It's More Than Sabre Rattling Now

1246756

Comments

  • Martin54 wrote: »
    @Simon Toad - you and he are a couple uh nice guys Simon. Who's Jo's Reagan era Richard Perle? Aka Prince of Darkness.

    Well, I'd say the people who begin American wars are out of power right now. The Democrats are generally the ones who have to clean up Republican adventures.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    @Simon Toad - you and he are a couple uh nice guys Simon. Who's Jo's Reagan era Richard Perle? Aka Prince of Darkness.

    Well, I'd say the people who begin American wars are out of power right now. The Democrats are generally the ones who have to clean up Republican adventures.

    Korea? Cuba? Vietnam? Iran?
  • Merry VoleMerry Vole Shipmate
    edited January 2022
    In the Times today: the US thinks personal sanctions against Putin and his cronies won't work because he has laundered money in property in 'Londongrad'. Because UK Govt so useless about that sort of thing.
  • Merry Vole wrote: »
    In the Times today: the US thinks personal sanctions against Putin and his cronies won't work because he has laundered money in property in 'Londongrad'. Because UK Govt so useless about that sort of thing.

    The UK govt aren't useless about that sort of thing in the sense of being incompetent; they actively encourage it. Building relationships with rich people for their own benefit appears to be the only thing they are good at.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    edited January 2022
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    In the Times today: the US thinks personal sanctions against Putin and his cronies won't work because he has laundered money in property in 'Londongrad'. Because UK Govt so useless about that sort of thing.

    This was being trailed yesterday on the back of a report by the Center for American Progress. The gist is that the UK's Conservative Party and media are too close to various Russian oligarchs:

    https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1486245779182399488

    The Times article you are referring to is here (albeit behind a paywall):

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ukraine-crisis-us-sounds-alarm-over-russian-dirty-money-in-london-xrwfrhw57
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited January 2022
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    @Simon Toad - you and he are a couple uh nice guys Simon. Who's Jo's Reagan era Richard Perle? Aka Prince of Darkness.

    Well, I'd say the people who begin American wars are out of power right now. The Democrats are generally the ones who have to clean up Republican adventures.

    Korea? Cuba? Vietnam? Iran?

    well, sheet. I didn't fact check myself and now I have to pay the price with some fast talking. Give me a few hours while I jimmy something up please.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited January 2022
    On Iran, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Surely not the attempt to rescue hostages under Carter? Is it the 1950's coup that toppled that reformist PM?

    In Korea and Vietnam conflict pre-existed and the USA intervened to defend regimes it supported. You can't claim Democratic Presidents started those wars, unless you want to also claim that FDR started WW2.

    The Bay of Pigs was an invasion by the free people of Cuba to protect the property of the United Fruit Corporation and various mob bosses in New York, Nevada and Miami. They would have won that thing anyway, if Kennedy had the necessary bottle to launch an all out attack and catch them with their pants down. .
  • Aye Carter. The daring of a cautious man. Cleaned up by Reagan. Not Mossadegh. A spectacular Eisenhower success at a fascist coup that lasted a generation.

    Democratic presidents escalated Korea and Vietnam conflict by several orders of magnitude on a quiet day.

    FDR got involved after two years of total war. Because it came to him. After Britain had won its Battle.

    And Cuba. I don't know how we're all still here. Kennedy wised up with a night to go. I was 8 and remember my parents being frightened. And yeah The Bay of Pigs, the CIA's finest hour. Which fed in to the previous.
  • Ukraine President calling for calm:

    https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-tells-west-not-to-panic-over-russia-tensions/a-60586909

    This is the third Ukrainian figure who seems to indicate that the West is ratcheting up tension (after the former defence minister and the chair of the Ukrainian national security committee).
  • Ukraine President calling for calm:

    https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-tells-west-not-to-panic-over-russia-tensions/a-60586909

    This is the third Ukrainian figure who seems to indicate that the West is ratcheting up tension (after the former defence minister and the chair of the Ukrainian national security committee).

    Which may be accurate or noises intended to allow Russia to save face and pretend to be the adult in the room when it de-escalates. If the price of avoiding war is western governments looking a bit paranoid I think it's probably worth it.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    Shouldn't we/Europe/The West go on the offensive, economically? Say that sanctions are starting tomorrow unless Russia starts moving their forces away from the border areas?
    Why wait for hostilities to actually begin? Seems to put too little value on soldiers' (and other's) lives.

