The Unsaid Context of the Ukraine Conflict

[ralfy]

From, of all places, the Atlantic Council.

"Zelenskyy wants Ukraine to be 'a big Israel.' Here's a road map."

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/zelenskyy-wants-ukraine-to-be-a-big-israel-heres-a-road-map/

Speaking to reporters this week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described the future he sees for his country in unusual terms: as "a big Israel."

Gone, he said, are hopes for "an absolutely liberal" state—replaced by the likely reality of armed defense forces patrolling movie theaters and supermarkets. "I'm confident that our security will be the number-one issue over the next ten years," Zelenskyy added.

Oh, the irony!

A commentary on the same matter:

"Zelensky and NATO plan to transform post-war Ukraine into 'a big Israel'"

https://thegrayzone.com/2022/09/17/zelensky-nato-ukraine-big-israel/

Zelensky made his prediction while speaking to reporters on April 5, rejecting the idea that Kiev would remain neutral in future conflicts between NATO, the European Union, and Russia. According to Zelensky, his country would never be like Switzerland (which coincidentally abandoned its Napoleon-era tradition of nonalignment by sanctioning Russia in response to its February invasion).

"We cannot talk about 'Switzerland of the future,'" the president informed reporters. "But we will definitely become a 'big Israel' with its own face."

According to Rubinstein, the imagined society is a "hyper-militarized apartheid state".

[Allhallowsday]

[indianasmith]

Dear God, NO.

[ER]

It's your thread, ralfy, write to your heart's content. 

[ralfy]

I can only do so because I know no one can counter the arguments raised in this issue.

One of the context of that issue is neoconservatism. Alan MacLeod has a meme about that here, referring to John Bolton.

https://twitter.com/AlanRMacLeod/status/1601695849180168193

Since John Bolton is floating the idea of running for president, it's important as many people as possible know how much of a genocidal ghoul he really is.

From Caitlin Johnstone,

https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1602081270103568384

Some might say these two things are at odds with each other.

NATO chief argues that a full-blown war is a real possibility, and then greenlights drone strikes inside Russia. Brilliant.

From Bree Dail, Rome correspondent for the Daily Wire:

https://twitter.com/breeadail/status/1601159933273071618

The Russians mock @JoeBiden for leaving behind a "hero, a decorated Marine" for "a black lesbian hooked on drugs".

Is this effective propaganda?

From Mick Wallace, EU Member of Parliament:

https://twitter.com/wallacemick/status/1546172011763957762

NATO is loving Ukraine War. Survey shows vast majority of #EU citizens want Peace, rather than promote a War to punish Russia - But NATO never wants Peace. With US + Russia, we now have 2 factions of Capitalist Imperialism waging War, with millions of Workers caught in middle...

which also covers my point about neoliberalism.

So, you see, there's nothing "Alex Jonesy" about these points: they've been well-known at least by those who study the matter carefully for sometime. Most are not expected to know these things, but you do now.

[ER]

Ralfy, you're coming off as a megalomaniac beating the rotting corpse of a horse that died weeks ago. You say no one can counter you (honestly I laughed when I read that) but the truth is your arguments have been successfully countered to everyone's satisfaction except your own. They come down to a point of view rather than conclusive proof, and there comes a point when self confidence begins to fray and self delusion rubs through.  In saying no one can counter you....you jumped the sharks. Yes, this is your thread and you can blather on and on with oodles of your beloved links but may I suggest maybe you ask yourself what you think you're proving, and to whom when like in the famous Newtonian anecdote, you're lecturing to an empty auditorium? Lay this dead topic to rest, it's got no pulse left, and come play in the sand.

Or don't. Sod it. Jeesh.

[Alex]

He honestly believes no one can counter his tragically naive view of the conflict and its origins? I guess I am not missing anything important by skipping his posts then.

