5 Filters

Order Out Of Chaos: How The Ukraine Conflict Is Designed To Benefit Globalists [Russia, China and America all equally bad]

It would have been (by anyone’s definition), a “just war” if Gandhi had enabled the insurrection against the British…he saw things differently and so does history…if this war is considered “just” then we’re left with either/or democracy…the dalliance of the totalitarian…no third way…no middle ground…no East European Union free of NATO’s influence (to my mind the only workable solution to the impasse). I trust the West’s propaganda less far than I can spit, nevertheless, if Putin had stayed behind the borders of the separatist regions we would not be in this position…this is two globalised elites blood letting for their own purposes…none of it is “just”… Martin Luther King jnr., Gandhi the true heroes of the twentieth century would be searching for a workable and peaceful solution…, however, both here and on TLN the debate has descended into the mire of tit-for-tat “eye for an eye” Old Testament politics…isn’t the lesson of the 20C that such is never a solution and merely perpetuates the cycle of violence?

Consider dear “Bomber Harris”, vilified by the right thinking Left (pun intended), but surely justified if one is to believe those proselytising for Putin’s version of justice…

Bomber

…and frankly guys the “no flies on us” notion re: Russian aggression just doesn’t stand up to even the most basic scrutiny….there are nuclear reactors all over the Ukraine…even those living in countries opposed to conflict would be affected if just one was badly damaged…for goodness sake… (also another reason NATO should not get involved)!

Can’t agree at all GK! Staying within the separatists regions was never even an option, as the neo-Nazi scum were dug in all along the control line, which confined the two republics to a fraction of the two provinces and excluded them entirely from Mariupol. The DNR/LNR were the rump of the Russian speaking and culture leaning populations of the East, which included Kharkiv, and would all have gone together were it not for Kiev’s constant war and pressure and Kiev’s failure to follow any of the agreed Minsk protocols.
When it comes to war also, my model is Syria, where the Gandhi option would simply mean the collapse of the government and subiugation of the people to an alien power. Syria’s war was always defensive, and still is not won - as an offensive war would long have been. Were Syria the US it would have taken the whole SE of Turkey and Lebanon and built new military bases along the whole NE Med coast.

In Ukraine also, Kiev’s intent was to launch an attack/invasion of Donetsk and then of Crimea, on behalf of their Imperial overlords. Zelensky continues to say that all of Ukraine must be united, including getting back Crimea, and presumably forbidding the speaking and use of Russian.
Last on the nuclear plants - the object of Russia from the start has been to secure the nuclear plants so that the nazi crazies couldn’t get their hands on them and cause a terrorist incident or hold people to ransom with threats. If you watched “Red Election” you will see GCHQ’s playbook for how the media has played this, even before it happened. IMO the film “Chernobyl” was a preparation for this multi-faceted psy-op.

1 Like

You’re not hearing me… he evacuated once he decided to attack…to give ground to protect ground is an ancient principle he should have employed, the same is true re: Syria…peace is no “quick -fix” it takes work and patience…is it really worth the risk of (for instance), a nuclear accident? He took the “pawn sacrifice” of Crimea and could have defiended it with at least some justification…the international community are hardly behind NATO…Minsk should have been shaken down in the U.N…both sides have allowed the real issues of self-determination to be obscured for their own purposes…Putin was willing to sacrifice his Bolsheviks!

But we need to remember it’s not just 'Putin" here. It’s Lavrov, and Nebenzia, and Shoigu, and Zakharova bless her heart - who are all capable of expounding at length on the exact nature of the conflict in Donbass and who was and is responsible for it. We can’t say what would have happened had Russia not intervened - after three months of warnings and diplomatic ultimatums that the US quite failed to respond to or register. This all came against a backdrop of months of lies and destabilisation - remember Tikhanovskaya, Kazakhstan, IS fighters trained in Al Tanf, It was an impossible choice, but one that had to be made.

2 Likes

But acting like “Bomber Harris” is not at all what the Russians are doing. Of course, one can expect the Russians to claim they’re trying to avoid civilian casualties, but Col. McGregor’s comments indicate this is true from his reading of the military campaign. Apart from that there’s clearly a self-interest (on the Russian side) not to create enemies in Ukraine on your doorstep, whether or not believe you believe Putin et al are doing so for moral reasons.

What’s also interesting is that McGregor’s comments show that the Russians are essentially speaking the truth about the conflict. There may be propaganda on both sides, but it’s heavily skewed in one direction.

As a final point, I don’t really see this `tit for tat’ attitude, either here or on TLN.

1 Like

Stepping away from armchair moral theorising at a safe distance, and sticking strictly with the real world of how realpolitik is actually done by our villainy-addicted, violent species, the real description of the situation is pretty clear:

The Putin-led ruling group in Russia tried constantly to persuade the Anglozionist-empire crew that this could all be resolved with good-faith, and give-and-take genuine diplomatic negotiation. And so it could have been. They promoted this, and pled for it repeatedly.

