of departing Russian tanks have churned up the ground in Bucha, leaving in full public view the victims of war crimes. 

Presuming that the Russians are guilty – and there are currently few enough reasons to presume otherwise – to leave their track prints at the scene of the crime is either the result of ineptitude or calculation. Both have been consistent travelling companions of the Russian military as it has ravished its way across a society that seems determined to vomit it out.

The ineptitude is self-explanatory. In military-strategic terms, the war on Ukriane has acquired for itself the stamp not quite of failure but certainly fiasco. As one wit quipped:

Day 38 of my 3 day war. My army advances backwards after a glorious defeat in Kiev & I am reminded of when I said I could conquer the city in 2 weeks. I remain a master strategist.

Calculation, because it is more often than not performed out of view, is neither axiomatic nor as visible as the war dead. It might have been factored in at the start of the war that leaving bodies on the streets, along with easily located mass graves would send a terrifying message to a society determined to fight back that resistance is verboten. 

Russia’s claim not to have harmed one single civilian is as believable as Israeli disavowals that it is IDF practice to murder Palestinian children. 

Moscow claimed on Monday that the deaths occurred after its forces left the area, and that Russian soldiers never harmed a single civilian, but an analysis of satellite photos, first reported by the New York Times, shows bodies were strewn across Bucha’s streets and yards long before Russian forces beat a hasty retreat late last week.

And the more Ukrainian cities come to resemble Gaza, the stench of war crimes with a distinctive Kremlin fetor grows even more pungent. The only surprise lies in some being surprised that Russia would commit war time atrocity.  Its wars in Chechnya are not remembered for its observance of rules. In these matters the observation made by Susan Sontag almost two decades ago merits reflection.


War and war crimes are terrible twins conjoined at the hip, a fusion perfected in some heart of darkness. It is hard to think of a war, any war, that comes sans war crimes. It applies to all sides in war. That will be no less true for Ukrainian armed forces than it does for the Russian military. The difference will as ever lie in degree not kind. War crimes have different degrees of severity, but as I commented to a Quiller this morning “war criminals are all cut from the same cloth - one, figuratively, with a huge swastika embroidered on it.”

In calling for Putin to be tried for war crimes, US President Joe Biden must be finding it difficult to maintain his balance on the moral quicksand upon which he stands. The one institution capable of conducting any investigation and prosecution, the International Criminal Court, apart from being underfunded and understaffed, does not have the approval of the US government which refused to sign up to the Rome Statute. It wants to try others for war crimes but not be tried itself. A damning indictment of a unipolar international arena.

Last year the Biden administration opposed and was disappointed by the ICC decision to investigate allegations of war crimes against Israel. It opted instead to provide succour for the Israeli gangster Benjamin Netanyahu in his own disingenuous rant that the ICC was exhibiting “pure anti-Semitism”. There is no clear blue sea of ethics between the US slinking alongside Bibi Netanyahu and Putin courting Semion Mogilevich. 

Ned Price, shilling for the Biden administration at the time, met his comeuppance in a where do they go? moment. It was a pristine takedown of a vile double standard. 

Putin should be investigated for war crimes but not because Joe Biden believes all war criminals should be prosecuted. He believes no such thing.

⏩ Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

35 comments:

  1. A not so distant chronicle of Putin's genocide in Ukraine was provided in Syria. The bombardment of hospitals, schools and international aid convoys in Aleppo plus civilian areas with no rebel presence by Putin's forces and the Middle East's Franco - Bashar Al-Assad. The use of sarin gas on at least three occasions on civilian areas causing 2,000 deaths. The ethnic cleansing and massacres of Sunni Arab communities by the Shahibha militias. The disappearance, torture and murder of thousands in Assad's gulag.

    All of these horrors are occurring as we speak in Ukraine. They are also accompanied by a cottage industry of disinformation. In the case of Syria; the slandering of the Syrian White Knights by Putin's troll factories backed up with support from far left and far right shills in the West.