    Don't like the sound of that. They haven't actually done anything and keep saying they won't. And what sanctions? Stop sending us gas this winter?

    A threat of financial sanctions, including cutting Russia out of the SWIFT payments system, is the only language Putin understands. Russia needs to move its forces away from the Ukraine borders to stand any chance of hostilities not breaking out.
  • Ukraine President calling for calm:

    https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-tells-west-not-to-panic-over-russia-tensions/a-60586909

    This is the third Ukrainian figure who seems to indicate that the West is ratcheting up tension (after the former defence minister and the chair of the Ukrainian national security committee).

    Which may be accurate or noises intended to allow Russia to save face and pretend to be the adult in the room when it de-escalates.

    It could be, but on the other hand Zelensky was fairly openly calling for Donbass and Crimea to be taken back by force in March/April of 2021, so he obviously doesn't have any issues with heated rhetoric should the mood take him.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Aye Carter. The daring of a cautious man. Cleaned up by Reagan. Not Mossadegh. A spectacular Eisenhower success at a fascist coup that lasted a generation.

    Democratic presidents escalated Korea and Vietnam conflict by several orders of magnitude on a quiet day.

    FDR got involved after two years of total war. Because it came to him. After Britain had won its Battle.

    And Cuba. I don't know how we're all still here. Kennedy wised up with a night to go. I was 8 and remember my parents being frightened. And yeah The Bay of Pigs, the CIA's finest hour. Which fed in to the previous.

    yep. Agree with all that. I wasn't around, but my Mum was galavanting around Europe during the Cuban Missile Crisis. She knew something was up, but wasn't sure what it was.

    We are all still here because Khrushchev and Kennedy were good men at the right time.
    Ukraine President calling for calm:

    https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-tells-west-not-to-panic-over-russia-tensions/a-60586909

    This is the third Ukrainian figure who seems to indicate that the West is ratcheting up tension (after the former defence minister and the chair of the Ukrainian national security committee).

    Which may be accurate or noises intended to allow Russia to save face and pretend to be the adult in the room when it de-escalates.

    It could be, but on the other hand Zelensky was fairly openly calling for Donbass and Crimea to be taken back by force in March/April of 2021, so he obviously doesn't have any issues with heated rhetoric should the mood take him.

    Yeah, but this is a different moment calling for a different public stance. I think he's also trying to settle the resolve of his people as well as participate in this lethal game of bluff.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    It could be, but on the other hand Zelensky was fairly openly calling for Donbass and Crimea to be taken back by force in March/April of 2021, so he obviously doesn't have any issues with heated rhetoric should the mood take him.

    Yeah, but this is a different moment calling for a different public stance. I think he's also trying to settle the resolve of his people as well as participate in this lethal game of bluff.

    That makes very little sense, it's far more likely that he said what he did in 2021 for political advantage precisely because he didn't think there was likely to be a war.
  • I'm saying that he is doing both for political reasons, but the second is more about limiting economic damage from the shadow-boxing than his immediate electoral position. The two are linked, natch.

  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    edited January 2022
    What is China's position on this? ISTM that it might be convenient for China to support Russia strongly on Ukraine. It would annoy the US and be consonant with their attitude to Taiwan. They could provide political support, economic support (which might blunt the effectiveness of sanctions), even military support to Russia at a pinch.
  • Very interesting thought. My impression is that China picks her battles very carefully.
  • I think economic support is very likely.
  • Putin doesn't want to become a Chinese client.
  • Merry Vole wrote: »
    In the Times today: the US thinks personal sanctions against Putin and his cronies won't work because he has laundered money in property in 'Londongrad'. Because UK Govt so useless about that sort of thing.