[ralfy]

Ralfy, you're coming off as a megalomaniac beating the rotting corpse of a horse that died weeks ago. You say no one can counter you (honestly I laughed when I read that) but the truth is your arguments have been successfully countered to everyone's satisfaction except your own. They come down to a point of view rather than conclusive proof, and there comes a point when self confidence begins to fray and self delusion rubs through.  In saying no one can counter you....you jumped the sharks. Yes, this is your thread and you can blather on and on with oodles of your beloved links but may I suggest maybe you ask yourself what you think you're proving, and to whom when like in the famous Newtonian anecdote, you're lecturing to an empty auditorium? Lay this dead topic to rest, it's got no pulse left, and come play in the sand.

Or don't. Sod it. Jeesh.

Died weeks ago. You mean the war's over?

Even now you can't counter my points, which is why all you do is write about me. And then end with a self-contradictory conclusion. LOL.

Finally, I'll help you out so that we'll can remain on-topic, i.e., so that the thread won't be locked again:

In what way is this argument wrong?

"Ukraine Is the Latest Neocon Disaster"

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/07/01/ukraine-is-the-latest-neocon-disaster/

The neocons championed NATO enlargement to Ukraine even before that became official U.S. policy under President George W. Bush, Jr. in 2008. They viewed Ukraine's NATO membership as key to U.S. regional and global dominance.

...

Nuland has been the neocon operative par excellence.  In addition to serving as Bush's ambassador to NATO, Nuland was President Barack Obama's assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs during 2013-17, when she participated in the overthrow of Ukraine's pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych and now serves as Biden's undersecretary of state guiding U.S. policy vis-à-vis the war in Ukraine. 

[ralfy]

He honestly believes no one can counter his tragically naive view of the conflict and its origins? I guess I am not missing anything important by skipping his posts then.

Well, that has been the case. The only I've seen that barely resembles a counter came from you. And even then your efforts left much to be desired, as you decided to focus on Iraq, a mistaken impression of WMDs, the incredibly ridiculous belief that no false flags were ignored, what appeared to be complete ignorance of the fact that Saddam was America's boy, and some weird belief that I was referencing military experts.

But to prove my point, let me raise the same question to you as I did to ER: in what way is the recent article I shared wrong? Is it the case that the U.S. didn't start to antagonize Russia via Bush, and that Nuland and others were in no way involved in destabilization efforts after?

Keep in mind that both have been documented, with the first known since Kennan raised warnings about belligerence and the second through Nuland's phone calls to the ambassador and her subsequent responses.

Once we deal with those matters, then we'll go to the other points.

[ralfy]

As context to the claim of U.S. intervention in Ukraine, consider William Blum's master list:

"Overthrowing other people's governments: The Master List"

https://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list

It starts with China from 1949 onward and the most recent involves Ukraine in 2014, although I would also add efforts in Hong Kong and Thailand. If one considers color revolutions, then one may even add countries like the Philippines.

To the mods, keep in mind that this is on-topic because of the reference to Ukraine in 2014. The intent is to explain the neoconservative background of this event.

The asterisked entries refer to successful regime change. This also shows why Biden's recent call for regime change in Russia, which he took back for obvious reasons, is not an outlier.

[Alex]

He honestly believes no one can counter his tragically naive view of the conflict and its origins? I guess I am not missing anything important by skipping his posts then.

Well, that has been the case. The only I've seen that barely resembles a counter came from you. And even then your efforts left much to be desired, as you decided to focus on Iraq, a mistaken impression of WMDs, the incredibly ridiculous belief that no false flags were ignored, what appeared to be complete ignorance of the fact that Saddam was America's boy, and some weird belief that I was referencing military experts.

But to prove my point, let me raise the same question to you as I did to ER: in what way is the recent article I shared wrong? Is it the case that the U.S. didn't start to antagonize Russia via Bush, and that Nuland and others were in no way involved in destabilization efforts after?

Keep in mind that both have been documented, with the first known since Kennan raised warnings about belligerence and the second through Nuland's phone calls to the ambassador and her subsequent responses.

Once we deal with those matters, then we'll go to the other points.