    Just as nothing was done to stop the smashing of democracy in Spain in the 1930s; so the international "community" done nothing to stop the rape of Syrian democracy in the 2010s. We can only hope that the heroic Ukrainian resistance will prevent what the Spanish Civil war was a dry run for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having Russia as a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council with the power of veto is the equivalent of Nazi Germany having a similar role in the League of Nations in the 1930s.

      As President Zelensky has said, the UN as currently constituted is not fit for purpose. it needs to be reconfigured so that greater power is vested in the General Assembly.

      Delete
  2. Barry is spot on with his comment.

    Its not today or yesterday we discovered Putin is a despot. And as has been said so many times before, war inevitably comes with it's own momentum, it's own momentum compounded and confused by it's own logic.

    The war train has left the station and won't be stopped anytime soon, at least not stopped at a time or a place that favours the 'West'.
    Unfortunately, or so it seems to me, its a 'heads I win' and a 'tails you loose' outcome unfolding in Putin's favour.
    Fuel and food shortages and consequential price increases coupled with excessive burdens which huge refugee influx numbers will place upon member states individually, will potentially in turn destabilise the EU itself.

    If that comes to pass, all the current moralising about the conduct of the war will become effectively redundant, yet another political can to be kicked further along the road.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Having Russia as a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council with the power of veto is the equivalent of Nazi Germany having a similar role in the League of Nations in the 1930s."

    It could be argued that Great Britain's membership of the League of Nations was far more of a nonsense than Nazi Germany's in the 1930s, given that they had an empire based on violence and subjugation spanning the entire world. So successful was the British empire, that a certain Adolf Hitler viewed some of its ' achievements' as aspirational.

    Putin committed the supreme war crime when he invaded Ukraine. The UK and USA, and others, committed their supreme war crimes much further their territorial borders than the Russian Federation has.

    @ AM

    "The difference will as ever lie in degree not kind. War crimes have different degrees of severity"

    I remember having an animated discussion in a pub with someone who said that Iraqi civilians would welcome UK/USA troops when they marched into Baghdad and other places in 2003. I said that human nature being what it is means that citizens of one nations will resent soldiers from another nation having executive powers over the population. And also that, human nature being what it is, soldiers (mostly young, mostly men) under extreme stress and pressure are not only capable of committing violent, organised crimes, they were likely to.

    Ukraine will have its Lt Calley's within their ranks. Perhaps not as many, perhaps systems and processes are in place to limit their wrath more effectively than in Russian forces, but torture and murder will have been committed.

    Mick Jagger sang "just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints" - the individual is capable of heinous crimes or heroic bravery. War facilitates heinous crimes being committed, which is presumably why waging an aggressive war is the supreme war crime.

    The vicious, sadistic, murdering loyalist paramilitary untermensch Davy Payne once risked his own life to rescue a drowning woman in 1968. Sadly, war criminals are usually the most typical of people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brandon - that is much the way I feel about it. Putin has committed if not the supreme then surely the foundational war crime. Karl Marlantes in his book What it is Like to go to War makes the point you do about the young not having empathy in wars.

      War criminals are indeed the most ordinary people - Arendt refers to the banality of evil and Browning draws it out brilliantly in his book Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland.