    This was being trailed yesterday on the back of a report by the Center for American Progress. The gist is that the UK's Conservative Party and media are too close to various Russian oligarchs:

    https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1486245779182399488

    The Times article you are referring to is here (albeit behind a paywall):

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ukraine-crisis-us-sounds-alarm-over-russian-dirty-money-in-london-xrwfrhw57

    This theme has now been repeated in a report put out by Chatham House:

    https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1487077229058310151

    "The Conservative Party, in particular, has been wilfully blind to the risks posed when large donations from British citizens of Russian origin or others with possible high-level links in
    Russia are exchanged for access to the prime minister of the day or other senior
    ministers. Donors are not driven by altruism; they calculate that access brings influence. It is not enough to say that donations comply with current laws and regulations: the law should be tightened to mandate closer scrutiny of donors and a prohibition on meetings with them in the absence of advisers or civil servants, so that discussions touching on public policy are properly recorded."
  • So much for Global Britain, and BORIS SAVES THE WORLD FROM EVIL PUTIN!
    https://theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/01/boris-johnson-rebuffed-in-bid-to-play-key-role-in-ukraine-diplomacy

    My wicked mind inclines to the thought that Mr Putin is indeed highlighting Global Britain's irrelevance. No doubt he will have a phone chat with Johnson at some point (his English is no doubt better than Johnson's Russian), but perhaps only to recommend whatever vodka the Co-Op near Downing Street might happen to sell (this is irony).
  • That was never going to happen. How could he possibly get the support of major EU players like Macron?
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    I think it is much more petty than that: "you cancelled the Monday call so I had to wait... now you have to wait because I'm cancelling the Tuesday call!"
  • Did anyone notice how many Union Jack flags there seemed to be at Johnson's press conference, shared with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky?

    I wonder if Johnson thinks (yes, I know - a possible oxymoron there) that he has somehow taken over Ukraine, and is about to embark on a long and glorious reign, such as he is enjoying here?

    The Ukrainian media ignored Johnson, it seems, and (perhaps understandably) concentrated on what their President was saying...
  • Looking at Johnson in Kyiv, it really feels like the West is forcing Putin in to a war he actually does not want.
  • Maybe, but I guess the wily Putin won't do anything he doesn't want to...well, I hope he won't.

    Will he take any notice of Johnson's wifflewaffle? I suspect not.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Looking at Johnson in Kyiv, it really feels like the West is forcing Putin in to a war he actually does not want.

    Rubbish. It's the muscle-up to the bully playground strategy. There are no teachers in international relations, so you can be quite open about it.

    Johnson is a bit player with a loose grip on power. He is almost entirely irrelevant.
  • If you exclude the Americas and ignore European genocide between settlement and yesterday, the US and its allies have almost never been the aggressor.

    Its just that the 2001 attack was well planned by Al Qaeda and it did precisely what it was supposed to do. The US reacted like a psychotic tiger stung by a wasp. It lashed out in Afghanistan, and then went really off the rails in Iraq. Bin Laden must have been well pleased with its work, as it resulted in the radicalisation of many people in the Islamic world. It painted the US to be what Bin Laden always perceived it to be - not a capitalist oppressor, but a religious enemy engaged in holy war against Islam. 9/11 provoked America to bear its teeth.

    This whole notion of the USA and Capitalism being the bad guys is utter bollocks. The present alternative is domination by fascism and quasi-fascists. That doesn't mean we give up on building Jerusalem. Its not an abrogation of responsibility for continuing harm.

    But it does mean that the far left rubbish spouted as rooted in Christianity by some Shipmates is false prophesy. The right policy isn't abolishing the ruling class, but breaking down class, racist and sexist barriers so that the ruling class are the best people drawn from the widest possible range of ethnicities and economic backgrounds, renewed in each generation. The focus on smashing the state and 'end-stage capitalism distracts from that essential goal.
  • "many people in the Islamic world" was not even close to a majority. It was a tiny minority in fact. In that sense the next part of Bin Laden's plan - to radicalise most Muslims - waas an abject failure. We MUST remember that.
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    edited February 2022
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    That was never going to happen. How could he possibly get the support of major EU players like Macron?

    I think that's a partial reading of it - the French, insofar as anyone knows what they want, seem to want what the British government wants, except that they don't want it if it doesn't have the French flag on top and them in the driving seat (which is also the British position except with the British flag on top and Britain in the driving seat). So while those two posturing, preening idiots (Johnson and Macron) are fighting with each other...

    Meanwhile in Berlin, German policy seems to be to give the Russians what they want and hope what they want isn't too much** and doesn't turn the gas off - and screw the inconvenient Ukrainians. Any position the EU manages to come to on this is going to be so vague as to be meaningless.