Didn't read your post at first, but I did catch the line about me focusing on Iraq and then got caught by it. Go back and read my posts. Only person bringing that up was you and you kept going on about my not replying to anything you mentioned about it so I finally did respond, but not to any great deal. Even then, it was pretty clear you weren't understanding what I was saying. Feel free to keep talking rubbish though (and I have no doubt you will). I told you to use the right experts for the right situations. I didn't say you were using military experts, if fact I said the problem with your reply to a post was that you hadn't (kind of the opposite from what you've just claimed.

Your inability to understand, however, is not my obligation to explain.

I never said Saddam wasn't the US's boy. Hell, I even said I agreed with you. You are just continuing your regular pattern of making up things I have never said (which is a big part of why I rarely waste my time with your posts). You have literally taken a post agreeing with you, and created some whole debate that didn't happen outside of your own head. No wonder you think you are winning arguments when you are providing both sides of what you think has been said rather than what has actually been written.

Still, as I've said before self-belief, even when it is delusional is one of the keys to a happy life.

Oh, you also forgot I proved you wrong on Putin wanting to join NATO (amongst other things) despite you posting an article claiming it was all an invention of the west.

You aren't proving your points by linking articles (indeed as many people have told you, they aren't bothering to read them, myself included) but let me point something out to you.

A link isn't proof.

An article isn't proof.

An opinion isn't proof.

You have proven nothing, except that you can't get past your own confirmational bias. Since other people have complimented me on explaining my points clearly and well, I'll have to take your comment about me not doing so as being a purely 'you problem'. Sorry, but when multiple people told you that your posts weren't well done you maybe should have listened instead of just replying that they were fine.

Until the next time I accidentally catch part of one of your posts while scrolling past, cya.

[Rev. Powell]

Even now you can't counter my points, which is why all you do is write about me. And then end with a self-contradictory conclusion. LOL.

Finally, I'll help you out so that we'll can remain on-topic, i.e., so that the thread won't be locked again:

I'm not reading these either, just skimming them looking for flames and such. But I agree with you it makes no sense for people to respond to this thread with personal attacks. Since it's your thread, anyone can ignore it; you're not hijacking an existing thread.

But for clarification, Indy locked the first thread because he started it, it was not a moderator action. You can lock your own threads. I would not lock it unless something really beyond the pale happened.

[Allhallowsday]

I can only do so because I know no one can counter the arguments raised in this issue.
One of the context of that issue is neoconservatism. Alan MacLeod has a meme about that here, referring to John Bolton.
https://twitter.com/AlanRMacLeod/status/1601695849180168193
...Since John Bolton is floating the idea of running for president, it's important as many people as possible know how much of a genocidal ghoul he really is...From Caitlin Johnstone,
https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1602081270103568384
...Some might say these two things are at odds with each other...
NATO chief argues that a full-blown war is a real possibility, and then greenlights drone strikes inside Russia. Brilliant.
From Bree Dail, Rome correspondent for the Daily Wire:
https://twitter.com/breeadail/status/1601159933273071618
...The Russians mock @JoeBiden for leaving behind a "hero, a decorated Marine" for "a black lesbian hooked on drugs".
Is this effective propaganda?...From Mick Wallace, EU Member of Parliament:
https://twitter.com/wallacemick/status/1546172011763957762
...NATO is loving Ukraine War. Survey shows vast majority of #EU citizens want Peace, rather than promote a War to punish Russia - But NATO never wants Peace. With US + Russia, we now have 2 factions of Capitalist Imperialism waging War, with millions of Workers caught in middle...
which also covers my point about neoliberalism.
So, you see, there's nothing "Alex Jonesy" about these points: they've been well-known at least by those who study the matter carefully for sometime. Most are not expected to know these things, but you do now.

...Died weeks ago. You mean the war's over?

Even now you can't counter my points, which is why all you do is write about me. And then end with a self-contradictory conclusion. LOL.

Finally, I'll help you out so that we'll can remain on-topic, i.e., so that the thread won't be locked again:

In what way is this argument wrong?

