Has the West had anything that could really be called ‘policy’ towards Russia post the Cold War?
well at the moment our elected representatives aren’t even talking about it just in case the opposition embarrass the PM by attempting to make him tell the truth.
Other than to indulge in a feeding frenzy in the immediate aftermath, pay them trillions for energy supply and invite Russian dirty money and influence into our sporting and government institutions?k
Well that's three policies to start off with. How many do you need?
thols2
Free Member
The reality is that Russia is extremely weak.
I think this 2nd phase will tell us how weak Russia really is. For me the evidence is inconclusive at the minute.
If you’re a realist, you would recognize that reality and understand that sending weapons to Ukraine so they can defeat Russia faster is the sensible policy.
Perhaps, but we'll see what kinda ability they've been given as this 2nd phase plays out, have they been given enough to defeat Russia, or just enough to keep them at bay and bleed Russia long term militarily?
Russia will spend the next 50 years complaining about how unfair the world is, but they know that NATO would utterly destroy them so they aren’t going to do anything about it.
Russia being cornered and desperate isn't a good thing, it really isn't. I get that you and the twitterati are gleefully convinced of Russian ineptitude, but the more desperate they get the more likely they are just to go F you and nuke something. And we'll see how strong NATO is after that.
We need some kinda plan to bring Russia back into the fold after this, it's difficult to see how that happens mind, but the North Korea-sation of Russia really isn't a good prospect. It's not likely to be conducive to better leadership than Putin.
This is interesting for information.
From Yale University.
"Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin"
Russia being cornered and desperate isn’t a good thing, it really isn’t. I get that you and the twitterati are gleefully convinced of Russian ineptitude, but the more desperate they get the more likely they are just to go F you and nuke something.
I agree with this – I have little doubt Putin would be happy to escalate if it really doesn't go to plan.
What’s your take on Vladimir Pozner’s objectivity Chewkw?
It would be helpful if you would give more of a synopsis to the videos that you post, rather than simply saying “this is interesting”.
I have little doubt Putin would be happy to escalate if it really doesn’t go to plan.
In the 80 years or so since nuclear weapons were deployed last, no one has ever suggested their use in a "normal conflict". Doesn't saying this just also pander to another Twitterati notion that Putin is un-hinged and ultimately a bit mad?
We need some kinda plan to bring Russia back into the fold after this,
In theory this is great
but appeasement has failed utterly so far, Im not sure what happens next, but assuming Russia can be trusted is a big gamble
Perhaps, but we’ll see what kinda ability they’ve been given as this 2nd phase plays out, have they been given enough to defeat Russia, or just enough to keep them at bay and bleed Russia long term militarily?
Ukranians certainly had enough to defeat the attack on Kyiv and not just the weapons, their capabilities and willingness to fight have been a huge asset, even against the (apparently) elite VDV units as well as conscripts that were killed in their 1000s there.
Im not sure that the poorly equipped conscripts Russia is throwing into the front lines of Donbass will stand up much better.
We need some kinda plan to bring Russia back into the fold after this, it’s difficult to see how that happens mind
Yup. I don't think that we're ever going to be able to expect Putin to honour international agreements or that he can be taken at his word. Appeasement so far hasn't worked, it's why we're where we are with Ukraine.
The North Korea-sation of Russia really isn’t a good prospect. It’s not likely to be conducive to better leadership than Putin.
Agreed, but we are where we are. Putin clearly isn't going to play by the cost post-cold war rules that we hoped he'd abide by.
Ukranians certainly had enough to defeat the attack on Kyiv and not just the weapons, their capabilities and willingness to fight have been a huge asset, even against the (apparently) elite VDV units as well as conscripts that were killed in their 1000s there.
They had enough to defend Kyiv, which is a different prospect from going on the offensive and pushing Russia out of Ukraine.
Defensive warfare is good, great that they've been given it. But to end this war on a quicker timescale more offensive weapons and strategy are needed. The question there is have they been given then? I dunno, this 2nd phase will tell us.
Ultimately Ukraine is at the mercy of Russian belligerence and US policy here isn't it... They really are in a bad position.
What’s your take on Vladimir Pozner’s objectivity Chewkw?
It would be helpful if you would give more of a synopsis to the videos that you post, rather than simply saying “this is interesting”.