And we all know perfectly well that they got the runaround from a bunch of utter crooks in Washington and London, and the other Az-empire underling creatures in Brussels.

The real world conclusion is simple: Russians, up against a wall which threatened the very continuing existence of their country and their people, were faced with a set of dire bad choices, with no good choice at all available.

Ahimsic choice to bow the head and accept the destruction wouldn’t have actually happened. Putin and colleagues would have been thrown out, and other war-willing people would have taken their place. The bulk of the Russian people understand these realities, and are resolute about them.

Faced with war as the least bad of an all-bad set of choices, Putin, Shoigu, Lavrov and the rest are by far the best people to at least conduct it as briefly and with least death and destruction as they can. It’s a shit awful situation; but ALL the other (real-world) options were worse; as much for certain death and destruction on a much larger scale than is happening now, as for any other bad outcomes.

Sometimes fate lays a situation on you where there is literally no lily-white, absolutely harmless way out. This is one such. The best that those dedicated to peace and ahimsa above all can hope for now is that the Russians manage to bring off their - quite evident - plan to complete the war, disarm the Ukrainian military, clear out the massed violent, murderous criminal formations, and ensure the Ukraine’s long-term neutrality, with the absolute minimum of death and destruction created in the process.

What part of this least vile of a wholly vile set of choices is so hard to understand? When, that is, one is prepared to face up to the awfulness that the real world throws on us regularly, without any hope of dodging?

1 Like

“We can’t say what would have happened had Russia not intervened - after three months of warnings and diplomatic ultimatums that the US quite failed to respond to or register. This all came against a backdrop of months of lies and destabilisation -” We can say some things…for instance there wouldn’t be conflict above, in and around the environs of nuclear reactors…

Harry Patch

Re: “Bomber Harris” both countries/regimes were under attack from NAZIs …

My heart is with the ahimsa approach, and Gandhi was a great man, but not the naive innocent he is painted as. From the same template as Mandela. Compassion and the edge of the sword are not indivisible.

Strictly speaking Manjushri (below) uses his sword to cut through ignorance.

Two quick points:

Britain was able to decommission the Empire model of doing things because we had captured all the institutions and created a reliable strata of professionals keen to feather their nests by continuing to administer things the way they’d been taught. All that distasteful brutality could be curbed (and a fair percentage of the subalterns were sick to death of it, or actually slaughtered in WWII).

Sometimes it might be better to save evil people from karmic catastrophe by ending their earthly existence before the debt becomes overwhelming. The example here is the assassination of Langdarma by Lhalung Pelgyi Dorje.

1 Like

Because Rhis those who reach for a violent solution always, always do so before the last option for peace has been exhausted…Who has articulated the “Eastern European compromise” or the formation of an EEU? Topical now mon’ brav…

So was Martin Luther King jnr. Gandhi also said; “(tyrants) may seem invincible but they all fall eventually!” The trick is not letting the situation develop into one where one’s back is against the wall and there is no room for compromise. Harry Patch said; “war is legalised murder” but he also said; “if I had had my machine gun on me when the German bomber was flying above the street I was on machine gunning civilians I would have used it” …but he didn’t…horses for courses…the right of self-defence is fundamental… however, Putin (and the others), knew they were sticking their necks out and then they stuck them out further…don’t tell me the non-violent approach was discussed in the Kremlin the notion just isn’t credible…“weapon of last resort” means just that the very “last resort”…

As I understand it, G, from the most reliable peerers through the fog - as they seem to me - Russian forces already have all Ukraine’s nuclear plants under effective control; either actually occupying them, or watching over them continuously with air-cover, with the option to drop speznaz forces into them if any of the nazi loonies appear to be thinking of trying something on there.

To my mind, the very best guarantee that the plants will now be made safe is precisely because the Russians have taken them under control by military force.

The situation with the plants before Russia took over was simply dire, and much more likely to have led to a second Chernobyl-style catastrophe, in the hands of corrupt and chaotic Ukrainians.

An engineer manages risk Rhis…

Some more moot points; "Russia demanded the Americans withdraw those systems, and to withdraw NATO from Eastern Europe. They flatly refused. Ukraine talked of acquiring nuclear weapons and threatening Russia with them. It would take time for them to manufacture but there was nothing to stop the Americans from giving them nuclear weapons, under their control, as the Americans have done with Germany, for instance.

