Ukraine

Maitlis interview with Prince Andrew?

So you can interpret that two ways. Either it was a brilliant piece of investigative independent journalism holding power to account. Or it was orchestrated by the Royal establishment as a way of finally disowning a rogue member who was causing them all manner of reputational damage. A case of 'give him enough rope and he'll surely hang himself'. Do you really think Maitlis would have been allowed to do that interview, and newsnight allowed to broadcast it unless it had been approved from the very top?

I’d like to congratulate dyna-ti for achieving chewkw levels in this thread.

Did chewkw actually come out and say he admired Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian leader who slaughtered civilians with chemical weapons? I'm still trying to comprehend the mental gymnastics dyna-ti must have gone through to convince himself that the Syrian President is a guy who is in any way admirable.

"Cold it possibly be that were they to ask CNN, or Fox or any other the other channels for airtime or a show it would be anything other than refused."

I think you'll find that with regards Ukraine, Fox news are trotting out the same line as RT.

Or it was orchestrated by the Royal establishment as a way of finally disowning a rogue member who was causing them all manner of reputational damage

Oh, I'd not thought of that. I'll just grab my tin foil hat. 🙂 🙂

If that was the case, they why not remove his royal privileges at the point of the interview? They didn't. But they did when a law suit was issued. Doing so at this point was probably more embarrassing than doing it earlier. So the rationale for some self-destructive scheme falls down.

If you look for conspiracy in everything, you'll find it. But funnily enough, you'll never prove it...

WOW, just WOW

TBH thats not aggressive, and certainly not as bad as calling someone an idiot. That has been leveled at me a number of times and you’ve yet to step in.

I'm not interested in having an online argument with you, but your responses thus far have been more patronising and passive-aggressive than informative. Seriously, this doesn't help you get your point across.

So Peter John Lavelle is a paid agent of the Russian government ? Peter Lavelle, the American journalist (Ba,Ma,Phd) well versed and qualified in European Economic history

That's quite a leap - my point is that Russia's state-owned media outlets aren't trustworthy.

Let's all chill the heck out a bit please.

Here’s the thing.

😆 😆 😆

then launches another rant against everything Russia has to say

Why is it that now, even American political analysts and journalists are questioning nato's motives, why is it that European partners of nato are disagreeing with US policy and not wanting to go the route the US is wanting them to. Why is it nato's expansion eastwards is now being viewed as an aggressive move FROM WITHIN THE NATO ALLIANCE.

Even the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian people are reporting that they are getting sick to death of American and western media hysteria. THE UKRAINIANS FFS. 😯

But Thols and his others comrades are happy to ignore these voices, and label them... disruptive influence, or paid agents of the clear enemy.

Perhaps you would like to see them imprisoned Thols. Or worse. Taken off to some cia torture center for people who disagree with the regime.

Why is that 😕

but your responses thus far have been more patronising and passive-aggressive than informative.

Informative 😕

But didnt i just do that ?

Gave a link to a popular show covering politics and what was the result. Hmm interesting points of view. OR I agree with some of those points, but disagree with others.

NOT A BIT OF IT. Straight off im accused of posting Russian propaganda. That the program filled with American political commentators, journalists and analysts are playing the Russian tune.  How unbiased is that ?

To be informed, you must first agree to be informed.

One can’t say “perhaps you’d…” then ask “why is that?” Unless, one is, perhaps just firing non-sequiturs and straw men around while dancing on the head of a pin.

First show us a US paper or news channel(mainstream) saying that American influence in the Ukraine and eastern Europe is utterly wrong.

The Ukraine the US and Russia are all signatories of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurance which was largely about getting rid of bunch of ex-soviet weaponry but also asserts and protects Ukrainian independence and which Russia failed to adhere to when it invaded in 2014.

Trying to now assert that US influence in the area is "utterly wrong" when it was instrumental in getting rid of hundreds of nuclear weapons post the fall of soviet Union seems a wee bit un-historic?

Perhaps you would like to see them imprisoned Thols. Or worse. Taken off to some cia torture center for people who disagree with the regime.