      Delete
  4. Not everybody believes the wests claims, along with those of Ukraine, that Russia is responsible for these civillian deaths. Many claim right-wing Ukrainian forces to be responsible! I have an open mind, all I do know is somebody did kill them. Ukrainian right wing Azov troops, and like minded, are not above such attrocities, any more or less than the Russians. One thing is for sure, that propaganda farce in the Dail yesterday, applauding President Zelenskyy with exaggerated vigour hoping Biden was watching was sickening. Fair play to PBP TDs not standing to applaud as the Irish Government try to outdo everybody else with their anti Russian propaganda. As a complete neutral all I do know with certainty is civillians are, as per, suffering the most. Then again, as both Bomber Command and Luftwaffe implied in WWII civillians are workers who make munitions! Arthur "Bomber" Harris said "Dresden is none of these anymore" after bombing civillians.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody should believe the claims by Western governments. However, when the people who find the Israelis or Syrians are committing atrocities also conclude that the Russians are doing likewise, it adds a plausibility to the claims.
      I am still unclear as to how anybody on the Left can be neutral when a society is attacked by a right wing capitalist regime and its civilian population centres blitzed. It is similar to claiming neutrality between Israel and Gaza because of a dislike of Hamas. In my view people of the Left should always take a side against these wars of aggression. That can be done quite easily without buying into the Western narrative, supporting NATO expansionism, or even enthusing over the Zelensky regime. I certainly endorse none of the later three positions.
      I think the PBP might have made a tactical error yesterday. It was a difficult position for them as they have called both Russia and the West out. I think they should have considered polite applause for a person who leads a society battling a war of aggression but contextualised it by asking Zelensky is there not a problem posed for his criticism of the bombing of his society by his own public backing for a similar bombing of Gaza. They will still get my vote come election time.

      Delete
  5. Neutrality to me is the only plausable position. Not knowing sufficient about the situation, apart from unreliable reports from both combatant countries and the Joe Biden supportrs club, is the only credible position. I am not neutral on refuggees, all refugees, Palestinian, Yemeni or Ukrainian. I am trying to work out who are the most right-wing? Ukraine have a history of pro-Nazi sympathies, the monuments we see to murdered Jewish people in Ukraine do not tell us that many of those attrocities were carried out by Ukrainian Nazis, some of whoms actions even sickened their SS masters. Every time I read of Nazi attrocities, as well as documentries, in Ukraine and Ukrainian Nazis carrying out these horrors I balk. Of course, according to western historians these were in protest against Stalin. They forget, no thanks to the said Stalin, it was the Red Army who paved the way for victory over Hitler. As I have made no secret of understanding Russias concerns over security on their western border, no country would stand for that kind of insecurity. Invasion was/is not the answer as other avenues of resolution were/are open, though because Putin chose invasion those windows of opportunity may be closed now. PBP will also be receiving my vote, as last time, as a preference vote will go to SF, in the dying hope of a health service.

    Talking of that circus in the Dail, would the same ovasion have been given to a representative of the Palestinian or Yemeni people? Bet your arse they wouldn't.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that sounds anything but plausible. You are not neutral on Yemen nor Palestine. Yet a right wing capitalist country wages aggressive war on one of its neighbours, and you suddenly think neutrality is a good position to take. Four of the thirteen cities that won the Soviet Hero award for resistance to the Nazis were in the Ukraine. The Ukrainians suffered massive civilian and military losses fighting the Nazis. A minority of Ukrainians backed the Nazis. Many of them chose the Nazis because they saw no moral difference between the mass murder machine of Berlin and that of Moscow. For millions of Ukrainians the Holodomor was their own Holocaust - and it was not inflicted by the Nazis. The Red Army that defeated Hitler was made up of huge amounts of Ukrainians.

      The US wheeled out its former presidents to condemn the Russian war on Ukraine without them ever taking responsibility for their role in bringing it about. We know all that but none of it excuses the woeful position of being neutral when a society is stormed by a right wing capitalist regime. And people wonder why the Left is so often on the ropes and up its own fundament. Marxists neutral in the face of capitalist military onslaught. You must be having a laugh.

      Delete
    2. PBP could be handling this better. I think the best thing for them to do is fess up to an inconsistency rather than do the contortions and rubberman impersonations to get out of this. It is one of those situations where they are explaining they are losing. They are right about sanctions but there are no painless options, just a limited range of painful ones. But sanctions are a more democratic way of conducting business rather than sending in young men and women in uniform to die. And our own citizens pay a price for sanctions. In future days we want our young people to be able to point to sanctions as having a greater value than using NATO. PBP can be a part of a sanctions policy as a means to providing an alternative to NATO.