Russia could do nothing, keep the peace, and watch, as the weapons for its destruction were installed and made ready to fire; to commit suicide in other words, or it could defend itself. It warned the US that it would do so, and had the right to do so, the same right the Americans always claim to have, but again Russia was ignored. It had to act or face destruction and subjugation." The Legality Of War « One Voyce of the World article was first published by New Eastern Outlook, March 9, 2022

Furthermore “old-salt” I actually do believe it is equally likely some mad NAZIs will decide it is acceptable to damage a reactor as a guerrilla action…that’s not the point though is it? Without the Russians being there (as is also true of NATO’s presence on Russia’s borders), the excuse does not present itself…an engineer manages risk

an engineer manages risk I don’t get what this is supposed to convey.

At the moment, it appears a conjunction of Ukrainian and Russian engineers are managing the safety of the Ukrainian plants, under overall Russian military control. That looks like the best safety-protection practically available right now.

Someone - possibly guerrilla-style - tried to attack the Zaporozhye plant a few days ago. IAEA affirms that there were no leaks and no damage to actual plant. An ancillary building was set on fire, briefly. A lot of attempt was made by the West’s PBB to shriek it up. But it became clear quickly that it was precisely the hold of the Russian military on the whole plant which assured proper protection - as, in realworld practice - no-one else can just now.

“I don’t get what this is supposed to convey” I would have thought my meaning was abundantly clear even to those who are not engineers…the risk is too great…furthermore (even for those who are not moral philosophers), any major accident is likely not to affect only the combatant nations

Sorry G, still don’t get what you mean. These obscure allusions really screw up my grasp of what you’re driving at. It’s a simple enough matter to make sure you’re taking your reader with you. Just EXPLAIN! :wink:

Is this “obscure” too; "Here’s What You Need to Remember: The U.S. military says depleted uranium ammunition is safe, for the most part. “When fired, or after ‘cooking off’ in fires or explosions, the exposed depleted uranium rod poses an extremely low radiological threat as long as it remains outside the body,” says a U.S. Air Force fact sheet.

Russia is arming its tanks with controversial depleted uranium shells.

While depleted uranium, or DU, is extremely dense and can punch through thick tank armor, many believe that these shells release small doses of radiation, like miniature neutron bombs. The U.S. has used DU shells in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

A Russian Defense Ministry bulletin said Russian T-80BV tanks would be armed with these powerful munitions, according to Russia’s TASS news agency. The bulletin noted that “the T-80BVM (the letter M stands for ‘modernized’) features ‘the improved weapons stabilizer and the loading mechanism for the 3BM59 Svinets-1 and 3BM60 Svinets-2 munitions.’”

The Svinets-1 has a tungsten carbide core, while the Svinets-2 uses depleted uranium. according to the Below the Ring armor site, published by a pair of Dutch defense experts. A 2016 post speculated that Russia might have been producing these special rounds for several years as replacements for existing tank ammunition.

The shells “utilize an aluminum sabot with three points of contact - this is rather unique, as most other types of APFSDS sabot use only two points of contacts,” Below the Ring said. “If and how this affects accuracy and barrel wear is currently not known.”

The Svinets-2 is not the first Russian shell to use depleted uranium. The 3BM-32 Vant, designed for Soviet 125-millimeter tank cannon, also contained a DU core. But the new rounds are longer.

“Compared to the 3BM-32 Vant APFSDS with a 380-mm-long [14.7-inch] DU penetrator, the two types of new ammunition have an approximately 79 to 84 percent longer projectile, which should lead to a significant increase in penetration power,” Below the Ring estimated.

The problem is that older Russian tank ammunition has difficult piercing advanced tank armor such as that found on the U.S. M-1 Abrams or Israeli Merkava. “The 3BM-42 Mango relies on an outdated pentrator design, using two relatively short tungsten rods inside a steel body,” according to Below the Ring. “…Steel penetrates armor less efficiently than a high-density heavy metal alloy.”

Thus, the appeal of DU shells as tank killers (you can find a concise scientific explanation of depleted uranium ammunition here). There are 120-millimeter DU shells for the M-1 Abrams and 30-millimeter shell for the A-10 Warthog. Ironically, the Abrams tank uses depleted uranium in its armor plating to stop anti-tank shells.

The U.S. military says depleted uranium ammunition is safe, for the most part. “When fired, or after ‘cooking off’ in fires or explosions, the exposed depleted uranium rod poses an extremely low radiological threat as long as it remains outside the body,” says a U.S. Air Force fact sheet. “Taken into the body via metal fragments or dust-like particles, depleted uranium may pose a long-term health hazard to personnel if the amount is large. However, the amount which remains in the body depends on a number of factors, including the amount inhaled or ingested, the particle size and the ability of the particles to dissolve in body fluids.”

However, even the Veterans Administration acknowledges that depleted uranium poses health risks to soldiers, such as those who fought in Operation Desert Storm, where DU rounds were used to destroy Iraqi tanks. There are also complaints that depleted uranium contaminates the environment, such as in Iraq. The Pentagon promised that it wouldn’t use DU ammunition in Syria, though it later admitted that it fired thousands of rounds in 2015.