Objectivity? The information provided is by one single person's opinion.
My objective is simple don't escalate the war as it is not as simple as a case of "goodies vs baddies".
The video is there for all to see/listen so check it out rather than relying on my "interpretation", which may put words into others. How does critical thinking work?
My objective is simple don’t escalate the war as it is not as simple as a case of “goodies vs baddies”.
Why dont you try answering the question you was asked.
Doesn’t saying this just also pander to another Twitterati notion that Putin is un-hinged and ultimately a bit mad?
I don't really do Twitter but I have formed my own opinion that he might just be that.
Why dont you try answering the question you was asked.
I don't understand what you are trying to say but I shall try to answer.
My bottom line is that both sides have nukes and it is no good simply trying to escalate the war. Rather it would be better to not add fuel to fire, that's because Russia is No walk over.
piemonster
So I googled Ponzer and found this interview
Prior to the invasion was peddling the line “Russia wont invade”
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/15/1080884892/the-mood-in-russia-over-ukraine-tensions
If only we can predict the future outcome ...
How does critical thinking work?
Seemingly not that well
Not well if a stance is taken.
Further reading, is he still a current show host on Russian state media?
Objectivity? The information provided is by one single person’s opinion.
Chewkw, are you seriously struggling to understand what objectivity means?
I mean no insult or offence when I say that MrsPJM lectures in this sort of thing in her day job, she has international undergrad students who answer questions like this without a struggle - indeed most A Level media studies students can answer this without difficulty.
The video is there for all to see/listen so check it out rather than relying on my “interpretation”, which may put words into others. How does critical thinking work?
I’m afraid that if you are going to post something without context to make a point then you really need to explain what that point is. That’s basic forum manners.
Further reading, is he still a current show host on Russian state media?
This. We know that Russian state media is intolerant of dissent, so how objective is Pozner?
Ultimately Ukraine is at the mercy of Russian belligerence and US policy here isn’t it… They really are in a bad position.
Youre ascribing no agency to Ukraine?
Id say that the Russian military is at the mercy of Ukraines ability and will to fight
The Neptune missiles that appear to have sunk the Moskva were designed, built and tested in Ukraine, they could be game changing for the the Navyless Ukranians
no one has ever suggested their use in a “normal conflict”
Their use was considered in the Korean War see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_blackmail and some say that the Davy Crocketts were deployed in Vietnam but obviously not actually used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
At one point the Americans considered deploying units with the Davy Crockett devices in West Germany in order to provide a deterrent that could use less manpower than conventional fighting units.
But to end this war on a quicker timescale more offensive weapons and strategy are needed.
Russia isn't going to pull out without being pushed out. Ukraine can't do this on their own, supplies of ground based kit will not be enough. No other country is going to join them in the war... on the ground, in the air, or at sea. So expect this to be an endless war 'till Putin is no longer in power. There may be more quiet spells, where Russia isn't advancing or bombing, but they will be temporary. All very depressing. And without Russian cooperation, unavoidable.
kimbers
Full MemberYoure ascribing no agency to Ukraine?
Id say that the Russian military is at the mercy of Ukraines ability and will to fight
The Neptune missiles that appear to have sunk the Moskva were designed, built and tested in Ukraine, they could be game changing for the the Navyless Ukranians
Ukrainian ability to fight is determined by the supplies they get. They are at the mercy of external strategic thinking. Whether that's completely instep with Ukrainian thinking or not is still to be determined.
Chewkw, are you seriously struggling to understand what objectivity means?
In my view most on this forum cannot be truly objective regarding the Ukraine/Russia war judging from all the posts. My view for posting "alternative viewpoints/perspectives" whatever may sound like Putin apologies but if one takes note from the beginning of my posting, one will realise that what I have been saying all this time is Putin/Russia is no walk over. Granted I have my own views on the matter but it is by no means a case of goodies vs baddies. What I sense is the determination of "double down" which in my view will only lead to escalation.
I mean no insult or offence ...
No offence taken (none whatsoever from everyone good or bad and I prefer it that way) and it is a good reminder that we learn throughout our life. No one is perfect.
This. We know that Russian state media is intolerant of dissent, so how objective is Pozner?