      Delete
  6. @ AM

    "Karl Marlantes in his book What it is Like to go to War makes the point you do about the young not having empathy in wars."

    Guards at Dachau were deliberately drawn from a teenage pool for this very reason.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am aware of Ukrainians make up in the Red Army defeating the Nazis,
    Zelensky's Grandfather was a Red Army soldier and was awarded, something the Ukrainian President is rightly proud of. It was a minority who backed the Nazis, but it was not the numbers involved which presented the major problem. It was the severity and lust for death of their victims of these anti-Semites, anti-communist, anti-socialist and anti-trade unionist which was most alarming. Talking of which, was it not the Ukrainian far right who torched a trade union building not long ago. I am standing by my neutrality, the Ukraine too is a capitalist country and none of us, you included, know the whole truth which led up to this invasion, an invasion which, I must add, I have never supported. What I have said, and being consistent with, is I understand Russias security concerns on its western borders. In an ideal socialist world these concerns, in any country would not arise, alas we do not live in such a world. If elements in Ukraine have their way, asking for more weapons, hitherto short of nuclear, we might not have a world at all! I find it bizzarre that any socialist would not be looking for solutions to this aggression, and we do not know if aggression albeit verbal, was or was not given out to Moscow from Kiev before the invasion under the impression, or hope, NATO would intervene. This is a notion pedalled by some on social media, whether any truth is in it I do not know, do not take anything as gospel just because it suits somebodys narrative.

    Far from my position being "woeful" it is consistent in oppossing all capitalist wars. I question many others positions, condeming Russia but silent on all other fronts of capitalist aggression.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The murders by Ukrainians of Jews were no better or worse than the Soviet murders of Ukrainians. The Ukrainian far right won't allow the left onto the streets. They attack them at every demo. Today Zelensky addressed the Greek parliament and an Azov bastard spoke on the video. Despicable. These things should never be played down. There is a far right problem in Ukraine which has been amplified by Russian interference. The society being attacked by a right wing capitalist state should be defended. Russia's far right is bigger and stronger than Ukraine's. None of us know the full truth about anything. But it does not lead us to take a position of faux neutrality. If the Ukrainian's did not have weaponry the Russians would have over run the society by now. A peaceful negotiated solution is a must but until that point is reached the invaded have a right to resist by arms the invader. That is not a war crime - the invasion is. Your position in my view is woeful - you cannot oppose all capitalist wars by remaining neutral. NATO was never going to intervene. It told Ukraine as far back as 2008 it could join. Never happened and never would. The West played them.
      You are right to call out all those who fail to challenge the West's capitalist wars but it completely undermines your position when you fail to oppose the capitalist war on Ukraine by claiming neutrality.

      Delete
  8. The situation, incidentally, in Yemen is different if not in actions and net results, then so-called reasons. Yemen posses no threat to the security of Saudi Arabia and UAE. Ukraine, as Russia rightly or wrongly see it, does pose a threat to Russias western border. It is not Ukraine who pose the threat per se, but NATO. All the alliance have to do is publicly state any application for NATO membership from Ukraine will be rejected. Then Putins excuse for invasion, if that be what it is, falls.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caoimhin O'Muraile

      This is why the left are not taken seriously in these islands. Your hatred for NATO is blinding you to the obvious: that a right wing dictator who robbed his own people of billions and gave it to oligarchs to prop him up, who has batoned gays and opposition groups off his streets, who has banned all independent media, and murdered his political opponents, has invaded his neighbour for no reason and is literally destroying civilian homes and murdering civilians in the streets. "But...but....but....NATO" you cry. As AM said: woeful.