There are several international organizations campaigning to ban depleted uranium shells. Whether the Russian government will heed them is another matter." https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/america-russian-tanks-are-now-shooting-depleted-uranium-bullets-175219?

Nb. At least it’s not “obtuse”!

Quote; "Depleted Uranium; “Cheap War for a Cheap Whore”

Doing what so many (so-called), journalists won’t, looking the truth in the face concerning the perpetration of a hidden nuclear war": https://twitter.com/i/events/1431959459908268038

That’s the stuff, G. Perfect clarity there. I just wish you’d stick with that level, then I can follow what you’re driving at. The DU thing is seriously bad. We seem to be an incorrigible species, anywhere on Earth. Dear god!

1 Like

Btw, G: I don’t recall ever using the word ‘obtuse’, did I? Obscure, sure; I certainly find a lot of your allusions so. But I don’t think you’re obtuse. Sorry to give that impression, bro!

If you listen to the Germwarfare interview with Dimitri Orlov posted eslewhere here, Orlov says that there is no international border between Ukraine and Russia as the Ukies refused to sign the agreement reached as the USSR broke up. Hence (according to Orlov), Russia is completely within internatonal law!

1 Like

Quote; "Zelensky should resign and make way for a collaborationist government that will sue for peace on the following basis:

Recognize that Crimea is Russian territory and always has been since it was purchased by Catherine the Great in 1783;
Permit the separation of the Donbass Republics from Ukraine because the overwhelmingly Russian speaking populations there has been part of “New Russia” for more than 300 years and do not wish to be ruled by the anti-Russian fascists and oligarchs who control Kiev;
Amend the constitution of the rump state of Ukraine to prohibit its joining NATO or any similar western alliance, while reducing its military to a domestic law enforcement agency.": https://original.antiwar.com/david_stockman/2022/03/18/pearl-harbor-my-eye/

Offers the Ukraine nothing and attempts to make it a Russian vassal. Any state has a right to its own military and the world (esp. since “we” are now included in this conflict by dint of exposure to any nuclear contamination from d.u weapons and/or nuclear power stations), has the right to hear the will of the peoples’ of both Crimea and the Donbass under terms which the international community is prepared to accept. I agree that not joining NATO is a reasonable condition, NATO is a pariah and serves only to enslave its member states to the will of the State Dept. Again, though, I maintain that the formation of an East European Union is intrinsic to any solution, quote; “The Wider Europe is NATO’s Europe, Trump is simply reasserting the U.S State Dept.'s interests in the region and demonstrating the true nature of the NATO-ised agenda. I am forced to admit to a certain amount of wishful thinking on my part concerning the withdrawal of NATO from the European Theatre (and “drama” it certainly is now-a-days if not actual soap-opera), but as I am not (and never have been), in favour of the expansion of the European Union I have no interest in continued adherence to the NATO-ised narrative, Macron and Merkel are, however, hoisted by their own petard with regard to this issue as both will find that if they don’t embrace the notion of the formation of an Eastern European Union (“EEU”), the removal of the parasite that is NATO will prove very difficult indeed.
Putin’s involvement in the funding and promotion of separatist and nationalist groups is designed to weaken NATO’s power-base but an EEU would undermine this strategy and lend credence to more moderate patriots (whose voices should be heard), within the Eastern European states who do not feel that it is necessary to resort to fascism in order to protect either their cultures or ethnic identities.”" "Arafel": #PopularVote..Giving the People a Real Choice.. #Brexit #EU #Euromerta #NATO #WiderEurope #TTIP

Quote; “Russia’s behaviour (and that of the westernised arab states), which is similar to that of America with regard to foreign and domestic policy dictates that such should be the case, for just as it is not in N.A.T.O’s interest to encourage stability in the middle east it is not in Putin’s to encourage the formation of an Eastern European economic and political community (whatever did happen to ours?), Russia’s embrace of monetarist values and “laissez-faire” ensures that her foreign policy decisions are taken solely in order to maximise short term profits for a small group of people in just the same way as are those of the member states of N.A.T.O.” "Arafel": "The European "Omerta.""

To be a peacemaker one must be able to offer equitable solutions those offered by David Stockman are not, may I posit that this, “two-term Congressman from Michigan” does not truly appreciate the complexities of either european politics or those of regional/international institutions (esp. being a member of a mono-cultural society -always remembering that; “either/or democracy is the dalliance of the totalitarian”-)?

Pls. see (esp. re: #Euromerta): "Arafel": #Yugoslavia, #NATO, #Brexit, the #EuropeanUnion and the #Euromerta (a response to the dreadful neo-lib/con whitewashing of the sepulchre by #PBS: "#TheBalkansinFlames")