    The natural alliance here *ought* to be Britain and France, or failing that (e.g. if France felt they couldn't go too far from Germany's position), Britain, Poland and the Baltics.

    **think Chamberlain in 1938, ironically. Although, unlike Chamberlain, there's little evidence that in 50 years time anyone will be able to attempt to defend it with 'but they were buying time to re-arm.'
  • Another way of putting all that is that in answer to your question, Johnson had no chance, Macron has got very little either - and as usual, there's more than a sense from both London and Paris that when it comes down to it neither of them would mind not being successful as long as the other one isn't (not a Johnson/Macron point, more 1000 years of default setting).
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    edited February 2022
    Maybe, but I guess the wily Putin won't do anything he doesn't want to...well, I hope he won't.

    Will he take any notice of Johnson's wifflewaffle? I suspect not.

    Discussing this last night in international relations circles, I'm afraid the general take was that Putin is a tactical master who has the enormous weakness of being dreadful at strategy. The fear is that he's basically climbed aboard a tiger that he now can't get off without looking like the US won and he lost. *Potentially* this explains some of the noises coming out of Ukraine recently in that the West might be prepared to take some flack to give him a ladder to climb down that saves a bit of face for him. Although the worry there is that while he's rational enough to take that, he'll also be well aware that that's what he's doing, and that might make things worse in the long run...
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Looking at Johnson in Kyiv, it really feels like the West is forcing Putin in to a war he actually does not want.

    Rubbish. It's the muscle-up to the bully playground strategy. There are no teachers in international relations, so you can be quite open about it.

    Johnson is a bit player with a loose grip on power. He is almost entirely irrelevant.

    A fine analogy if the West had any relevant muscle. It's provided a little to Ukraine, a few stones to throw only in its personal space. The West will block Russia's tuck shop access when it steps up to punch the little kid.

    What do the other two posts have to do with it?
  • Maybe, but I guess the wily Putin won't do anything he doesn't want to...well, I hope he won't.

    Will he take any notice of Johnson's wifflewaffle? I suspect not.

    Discussing this last night in international relations circles, I'm afraid the general take was that Putin is a tactical master who has the enormous weakness of being dreadful at strategy. The fear is that he's basically climbed aboard a tiger that he now can't get off without looking like the US won and he lost. *Potentially* this explains some of the noises coming out of Ukraine recently in that the West might be prepared to take some flack to give him a ladder to climb down that saves a bit of face for him. Although the worry there is that while he's rational enough to take that, he'll also be well aware that that's what he's doing, and that might make things worse in the long run...

    Yes, the tiger analogy had also occurred to me - hence the slightly hopeful note of my post...
  • Thanks as ever @betjemaniac, especially the last post... hope that isn't prescient in the situation!
  • Meanwhile, Boris' efforts to Save The World™ don't seem to be going down too well with the Russians:

    https://theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/02/kremlin-call-boris-johnson-ukraine-diplomacy-effort-utterly-confused-protect-russian-invasion

    *Utterly confused* would describe Johnson's position at home, too, ISTM.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited February 2022
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    If you exclude the Americas and ignore European genocide between settlement and yesterday, the US and its allies have almost never been the aggressor.
    Sorry, I don't understand.

    Its just that the 2001 attack was well planned by Al Qaeda and it did precisely what it was supposed to do. The US reacted like a psychotic tiger stung by a wasp. It lashed out in Afghanistan, and then went really off the rails in Iraq. Bin Laden must have been well pleased with its work, as it resulted in the radicalisation of many people in the Islamic world. It painted the US to be what Bin Laden always perceived it to be - not a capitalist oppressor, but a religious enemy engaged in holy war against Islam. 9/11 provoked America to bear its teeth.
    Uh huh.

    This whole notion of the USA and Capitalism being the bad guys is utter bollocks.
    If the Capitalism fits. The good news in Christ is the fulfilment of our genetic aspiration. Social justice. How much closer to that is the USA than Russia? Or China? Or Saudi Arabia?