      Delete
  9. Right Wing Russia should have no say in who joins NATO just as the right wing USA should have no say in who joins the Russian Federation. The West claim they can back the Saudis because of the threat posed by Houthi. Much like Russia justifies its intervention in Ukraine. If you are going to play the neutrality card then play it in all situations

    ReplyDelete
  10. All cases differ, as I see it the wests claims about Houthi being a threat holds no water. A threat to who? There is no comparison between the two cases, it is not a fits all sizes case. NATO, on the other hand, is a threat to Russia, my only question here is, was invasion the best way of resolving these concerns. In my view, and again have never supported Russias invasion, understanding and supporting are entirely two different meanings, something can be understood without being supported, and I do not support the invasion. As for NATO, firstly would the US tolerate such a threat on its own borders? In your own words, "Joe Biden would not stand for Mexico joining with Russia" so that answers that one. Still on NATO the organisation should not exist, many countries barely exist because of them. Their rationale for existing died with the Warsaw Pact. It should disband except western capitalism needs it and would not allow its dissbandment!

    So, it is not possible to "play the neutrality card in all situations" simply because situations differ. NATO could stop this right now, either that or Putin will be expossed, as is your position, not to be concerned, as he claims, with security but about domination. I bet NATO lack the balls to put it to the test.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
  11. Also, for what it's worth, the concept of left and right wing since the days of the USSR differs to that of what we in the west perceive as left and right wing. For example, as bizzarre as this sounds, Boris Yeltsin in the USSR would have been considered "left-wing" while the CPSU would have been the "right-wing". Over here it would have been the opposite simply because the two status quos differed. The CPSU wanted to preserve what was in place, Yeltsin, who in Ireland or Britain would be right-wing, was left-wing and wanted change. Bizzarre really but different concepts in different regions of the world.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that applies across the board. But it hardly makes the Kremlin any less right wing. As for the Houthi and the threat they pose: the Saudis claim that Houthi territory seizure is a risk to their sphere of influence and has the Houthi sitting right on their border - much the same as the Russians say about Ukraine.

      If we factor Iran into the mix then the Israelis can claim they too are under threat and the Saudis will say this is a further encroachment on its sphere of influence. Not that we should believe the Saudis or the Israelis any more than we believe the Russians.

      When the oligarchs and plutocrats of a gangster capitalist state are bombing the working class of its neighbour, the Left cannot afford the luxury of neutrality. It becomes a moonshine phrase.

      Delete
  12. https://mobile.twitter.com/mariamposts/status/1511995713135443969

    This is an interesting thread ^

    ReplyDelete
  13. I've got to the point I believe nobody, apart from the obvious, refugees. I do not believe Zelenskyy, hitherto giving him the benefit, and neither do I take Putins word. The reporting by RTE is third rate and insultive to all but a fool. The latest report, by an RTE reporter with a strong US accent, is that "Russian backed forces in the east, are fighting the Ukrainian Army". If this is the case, where is the Russian Army? Russian backed forces are not the Russian Army. This entire circus, innocent refugees excempted, is rapidly becoming a farce. Nobody knows what is really happening, including me, so I am stopping speculating. The news reports are a joke, a fucking piss take, so much so I now turn over to watch Heartbeat, and that is sad. But not as sad as listening to US puppets so-called reporters. To finnish, an taoiseach, Micheal Martin is in Finland, a country claiming to be worried about Russia attacking them. Finland are considering joining NATO, the reason Russia cite for invading the Ukraine in the first place. Again, belive it if you like! Is this Martin softening the Irish people up for when he finally scraps our military neutrality and applies to his pretend friend, Joe Biden, for Irish membership of NATO?

    The coming election in France is now more relevant, if the far-right win it may suggest a dangerous trend which may spread. That would, politically, affect us here in Ireland, six and twenty six counties.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
  14. There are reliable sources - the same ones that brought the truth out about Gaza. Iraq, Afghanistan - the people calling out the war on Yemen. There is a wide range of progressive sites that have been consistent in digging out the truth for years on all these conflicts. That they all suddenly become unreliable because Russia is involved seems implausible. If we restrict ourselves to reading compromised communist parties, we might thing that there is a secret socialist agenda behind the war on Ukraine.