Why is that

What the hell is that supposed to be? I'm adamantly against journalists being imprisoned, same goes for people who criticize their leaders. That's why I'm glad I live in a liberal democracy where it's safe to do those things, unlike Russia or Syria where they get you imprisoned or poisoned. Keep in mind, you've expressed admiration for the leaders of those two countries so the only person who has expressed any support for totalitarian policies is you.

So, how about explaining how you do the mental gymnastics to overlook the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons on civilians and come out expressing admiration for their success in the Syrian civil war?

I'm not sure anyone is ignoring other voices, not least because they continue to converse with you dyna-ti. We're well aware of the friction that the idea of NATO expansion brings but were also somewhat wedded to the idea of democracy and free and fair elections.

We can understand that Putin wants a buffer zone between NATO countries and Russia's border but we don't really know if that's what the Russian people want because any concept of free and fair elections in Russia vanished the moment Putin took up his third term.

I’ll just grab my tin foil hat.

Are you binners in disguise? It's very easy to accuse anyone you disagree with of being a bit mad. Especially if it challenges your core assumptions and beliefs - and they are beliefs, rather than objective judgements.

In the case of that interview what's more likely? That Maitlis somehow, against the will of the royal establishment and the govt, managed to get him to make an idiot of himself on television causing huge embarrassment to queen and the royal family. Or that he was sacrificed by a ruthless establishment to protect the queen, Charles and William? I'm pretty sure it was the latter.

Anyway, if you doubt the lengths the political and corporate elite will go to to influence public opinion and bend it to their will, then go have a read of Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky. It's been 20 odd years since I read it but it's the main reason I don't believe anything I see in the media. Or is Chomsky a tin-foil hatted nuttter too?

In the case of that interview what’s more likely?

He greatly overestimated how he'd perform in the interview. And how it would be received. Hubris. There's another thread for this side track. Join in there.

@dyna-ti
you still haven't answered about your support for the Syrian government using chemical weapons on civilians. (Actually, you're not allowed to use them on soldiers either, just in case you didn't realize that.) And, if you're worried press freedoms, Syria and Russia are places where journalists who criticize the government are pretty much guaranteed either jail or a horrible death. Please explain how you think those government offer anything to admire.

 How unbiased is that ?

I know some of those academics, and their work is not unbiased. I doubt they'd even want to suggest that it is, and even if agree with some of things that they've written in the past (I'm only briefly familiar with Sara Flounders from appearances on PBS Newshour). That was pretty much an echo chamber with all 4 of them agreeing with each other's perspective and insights - I think at one point one of them even starts a sentence with "I'd think you'd agree that..." to one of the other guests. I know that at least two of those academics are (by their own admission) reasonably "anti" the US foreign policies. That's not in it-self a bad thing, but it does at least support the theory that you can at least find US voices critical of US policies.

There's a reason they've been chosen/asked to go a programme aired by RT though, you' agree with that at least?

Sorry Kelvin old chap, these small snippets without any reference are confusing. Can you fill in some more detail.

Because from what you've posted it looks like your answer belongs in the Prince Andrew thread.

PS. Im only guilty of Hubris when i know im right 😉

There’s a reason they’ve been chosen/asked to go a program aired by RT though, you’ agree with that at least?

Yeah, i watched it today on freeview. you know, that mainstream tv stuff.

Should i have went to the BBC, or maybe skynews. Sure i'd hear a difference of opinion there wouldn't I.

(Not a rhetorical question 😉 )

’s very easy to accuse anyone you disagree with of being a bit mad.

Yeah, but also very easy to cast baseless aspersions at something you disagree with on the basis of some deep and unprovable conspiracy. It's all a bit QAnon etc.

I don't want to side track so will be brief. But whoever thought letting Andrew do that interview was a good idea made a huge mistake. It damaged him and the monarchy immediately, for no benefit. That's why I don't think that it being 'approved' as part of some deliberate, sinister attempt to protect the monarchy / establishment is credible, let alone provable.

I know some of those academics, and their work is not unbiased.