    The present alternative is domination by fascism and quasi-fascists. That doesn't mean we give up on building Jerusalem. Its not an abrogation of responsibility for continuing harm.
    Trump is a neo-fascist and he's on schedule for return in two years. The harm being done by Capitalism to the masses and their planet shows can't be abrogated, evaded; but it can be done away with by law and right.

    But it does mean that the far left rubbish spouted as rooted in Christianity by some Shipmates is false prophesy.
    No one here has done that. Social justice is central, core to human affairs and survival, it was first implemented by the Christians of Jerusalem.

    The right policy isn't abolishing the ruling class, but breaking down class, racist and sexist barriers so that the ruling class are the best people drawn from the widest possible range of ethnicities and economic backgrounds, renewed in each generation. The focus on smashing the state and 'end-stage capitalism distracts from that essential goal.

    The just, fair, central, core policy is restoring the commons to the masses by taxation of those in possession of stolen property: the land and all wealth extracted from it for a thousand years. With class gone by social justice, racism is meaningless as it is a tool of the ruling class. The same with sexism.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    "many people in the Islamic world" was not even close to a majority. It was a tiny minority in fact. In that sense the next part of Bin Laden's plan - to radicalise most Muslims - waas an abject failure. We MUST remember that.
    Why? American hubris can never recover. British neither after we lost two small wars. Bin Laden's failure was in using violence which can never achieve social justice.
  • Bugger.
    The harm being done by Capitalism to the masses and their planet... can't be abrogated
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Looking at Johnson in Kyiv, it really feels like the West is forcing Putin in to a war he actually does not want.

    Rubbish. It's the muscle-up to the bully playground strategy. There are no teachers in international relations, so you can be quite open about it.

    Johnson is a bit player with a loose grip on power. He is almost entirely irrelevant.

    A fine analogy if the West had any relevant muscle. It's provided a little to Ukraine, a few stones to throw only in its personal space. The West will block Russia's tuck shop access when it steps up to punch the little kid.

    What do the other two posts have to do with it?

    The first is a general spray at the idea that the USA is a warmonger, which is the implicit (and explicit maybe if I checked) assumption underlying your approach to this issue and international affairs generally. The second is an amendment to some poor wording that has the potential to support discrimination against Muslims.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    If you exclude the Americas and ignore European genocide between settlement and yesterday, the US and its allies have almost never been the aggressor.
    Sorry, I don't understand.

    Its just that the 2001 attack was well planned by Al Qaeda and it did precisely what it was supposed to do. The US reacted like a psychotic tiger stung by a wasp. It lashed out in Afghanistan, and then went really off the rails in Iraq. Bin Laden must have been well pleased with its work, as it resulted in the radicalisation of many people in the Islamic world. It painted the US to be what Bin Laden always perceived it to be - not a capitalist oppressor, but a religious enemy engaged in holy war against Islam. 9/11 provoked America to bear its teeth.
    Uh huh.

    This whole notion of the USA and Capitalism being the bad guys is utter bollocks.
    If the Capitalism fits. The good news in Christ is the fulfilment of our genetic aspiration. Social justice. How much closer to that is the USA than Russia? Or China? Or Saudi Arabia?

    The present alternative is domination by fascism and quasi-fascists. That doesn't mean we give up on building Jerusalem. Its not an abrogation of responsibility for continuing harm.
    Trump is a neo-fascist and he's on schedule for return in two years. The harm being done by Capitalism to the masses and their planet shows can't be abrogated, evaded; but it can be done away with by law and right.

    But it does mean that the far left rubbish spouted as rooted in Christianity by some Shipmates is false prophesy.
    No one here has done that. Social justice is central, core to human affairs and survival, it was first implemented by the Christians of Jerusalem.

    The right policy isn't abolishing the ruling class, but breaking down class, racist and sexist barriers so that the ruling class are the best people drawn from the widest possible range of ethnicities and economic backgrounds, renewed in each generation. The focus on smashing the state and 'end-stage capitalism distracts from that essential goal.

    The just, fair, central, core policy is restoring the commons to the masses by taxation of those in possession of stolen property: the land and all wealth extracted from it for a thousand years. With class gone by social justice, racism is meaningless as it is a tool of the ruling class. The same with sexism.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    "many people in the Islamic world" was not even close to a majority. It was a tiny minority in fact. In that sense the next part of Bin Laden's plan - to radicalise most Muslims - waas an abject failure. We MUST remember that.
    Why? American hubris can never recover. British neither after we lost two small wars. Bin Laden's failure was in using violence which can never achieve social justice.