    We know very well what is happening. The war crime of aggressive war was perpetrated by a right wing authoritarian regime. That can hardly be disputed. Why would Finland or other countries not now wish to join NATO? If Russia is not attacking NATO countries there is a certain logic to joining it. One reason the Far Right is rising is because of the Fawlty Tower state of the Far Left. Too busy finding excuses rather than reasons.

    Our enemy's enemy isn't always our friend.

    We will join NATO. The Russian war on Ukraine will expedite that.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I've not read any communist party, or parties sites. All I do know is the reporting on tv is for idiots and, at least the last time I checked, it is non applicable to me. Others may diagree. Today much has been made of a bombing a raiway station. The Ukrainians blame Russia who, in turn deny it. Right-wing Ukrainian forces are not above doing the bombing themselves and blaming the Russians, a bit like the canned fruit operation prior to WW II. ON the other hand the Russians like any invading army may well have carried out the attack. Why believe Kiev over Moscow or vice versa? What is for certain, if nowt else, is the civillian casualties are real. As I said, I believe neither Moscow or Kiev any more, and I certainly do not believe the news. Reporters with strong US accents, the band played believe it if you like!!!

    On social media various reports, some from known republicans, and depending which side the author is supporting are full of distortions. Truth be it, none of us, you, me, uncle Tom Cobbley know with any surety what is really happening.

    You apparently support NATO, can't understand why, but in my view it is an erronious position. Russia have no eyes on Ireland, and our neutrality is worth protecting. NATO, and those who support it, are as guilty as the Russians in this mess.

    You have a small point, Anthony, about "our enemy's enemy isn't always our friend". Nazi Germany certainly was not, read Operation Green. Russia is no friend of Ireland either, but unlike Hitler they have no plans to invade. If you want 26 county forces, like all small NATO members, to be used as general labourers to clean up the mess left by the big boys, primarily the USA, followed by their minions of Britain, France, Italy, Germany and perhaps Belgium and Holland, that is your choice. Not for me though.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any attempt to get the Russians off the hook.

      Believe Kiev over Moscow for the same reason believe Gaza over Tel Aviv. More importantly, believe the credible sources which have been bringing us accurate reporting for decades and who have called out the war criminals of all hues, not least the West.

      Where have I said I support NATO? Anything but. When we went to the protest at the Russian Embassy, all of us agreed that if they start expressing support for NATO, we are out of there. From the first piece I wrote about the war of Ukraine, I have raised questions about NATO. There is a lot of Left idiocy about that can't work out that opposition to the war on Ukraine is not about supporting NATO or the Nazis. It didn't stop the keyboard commandos alleging it about the protest at the Russian embassy. I merely laugh at them. Their faux protestations on human rights grounds about Israeli war crimes against Palestinians exposed as a ruse. I support Ukrainian society for the same reason I support Palestinian society. I resile from the racist attitude that the Ukrainians are somewhat less human than the Palestinians and are therefore not worthy of the same human rights. That is the essence of racism for me, more so than colour or ethnicity: are people fully human or are they to be treated as untermenschen and not worthy of the same rights as others?

      If countries are to be dissuaded from joining NATO, then don't attack them when they are outside NATO. Why would Finland not want to join NATO if it feels the NATO umbrella will prevent the type of war crimes we are witnessing in Ukraine. There is a certain logic driving them in the direction of NATO.
      If you don't read what is written, I can do nothing about that. But for the record, because we will join NATO does not mean I agree with it. I am opposed to it and share the PBP perspective on it. But I know that the war on Ukraine is opening our door to NATO wider by the day.

      Delete
  16. As for the Saudis seeing Yemen, the Houthi, as a threat that is a terrible comparison. Yemen is not a nuclear power, they are no threat to Saudi Arabia. Ukraine are not a nuclearpower either, but they will be if they join NATO. It would bring US nuclear missiles within five minutes of Moscow with no time for Russia to retaliate. In your own words Anthony, "Joe Biden would not tolerate" a similar situation on his borders, say Mexico. This is beginning to sound like a get Russia at any price, and, as I have said, I am neutral, more now than ever. Everything I have heard, on social media, tv, and arguments on TPQ has convinced me I am correct.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As terrible do you think as being neutral when a right wing capitalist state is bombings its neighbour's workers? Marxism has truly become the opium of the Marxists.