No academic is unbiased, but some are reasonably honest about their views. Having biases is human and isn't a problem if universities hire people with a range of viewpoints and let them engage in constructive debate. The problem is that smart people are even more susceptible to group-think than less-smart people so universities and think tanks turn into echo chambers. This affects both right-wing and left-wing viewpoints, what you get is people flocking together with like-minded people without realizing they're creating a bubble. The idea that having a Ph.D. or academic post makes someone unbiased is something that you would only believe if you'd never actually met an academic.

"Have you asked any ?. Have to looked at any media doing ‘man on the street interviews ?’"

I'd be a bit more trusting of the vote from a free and fair election that I would the random musings from a man (or woman/other) on the street.

It's that thing about democracy being the sum of the will of the people, not the will of an individual, wether stood on the street or sat at the head of a very long table in the Kremlin.

Wow, this is the most serious threat to peace in Europe in decades, and we've degenerated into playground name calling?

Have a word with yourselves

you still haven’t answered about your support for the Syrian government using chemical weapons on civilians.

Oh Syria is it now Thols.I thought we were discussing the Russia/Nato/Ukrainian thing.

Oh do try to stay on topic 🙄

Oh do try to stay on topic

You're the guy that posted on a thread about Ukraine that you admired what Russia and the Syrian government did. Now that you're asked about your support for mass-murder of civilians using chemical weapons, you suddenly decide it's not relevant. Come on, that's pathetic.

Here's the thing, if you think the Syrian or Russian Presidents have any qualities to admire, you cannot claim to support things like freedom of the press. Those two guys are a couple of the worst offenders. But you don't really seem to care as long as you can complain about how liberal democracies don't always live up to their ideals.

Let's get back on track.

As has been discussed, we know that Russia wants a buffer zone between itself and NATO. The reasons for this go further than the experiences of Russians in several invasions throughout history, Russia is trying to challenge the order in Europe and no doubt if Russia can get away with forcing regime change in Ukraine without a concerted international response then China is likely to be keenly following events for obvious reasons.

I should also point out that Russian agents were responsible for a chemical weapons attack on British soil in 2018 that had ramifications that went beyond solely targeting Sergei Skripal. As of 2019, Russia had been suspected of being involved in fourteen "suspicious" deaths in the UK..

As has been discussed, we know that Russia wants a buffer zone between itself and NATO.

Is that an unreasonable ambition? It would seem an eminently sensible idea to me but what do I know?

Is that an unreasonable ambition? It would seem an eminently sensible idea to me but what do I know?

Only sensible if you're the state that wants a buffer. It's a bit shit on the country that forms the buffer as they lose sovereignty and become nothing more than a battlefield.

So honestly, not a fair or equitable ambition. Someone is losing their state.

 we know that Russia wants a buffer zone between itself and NATO.

I would categorize it as Putin, and his supporting cast of billionaire oligarchs fear that the population of Russia will be lass favourable to them if they are able to watch countries on their own borders transition from ex-soviet satellites to more democratic countries - as can be seen from the examples of; Unified Germany Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania  Hungary, Bulgaria, Estonia Latvia, and Lithuania and also from the examples and experience of the ones that remain in that sphere of influence. Belarus, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan etc.

I think that Putin would like most if not all those first group to be very much like the second group.

Is that an unreasonable ambition? It would seem an eminently sensible idea to me but what do I know?

The citizens of Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, etc all have some say in that matter too and might not want to be under the sphere of influence of a rogue state, the type of country that sanctions the killing of British citizens on our own soil.

The citizens of Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, etc all have some say in that matter too

But did they. Or was it all at a governmental level, and the people weren't consulted in the slightest. Much like the Ukrainians and the other former Soviet countries. I cant remember hearing of any referendums.

Ok. I got a mod warning for the colouring book comment, so i apologize if that was a bit strong. Though i also feel being called names is also quite insulting so i hope those individuals did too.

As such, and before i lose it with anyone I'll let you continue arguing amongst yourselves. I've other fish to fry.