"Ukraine Is the Latest Neocon Disaster"

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/07/01/ukraine-is-the-latest-neocon-disaster/

...The neocons championed NATO enlargement to Ukraine even before that became official U.S. policy under President George W. Bush, Jr. in 2008. They viewed Ukraine's NATO membership as key to U.S. regional and global dominance...

Nuland has been the neocon operative par excellence.  In addition to serving as Bush's ambassador to NATO, Nuland was President Barack Obama's assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs during 2013-17, when she participated in the overthrow of Ukraine's pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych and now serves as Biden's undersecretary of state guiding U.S. policy vis-à-vis the war in Ukraine...

[ralfy]

He honestly believes no one can counter his tragically naive view of the conflict and its origins? I guess I am not missing anything important by skipping his posts then.

Well, that has been the case. The only I've seen that barely resembles a counter came from you. And even then your efforts left much to be desired, as you decided to focus on Iraq, a mistaken impression of WMDs, the incredibly ridiculous belief that no false flags were ignored, what appeared to be complete ignorance of the fact that Saddam was America's boy, and some weird belief that I was referencing military experts.

But to prove my point, let me raise the same question to you as I did to ER: in what way is the recent article I shared wrong? Is it the case that the U.S. didn't start to antagonize Russia via Bush, and that Nuland and others were in no way involved in destabilization efforts after?

Keep in mind that both have been documented, with the first known since Kennan raised warnings about belligerence and the second through Nuland's phone calls to the ambassador and her subsequent responses.

Once we deal with those matters, then we'll go to the other points.

Didn't read your post at first, but I did catch the line about me focusing on Iraq and then got caught by it. Go back and read my posts. Only person bringing that up was you and you kept going on about my not replying to anything you mentioned about it so I finally did respond, but not to any great deal. Even then, it was pretty clear you weren't understanding what I was saying. Feel free to keep talking rubbish though (and I have no doubt you will). I told you to use the right experts for the right situations. I didn't say you were using military experts, if fact I said the problem with your reply to a post was that you hadn't (kind of the opposite from what you've just claimed.

Your inability to understand, however, is not my obligation to explain.

I never said Saddam wasn't the US's boy. Hell, I even said I agreed with you. You are just continuing your regular pattern of making up things I have never said (which is a big part of why I rarely waste my time with your posts). You have literally taken a post agreeing with you, and created some whole debate that didn't happen outside of your own head. No wonder you think you are winning arguments when you are providing both sides of what you think has been said rather than what has actually been written.

Still, as I've said before self-belief, even when it is delusional is one of the keys to a happy life.

Oh, you also forgot I proved you wrong on Putin wanting to join NATO (amongst other things) despite you posting an article claiming it was all an invention of the west.

You aren't proving your points by linking articles (indeed as many people have told you, they aren't bothering to read them, myself included) but let me point something out to you.

A link isn't proof.

An article isn't proof.

An opinion isn't proof.

You have proven nothing, except that you can't get past your own confirmational bias. Since other people have complimented me on explaining my points clearly and well, I'll have to take your comment about me not doing so as being a purely 'you problem'. Sorry, but when multiple people told you that your posts weren't well done you maybe should have listened instead of just replying that they were fine.

Until the next time I accidentally catch part of one of your posts while scrolling past, cya.

What counterargument would you like to make about the topic thread?

[ralfy]

Even now you can't counter my points, which is why all you do is write about me. And then end with a self-contradictory conclusion. LOL.

Finally, I'll help you out so that we'll can remain on-topic, i.e., so that the thread won't be locked again:

I'm not reading these either, just skimming them looking for flames and such. But I agree with you it makes no sense for people to respond to this thread with personal attacks. Since it's your thread, anyone can ignore it; you're not hijacking an existing thread.

But for clarification, Indy locked the first thread because he started it, it was not a moderator action. You can lock your own threads. I would not lock it unless something really beyond the pale happened.

What point would you like to make about the topic thread? I'm not interested in references to myself.

Also, I read that the other thread was locked because it was derailed by references to the East Asian Miracle by Lester and me.