      The thing is, you don't get to decide what countries cite as a threat. The Saudis (and the Israelis) maintain the Houthi can fire missiles into their territories. The Israelis cite Iran using Yemen as a test ground for weapons. As self-serving no doubt as the Russian ones.
      NATO countries already border Russia so the five minute argument looks pretty poor.
      You are free to convince yourself that you are correct much as I am free to convince myself that I am Charlie Chaplain. It is convincing others. And I would say you have done a pretty poor job of it.

      Delete
  17. We must agree to disagree, because neither you or anybody else have convinced me I am wrong. What I do see, rightly or wrongly, are people agreeing with the reports we are receiving without question. Not for me. You are contradicting many of your earlier comparisons between Russias security concerns and those Joe Biden would have if he were to be in a similar situation. He would "not tolerate" a similar sotuation on his borders. You must have changed your mind, which, like "Charlie Chaplain", you are entitled to.

    More social media reports claim Ukrainian security forces have killed 14,000 civillians since 2014. Again,about a believable as the west reports. I have a long winded link here of missiles fired by Ukrainian forces, it could be anywhere. Ah well, you folk have decided the west are right and Russia wrong, me, I'm a little more objective.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=coeb%rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DZto1jhR76gw&ved=2ahUKEwiy3Mbz8IT3AhUKi1wKHW55c20Qo7QBegQ1AxAF&usg=AOvVaw1MSaOPNNxm_IVCzAkBNM If you can get your heads round that the best of luck. Again, no guarantee it is any more factual than most of the rubbish I've been silly enough, in hindsight, to get embroiled with.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody has to convince you that you are wrong. It is a case of allowing you to convince just about everybody else that you are wrong.

      Again, if you would read what is written instead of committing yourself to muddle-headedness, you might better grasp what is being said. The Russians have a genuine concern about security. NATO has expanded to the East. Biden would not tolerate it in Mexico. The US and NATO bear huge responsibility for the buildup. That is all pretty simple stuff. But the Russian concern becomes a self serving excuse for a criminal war of aggression which even you don't believe is justified. Much as Israel has genuine concerns about Hamas rockets - bombing Gaza is without a sliver of justification. Yet you try to claim the faux position of neutrality in a war you claim to believe is wrong.

      It is not about the West being right. It is about Russia being wrong. It might be a comforting myth for you but you are anything but objective. Maybe in years to come you will realise with a heavy heart that after years of expressing international solidarity, you abandoned those working class people being bombed by a right wing capitalist state.

      It doesn't anger me, just saddens me.

      Delete
  18. And that is the point, who is doing the bombing? Undoubtedly the Russians are doing some, but alternative accounts suggest that elements of the Ukrainian armed forces are carrying out false flag operations then blaming the Russians for carrying out these attrocities. Do we ignore these alternative accounts and only listen or read the anti Russian versions? Now, I dont know any more than you do how valid these counter claims are. It is easy to paste a scene together and it may not be what it first appears.

    It appears a lack of objectivity on your part which, as my stance "saddens" you, does likewise to me. You appear to compare Israels security concerns with those of Russia. The rockets fired by Palestinians are not pleasant, granted, but Russias concerns are about nuclear missiles able to hit Moscow from Ukraine in five minutes. Russia could not respond, parity, which it is claimed, has kept the peace will no longer be the case. You appear to care little for working-class people in Moscow should the US get their missiles onto Ukrainian soil, or am I misreading, or am I being "muddle-headed" again? Of course Russias invasion is wrong, but their concerns are justified, which you acknowledge, and could have been adressed without invasion, as I have maintained consistently. No need for anybody to be bombed, the UN were formed to prevent such, why have they not been used? Using the offices of the UN is much preferable to war. Now, what is your alternative to conflict? Your tunnel vision, it appears, claims Russias reasons for invasion are more of an imperialist nature than one of security. Maybe you have a point, maybe not, I believe security and a Nazi presence to be their main concerns. That Nazi presence is confirmed as the Azov regiment. That same Azov gang, it has been claimed, bombed the cinema and blamed the Russians. Its an old trick and convincing depending on who is reporting and the pre-conceived prejudices of the audiance.