Listen to what he said from the man himself. However, whether you trust the person is entirely a different matter.
Good article written by Henry Kissinger in 2014!
To settle the Ukraine crisis, start at the end (The Washington Post, March 5, 2014). By Henry A. Kissinger, US secretary of state 1973-77.
Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins. Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them. Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States. The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian soil. The Black Sea Fleet — Russia’s means of projecting power in the Mediterranean — is based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia. The European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities. The Ukrainians are the decisive element. They live in a country with a complex history and a polyglot composition. The Western part was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939 , when Stalin and Hitler divided up the spoils. Crimea, 60 percent of whose population is Russian , became part of Ukraine only in 1954 , when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by birth, awarded it as part of the 300th-year celebration of a Russian agreement with the Cossacks. The west is largely Catholic; the east largely Russian Orthodox. The west speaks Ukrainian; the east speaks mostly Russian. Any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other — as has been the pattern — would lead eventually to civil war or break up. To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system. Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years; it had previously been under some kind of foreign rule since the 14th century. Not surprisingly, its leaders have not learned the art of compromise, even less of historical perspective. The politics of post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrates that the root of the problem lies in efforts by Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on recalcitrant parts of the country, first by one faction, then by the other. That is the essence of the conflict between Viktor Yanukovych and his principal political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko. They represent the two wings of Ukraine and have not been willing to share power. A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction. Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one. Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers. Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides: 1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe. 2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up. 3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia. 4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol. These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough.
"What’s your take on Vladimir Pozner’s objectivity Chewkw?"
I'll jump in on this one. I saw that Vladimir Pozner piece a while back and was tempted to post the video on here when the war kicked off but didn't want to deal with the accusations of being a Russia apologist by the experts on here. It's from a few years ago, objectivity isn't the issue here, he is simply giving a view as an American who went to work in Russian Media after the Cold War.
It is very, very interesting, amongst other things it offers insights into the erossion of independence in American Media as corporations have taken over independent outlets.
He doesn't make excuses for Russia, rather he points out a lot of mistakes and miscalculations that the West has made regarding Putin over the last two decades. I learned a lot from watching it, almost as much as I've learned on here!
If you notice, the video was produced at Yale university, it's not some random Twitter nonsense. One thing that struck me when I watched it was the intelligence of the questions posed by the audience.
When I first saw it I saw it as a warning that was going unheeded rather than Russian propaganda.
The Pozner vid is interesting, worth a watch, seen it a while back myself and would agree with inkster.
1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe. 2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up. 3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people.
surely 1 contradicts 2?
Kissingers article surely comes down as once again someone else dictating what Ukraine should do
Good article written by Henry Kissinger in 2014!
The US administration dismissed Kissinger's views hence his "warning" was never considered.
If you notice, the video was produced at Yale university, it’s not some random Twitter nonsense.
Twitter takes precedent nowadays and probably learning from Twitter is much "better" than someone presented at Yale University.
Ukrainian ability to fight is determined by the supplies they get. They are at the mercy of external strategic thinking.
and right now (short of fighter jets) Ukraine is getting enough to win the war
Im way more optimistic about their ability to do what they did around Kyiv than I was 2 months ago, (without jets) Russias army is more weak & corrupt than most people imagined
I can't disagree with you there Kimbers, but there is no solution to this in which all parties get everything they want. I agree with his notion that "balanced dissatisfaction" is the best hope here.
From that Kissinger article;
"For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one"
Pretty much what I was saying on here earlier today..
A good history lesson from Kissinger there. But it still boils down to Putin wanting to look strong and "regain" territory that isn't currently part of RF via force. If the only way to avoid that is for other countries to voluntarily cut themselves off from the rest of the world, elect only leaders he approves of, and do everything his way... then it's probably unavoidable in the long run, depressingly. At least 'till he, and his influence, is gone. That could take generations.
Actually a couple of decent responses there
kimbers
Full Member
Ukrainian ability to fight is determined by the supplies they get. They are at the mercy of external strategic thinking.and right now (short of fighter jets) Ukraine is getting enough to win the war
Over what timeframe though? I think ultimately it'll head towards a long long stalemate, basically the last 8 years on steroids, over a larger territory.
I'm not sure that's a win for either side.