Bye ladies. Hope you sort out your differences and maybe allow others to have their say or opinion without being insulted for it.

Is that an unreasonable ambition?

Depends entirely on how you go about influencing those countries doesn't it? It seems to me that lining up a good percentage of your armed forces along the border of a country you already said you think should be a part of Russia, and bits of which you invaded in 2014 breaking a treaty you signed with that country could be interpreted badly by that country?

What do I know, eh?

we know that Russia wants a buffer zone between itself and NATO.

That's the problem. Putin sees Ukraine as a buffer zone without any right of self-determination. Ukraine sees itself as a sovereign country with the right to join whatever international organizations it chooses. When Ukraine tried to exercise its sovereignty, Russia invaded Crimea and eastern Ukraine. This is about the sovereignty of Ukraine, Russia refuses to acknowledge that. Hard to see any validity in Russia's viewpoint on that issue.

i hope those individuals did too.

Nope, I think you're the only one. Maybe you need to think about your behavior.

But did they. Or was it all at a governmental level, and the people weren’t consulted in the slightest.

A cursory read of recent Ukrainian political history should help answer that for you - 2004 saw the the EU friendly recently elected president of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko mysteriously fall sick with dioxin poisoning. Moreover the the Euromaiden protests of 2013/14 over Viktor Yanukovych's refusal to sign a trade treaty with the EU led to the latter's ousting and his subsequent exile in Russia.

I at no point said I admired what happened in Syria or Russia, or anywhere for that matter. So please go back and give me a direct quote where i have said such,

Here you go. Apparently bombing civilians with chemical weapons is the hallmark of effective leaders. All those poor Syrian children gasping for their last breaths as they drowned on their own blood just didn't appreciate that they should have been grateful for the big win. Honestly dude, your admiration for murderous tyrants is pathetic.

dyna-ti
Free Member
authoritarian oligarch despot that he is

Not ever being one to stir the pot…ahem.

Who do we have to confirm such a charge ? The British government, the US state department, the tabloids both US and UK.

It’s pretty much the same rhetoric placed against every country’s leader we dont like.

Sure we could point out that they assassinate people, but so does Israel, and we know for a fact the US does too.

Putin appears too be a far more capable leader than either Biden or Johnson, and in Russian culture it is all about strength, which for a country of that size you’re pretty much going to need.

Oligarchs formed under Gorbachev and continued under Yeltsin, and until Putin came on the scene paid little to no tax(sound familiar 😆 ) Putin made them pay, he also did a lot for the Russian economy, increased their GDP, raised living standards, and cut poverty figures in half.

Meanwhile under the Tory party here in the UK poverty has increased exponentially.

dyna-ti
Free Member
I’ve expanded on that Binners. Russia won the war against the gradual destruction of Syria are the behest of US funded terrorist groups. Without Russian intervention Syria would be the wasteland the US wanted.

in a few short years Russia took back what was lost.

It may be continuing, but nothing like before and Syria has a chance to recover and finally win.

As has been discussed, we know that Russia wants aRussian controlled buffer zone between itself and NATO

FIFY

Don’t feed the troll 🤷‍♂️

Again this is your take on it. Being an observer to the events to you is simply not a matter of being an observer, but one who must have a positive opinion and agree with the situation. I suspect you thik like this because thats how you would look at any situation.

But we could also say that your lack of condemnation to the events of the past 20 odd years mean you agree with the actions taken by the western powers.

Iraq, Syria,Afghanistan and Libya. I should think given your outlook on these matters and clear lack of condemnation that you agree and admire their actions.

That sound fair.That you admire the western powers that killed some million and a half civilians. Clearly if my observation of the actions taken by Russia in Syria, is admiration for them, then you admire the actions of the western leadership and what they did.

I said as this is a thread on Ukraine, that I accept the reasons that Russia is concerned about its security, and from the off you say im not condemning it but are infact agreeing with those actions taken by Russia, and furthermore went on to accuse me of siding with them.