    I have abandoned nobody as you claim, that is your opinion which you are entitled to, wrong as it is,I'm just looking for answers which are not, and doubt ever will be forthcoming.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
  19. Unfortunately, Caoimhin, this doesn't make things any easier for your position. There is nothing new in it. I have heard all the Tucker Carson talking points and when you make them it adds nothing to my understanding. Go to the credible sources, the ones that people who want accuracy, not propaganda, have long gone to. Your Ken Ham type argument that nobody knows (just God because he was there) gets no traction.
    If you keep digging this hole for yourself you will end up concluding that the IRA did Bloody Sunday rather than the Paras.
    The one thing we can agree upon is that Russia perpetrated the war crime of aggressive war and you remained neutral. What else needs said? After that the rest is moonshine.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Russia were given the space to do this, the excuse, by NATO refusing to simply say, "we will not admit Ukraine into NATO should they apply". Thats all, Zelenskyy could have denied them the same excuse simply by stating they have no intentions of joining NATO. Now, after all the trouble Ukraine are talking of neutrality. Why could Zelenskyy not have said something earlier, he knew Russias concerns, concerns even you concede as valid!

    As for the bombing of civillian targets, theatres, railway stations etc, there are claims, true or false, Ukrainian Nazis did that, just the same as the Germans bombed Guernica, or are you telling me, as Franco tried, that too was the Russians.

    If I am digging a hole, which is your perception Anthony, there are many others with spades. Now, Ukraine are talking of neutrality so a basis exists to bring this misery for civillians to an end. Just imagine if a united Ireland, hypothetically, wanted, in its day, to join the Warsaw Pact. Could you imagine any Brit PM standing by and doing nothing? As you have stated, "it is any countries right to join any organisation they wish". You know, as well as I do, it does not always work like that under present political conditions. I want a world with no NATO or equivalent oppossite organisations, Warsaw Pact, Russian Federation, in its present form, EU Army or NATO. I also want a socialist world where such crap as "spheres of influence" which you used in an earlier reply, do not enter the equasion.

    Some people are wrongly comparing this invasion with Germany's invasion of Poland. Again, no comparison because if this had been the Werhmacht and Waffen SS, drugged up on Pervatine, this would have been over in a week. The civillians butchered by the Nazi animals would have numbered millions so there is no comparison. It still does not make it right, but people should get it in perspective. That is like comparing the London Met. Police with the Gestapo. Bad bastards they maybe, certainly in my experience, but the Gestapo? No, bad but not that bad. You have not made this comparison, but others have, wrongly yet again.

    We both agree Russias security concerns are justified. We both agree invasion was wrong and not the way to solve the problem. We both agree a worrying Nazi presence is in Ukraine. I want to see this conflict ended, and quick. I do not want Ireland to join NATO or any other waring group, you, apparently are a pro-NATO supporter. "We will join NATO, the Russian war in Ukraine will expediate it" were your words. Yet, you later say "because we will join NATO does not mean I agree with it" ambiguity here as I see it. You are correct on one issue, NATO already are on Russias borders, proof of what a lying bunch of double-crossing bastards they are, having said, "not one inch eastwards".

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caoimhin - I posted your comment without even reading it. Enough said

      Delete
  21. True, I'm moving on now to next weeks, unrelated, piece. Enough of Ukraine, breakfast, dinner and tea😬💣😝, enough to drive a man to drink🍺🍺🍺🍺🥃🥃!!

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. now I don't think it will take a lot to drive either of us to drink!!

      Delete