Spoiler alert - I did see that the video was produced at Yale, but FWIW my attitude is thus:
1) If someone posts a video and simply says “watch this” then it’s poor forum manners and at worst a waste of time. I want to know why I should watch something.
2) Who and I watching? What is their subject matter experience? How do I test whether they’re a trustworthy source? Who is publishing the video?
My time is finite, I have a demanding day job and no disrespect to Chewkw but his previous videos and a large proportion of his forum posts have failed the above tests. If he can’t explain his point beyond “watch this” then I’m going to treat his (or indeed anyone’s) posts with due skepticism.
My view for posting “alternative viewpoints/perspectives” whatever may sound like Putin apologies but if one takes note from the beginning of my posting, one will realise that what I have been saying all this time is Putin/Russia is no walk over.
I get that there are “alternative viewpoints”, but flooding the forum with all kinds of odd takes with no context only serves to aggravate people, especially when it becomes evident that you’re posting them just to provoke a reaction.
We know that Russia isn’t going to be a cakewalk, but constantly repeating yourself isn’t going to change the situation one iota. It will however trigger the sort of negative responses to your posts that we’ve seen since, well forever.
It’s one thing to say “I’m not a Putin apologist” and then to post two videos from noted and known RT sources, I don’t truly know if you post this stuff because you’re not equipped to critically appraise what you’re attempting to say, or whether you’re doing it for shits & giggles, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt for now.
aye chewkw, make sure you give it a 280 character intro next time. 😆
Has anyone actually checked those people posting on Twitter? What credibility do they have etc? Is Twitter a reliable source of information?
.... or whether you’re doing it for shits & giggles, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt.
No, this is not a thread for " ... shits & giggles ..." (shits about the war yes, giggles no). It is surprised such an assumption can be made from a "critical" perspective. Nevertheless, the current mainstream media is rather one sided (objectivity? Can or can't they?)
aye chewkw, make sure you give it a 280 character intro next time. 😆
Aye, I need to go back to school to learn to write an essay but then someone may complain that I might be writing garbage because it is not aligned with their views. 😆
I’ll jump in on this one. I saw that Vladimir Pozner piece a while back and was tempted to post the video on here when the war kicked off but didn’t want to deal with the accusations of being a Russia apologist by the experts on here. It’s from a few years ago, objectivity isn’t the issue here, he is simply giving a view as an American who went to work in Russian Media after the Cold War.
It is very, very interesting, amongst other things it offers insights into the erossion of independence in American Media as corporations have taken over independent outlets.
He doesn’t make excuses for Russia, rather he points out a lot of mistakes and miscalculations that the West has made regarding Putin over the last two decades. I learned a lot from watching it, almost as much as I’ve learned on here!
If you notice, the video was produced at Yale university, it’s not some random Twitter nonsense. One thing that struck me when I watched it was the intelligence of the questions posed by the audience.
When I first saw it I saw it as a warning that was going unheeded rather than Russian propaganda.
He worked for the KGB as a propagandist and was one of the most famous apologists (in the West at least) for the Soviet Union. An articulate man with a pretty interesting life story but it is pretty disingenuous to portray him as an American who went to work in Russia after the Cold War!
I think this 2nd phase will tell us how weak Russia really is. For me the evidence is inconclusive at the minute.
I agree.
The Russian army is not as big and all conquering as thought before - but it's still big, has huge numbers of shells, bullets and missiles, and has no qualms sending soldiers into the fight.
It's a dangerous army still.
And I'm not sure how much better the Ukrainian fighters are - possibly low on all sorts of resources and energy after a long battle, although still clearly fighting for thier lives.
Do you have some sources for that Omar?
PJM1974,
There is no contradiction in saying one is not a Putin apologist but posting information that is nevertheless relevant, never mind the original source.
None of us will agree on every single issue but if we take this thread in isolation, Chewkw's posts have been constructive, informative, and if you go back to the beginning of this thread you will find that they have been more accurate than most.
I'm not saying he's right, but perhaps on this issue he has been the least wrong.
OmarLittle
Free MemberHe worked for the KGB as a propagandist
Fair enough to point that out.
Interviewer: Vladimir, can you tell me about your first job when you found out you were editing dis-information stories for the third world?