You've then across the entire thread cherry picked every action Russia has been involved in seeking my opinion of it, and anything i say you happily twist seeking to be argumentative.

this is about Russia,NATO and the Ukraine. Not about me. But possibly you feel if you can demonize me, then that means Russia is wrong, as nobody in your view should challenge the narrative being offered.

You also denies that the history of the United States and all the wars they have started, all the dictators they have trained and installed, the corruption they have funded happened at all.

Every turn, we have to look to the past to learn from history. And history has shown us A. America is an imperial military regime, bent on world domination, and B. Are using NATO to cement their power in Europe or anywhere else they want to scare.

Even western media is now accepting NATO has been aggressively expanding eastward. But you Thols are screaming thats not true and only you know the true nature of things. Honestly thols, i was right in my assessment that you are utterly obsessed with this crisis to the point it is clouding your mind and closing it off.. Dahz was also correct in his assessment. Though maybe not as accusatory as myself, but still facing derision and insults from yourself.

Counter questions, the straw man argument being use by yourself, but ever directed against someone who refuses to blindly accept your position.

No other media is available for you to watch, because you instantly dismiss it as Russian propaganda. These peoples voices, their clearly to your point of view, lies, working for the Russia government.

I'll bet you didnt even view the cross talk link, and the reason was only because it was on Rt. But i feel were it on a sit of its own, you would still dismiss it.

America has nuclear weapons in Europe under their control.

I remember one of the US generals was asked if he felt it would ever be warranted to use their nuclear arsenal against Europe. He refused to answer.

You have strongly denied that Russia actions are justified by Russia, when clearly that is Russia observation of their own security that they feel that is at stake. You are clearly denying they have reason to be concerned so much so it is unfathomable to say how you would know more about their concerns than Russia itself.

I feel sorry for you thols, really i do.

You expressed admiration for what Russia and the Syrian government did in Syria, you called it a "win". Then you denied that you admired them. Now you're throwing out rationalizations. You're an admirer of and apologist for murderous tyrants. Pathetic.

Don’t feed the troll 🤷‍♂️

In this instance the troll will just keep posting with the objective of distraction, obstruction and confusion.

Anything but discuss the aggressive Russian moves to intimidate their neighbors into submission, or depending on how you think this will go, use violence to force them.

I’d actually prefer Thols kept posting as a counter to deliberate attempts to muddy discussion about Russian intervention in Ukraine.

rationalizations

Somebody has to be rational here, Im autistic, rational is something I do. I have no dog in this. I feel nothing for anyone. I observe and report. But im then fighting against the likes of your interpretation of how i must therefore feel on any given situation, and no matter what rational i use to describe, or to show throughout that there's two sides to every story, im constantly met with a single sided opinion.

This is why you keep chopping and changing. whats my opinion of Syria, whats my opinion of this action or that action, but clearly ignoring any of the circumstances surrounding any of those actions.

I know i am guilty of deriving a little sarcastic pleasure froom constantly countering , but were you to accept both sides, that wouldn't be necessary.

'Win'. this is an assumption thols. You are assuming because ive used the word 'win' my emotions are positive. What else are we suppose to call it. A success ??m that would instantly imply positivity for the action, but 'win' is emotionally neutral.

Can you see now how your mind is biased 😕 you only see and believe what you want to see and believe.

Tell me I'm not the only one that's noticed the thread has now become a metaphor* for the standoff on Ukraine's borders? Not exact and done in miniature obviously but it's there.

*Or simile, I can never remember.

Perhaps there also needs to be de-escalation within the thread. Hell, if that can't even be attained on a niche biking forum we are well and truly buggered out there in the real world.

"Winning the argument" is a bit destructive on here and between countries it seems to me.

(Love you all, you argumentative sods.)

dyna-ti, let's call it a truce. Here's a peace offering for you:

Can we please, please possibly stay on topic and remain objective?

Sure thing.

Can we please, please possibly stay on topic and remain objective?

Troll of the century 😆

Can we please, please possibly stay on topic and remain objective?

Ok, if we have to.

https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1494644936477708357

Mass evacuation from the occupied region into Russia has been announced. Just trying to find an English speaking source…