    I'll respond to this once I have had a good strong coffee and a bit of flavored yoghurt. I'm sorry I didn't see it before I posted the above.

    I'm sending you a PM too Martin.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    edited February 2022
    The natural alliance here *ought* to be Britain and France, or failing that (e.g. if France felt they couldn't go too far from Germany's position), Britain, Poland and the Baltics.

    Except this is only relevant in conjunction with the US, which should put some of that into perspective.

    Sending arms to Ukraine at this point is of limited effectiveness, and risks second and third order consequences; the Azov Battalion/Svoboda have global connections to the far right, and members of the Proud Boys have been travelling to the Ukraine to train. The steps required by the UK have been laid out in the reports by both the Center for American Progress and Chatham House, but only one senior politician has demanded Magnitsky like provisions in recent times.
    **think Chamberlain in 1938, ironically. Although, unlike Chamberlain, there's little evidence that in 50 years time anyone will be able to attempt to defend it with 'but they were buying time to re-arm.'

    Frankfurt am-Main will not freeze in winter, and the Conservative party will continue to benefit directly and indirectly from Russian money. Putin isn't Hitler, and the former is easier to justify than the latter.
  • Sending arms to Ukraine at this point is of limited effectiveness, and risks second and third order consequences; the Azov Battalion/Svoboda have global connections to the far right, and members of the Proud Boys have been travelling to the Ukraine to train. The steps required by the UK have been laid out in the reports by both the Center for American Progress and Chatham House, but only one senior politician has demanded Magnitsky like provisions in recent times.

    Not a nice choice though is it? Support a country like that, or allow Russia to do what it wants with it... both have second and third order consequences.


  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    edited February 2022
    Sending arms to Ukraine at this point is of limited effectiveness, and risks second and third order consequences; the Azov Battalion/Svoboda have global connections to the far right, and members of the Proud Boys have been travelling to the Ukraine to train. The steps required by the UK have been laid out in the reports by both the Center for American Progress and Chatham House, but only one senior politician has demanded Magnitsky like provisions in recent times.

    Not a nice choice though is it? Support a country like that, or allow Russia to do what it wants with it... both have second and third order consequences.

    If you believe that, then that's further reason for a Magnitsky style act that sends the message that there personal consequences for those close to power - none of whom actually seem to want to live in Russia permanently.

    Because as I said, sending arms now is of limited effectiveness (anything that could tip the balance would take time to send and the UK doesn't have much that it could send anyway).
  • Putin isn't Hitler

    Nor was Hitler in 1938. Not the way we think of him with the benefit of hindsight, anyway.
  • Putin isn't Hitler

    Nor was Hitler in 1938. Not the way we think of him with the benefit of hindsight, anyway.

    I don't think an argument that someone might 'turn into Hitler' in future is particularly clarifying and useful. Nor do I think you believe all the hyperbole that would follow.
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    X isn't Hitler is a low bar to clear, all things considered.
  • BBC website: US alleges Russia planning a fake portrayal of Ukrainian military carrying out some sort of atrocity against Russian-backed separatists in Donbas, with terrible civilian casualties. I can imagine Putin being pretty good at that sort of thing.
  • Merry Vole wrote: »
    BBC website: US alleges Russia planning a fake portrayal of Ukrainian military carrying out some sort of atrocity against Russian-backed separatists in Donbas, with terrible civilian casualties.

    They've done this already on the 14th of last month https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aVtZPRzskA. It's terrible thing to leak unless you have cast iron proof that the operation is going to go ahead and maybe even then. It's basically an invitation to every nutter who actually wants a war to try and stage a false false flag.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    X isn't Hitler is a low bar to clear, all things considered.

    After the events of the last few decades "This is Munich" should be treated with some scepticism unless evidence is forthcoming.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    X isn't Hitler is a low bar to clear, all things considered.

    After the events of the last few decades "This is Munich" should be treated with some scepticism unless evidence is forthcoming.

    Oh, sometimes it is Munich, just it's the failed putsch rather than the conference.
Sign In or Register to comment.