Vladimir Pozner: When I started working at Novosty Press agency I worked in a department that was called the Department of Political Publications. It was my first job as quote, unquote a journalist. I was given articles to edit, articles written in Russian, addressed to readers as I recall, some in Latin American, some in Indian. Frankly I found it rather boring. I thought -- it's my first -- so I edited that and I really never knew where that was published and, I didn't really think about it. These were pretty straightforward articles of a political nature. Until the day came when I left that department, I wasn't really interested in doing that work at that point. I worked there for about two and a half years. I was offered a job in a magazine which I was much more interested in doing. About three weeks after I'd left that place I got a notice from the military recruitment center of the region where I lived, there's one in each part of Moscow. They called me out, so I went there to find out what that was about, and they were re-registering me. The lady who was there asked me if I'd worked for the KGB. I said, "Of course not." And she said, "What are you getting so flustered about?" I said, "Well because why would you ask me that?" She said, "Because your military dossier was sent to us by the KGB." It was only then that I realized that this department was actually a KGB department. That was part of the Novosty Press I knew nothing about that. Maybe some of the people working in that department did know, but I was quite young and quite naïve, and that's when I began to understand that I'd been working in a department that produced dis-information. Later on I asked a few questions and it turned out to be true. I'd just like to make a point here that dis-information was not a specifically Soviet trait. I mean this was being done all over the world by, I think, just about every country that could do it. Inserting articles that were then signed by local journalists who were ready to put their name to these articles. Which obviously then played a role in the local political struggles going on I guess.
https://www.pbs.org/redfiles/prop/deep/interv/p_int_vladimir_pozner.htm
From Wikipedia on Vladimir Pozner. He seems to me to be out of the same mould as every source Chewkh quotes. If you repeatedly hold up the views of such people as "interesting", without being honest about their true allegiances and motivations, we have the right to question yours.
Pozner was a charismatic and articulate apologist for some of the Soviet Union's most controversial foreign and domestic policy decisions
he became a chief commentator and host of the propaganda radio program the Voice of Moscow
he nevertheless rationalized, among other events, the arrest and exiling of Andrei Sakharov, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the shooting down of Korean Air Lines Flight 007
Later, he wrote that some of the positions he had taken were wrong and immoral
In a 2005 interview with NPR's On the Media, Pozner spoke openly about his role as a Soviet spokesman, stating bluntly, "What I was doing was propaganda".
Twitter is actually pretty useful - certain individuals have verified status and the information in the bio is a helpful pointer. It’s not foolproof - the trend for the feeble-minded to conflate the 1990s terrible pop duo Right Said Fred with useful epidemiologist advice is a case in point, but asking questions like who are they? Are they qualified? Why would they be flooding twitter with a load of old crap? can be a useful idiot-filter.
It is surprised such an assumption can be made from a “critical” perspective.
Please, at least try to understand what’s meant by objectivity and subjectivity.
Nevertheless, the current mainstream media is rather one sided (objectivity? Can or can’t they?)
I’m not sure what the point of this is, do I trust a non-MSM source because they’re just that? Here’s a fantastic example of having a non-MSM source make a complete tit of themselves. James Delingpole had been grifting on Breitbart for years, thanks to people who wanted an “alternative” take. In any sane society, this clip should’ve marked the end of his career in journalism.
"but it is pretty disingenuous to portray him as an American who went to work in Russia after the Cold War!"
Did you watch the video? Perhaps you think Yale University should have 'cancelled' him. Had they done that then I for one would be less well informed.
The fact that he may have worked for the KGB (duped or otherwise) doesn't make what he had to say any less interesting. In fact it might have even made what he had to say more interesting.
Yale University certainly seemed to think so.
There’s a generally used estimate that an invading force needs to be 3x bigger than a defending force, or in case of what we’ve seen from Russia, probably 4-5x given their dependence on conscripts and the evidence so far. Plus, you can anticipate greater numbers of heavy weapons in Ukraine from the West whilst Russian supplies get stretched, particularly as they lack air superiority.
Also throw into the mix the increased ‘military advice’ and intelligence from the west as many will see this as an opportunity to potentially force regime change in Russia - as much in their interest to keep some skeletons firmly in cupboards.
