A Peace Settlement to the Ukraine War

[urbanoid]

Just now, bojan said:

  

In Poland.

I have heard about whole spectrum, ranging from highly pro Ukrainian, "nahuyism" of various degree to full pro-Russian. Ofc, it is way easier to voice, without consequences pro-Russian opinion in Serbia than it is in Poland.

 

It's also far less likely for the pro-Russian ones to stay in Poland in the first place.

[bojan]

3 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

It's also far less likely for the pro-Russian ones to stay in Poland in the first place.

There you go.

[ink]

9 hours ago, urbanoid said:

I think that might be a hyperbole

You could be right. However, I do think "Ukrainian opinion" (if such a thing can even be said to exist) spans a very broad spectrum... And probably even within one town or even group of friends or family.

 

[urbanoid]

2 minutes ago, ink said:

You could be right. However, I do think "Ukrainian opinion" (if such a thing can even be said to exist) spans a very broad spectrum... And probably even within one town or even group of friends or family.

 

It's possible. I remember from uni times when one of the professors studying minorities in Poland said that even the feelings of national identity can differ not just village to village, house to house, but at the same family table. He was somewehere in Podlasie in northeastern Poland, the family invited him and he started asking questions. Father said they're Belarusians, son said their roots are actually from Ukraine and the daughter screamed at them to fuck off and that as far she's concerned she's Polish. 

[Pavel Novak]

20 hours ago, sunday said:

Different administration, different documentation.

A frenchmen in 1942 occupied France was not a lesser French for having German papers.

It seems to me, frankly, that this is the typical "make a mountain out of a molehill" every propaganda apparatus could use when necessary, especially when they have little to do.

Occupation policies in ww2 were incomparable between areas west of Germany to areas east of Germany.

I am really surprised how can anybody think about occupation and annexation in war in same levels as car technical inspection. Really I would rather expect this from ultra-pro-woke bullshit.

[sunday]

11 hours ago, urbanoid said:

It's possible. I remember from uni times when one of the professors studying minorities in Poland said that even the feelings of national identity can differ not just village to village, house to house, but at the same family table. He was somewehere in Podlasie in northeastern Poland, the family invited him and he started asking questions. Father said they're Belarusians, son said their roots are actually from Ukraine and the daughter screamed at them to fuck off and that as far she's concerned she's Polish. 

😄

I am sorry, but that was funny. At least there was no family member that felt Eastern Prussian...

[bojan]

Very common thing, told before about relatives in Montenegro where you have parents and two children declaring as 4 nationalities.

 

[ink]

18 hours ago, urbanoid said:

It's possible. I remember from uni times when one of the professors studying minorities in Poland said that even the feelings of national identity can differ not just village to village, house to house, but at the same family table. He was somewehere in Podlasie in northeastern Poland, the family invited him and he started asking questions. Father said they're Belarusians, son said their roots are actually from Ukraine and the daughter screamed at them to fuck off and that as far she's concerned she's Polish. 

This is a cool and funny story but also very familiar somehow. However one might try to package it at any given moment in history, Eastern Europe is patchwork of identities. That seems unlikely to change anytime soon.

[Mike1158]

You only need to examine civil war in the UK and USA to know that politics split the family as well as the community, with more ?information? available it will be even more present.  Generational and friendship groups too.

 

Edited August 19 by Mike1158

[Strannik]

A rare objective article in Guardian  (because Lieven)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/30/ukraine-war-vladimir-putin-prigozhin-russia

... The general elite aversion to pursuing total victory in Ukraine is however not the same thing as a willingness to accept Russian defeat – which is all that the Ukrainian and US governments are presently offering. Nobody with whom I have spoken within the Moscow elite, and very few indeed in the wider population, has said that Russia should surrender Crimea and the eastern Donbas. Unless Russian sovereignty over these territories is formally recognised by Ukraine – something that Kyiv has categorically excluded – the Russians who take this view believe that Russia must hold the additional territory it has taken since last year’s invasion, to head off any future Ukrainian attack on Crimea and the Donbas.

There was no evidence the Russian elite, and indeed regular Russians, wanted the invasion to happen in the first place. That decision was made by Putin and his immediate entourage. But there is still a general unwillingness to see Russia defeated and humiliated in Ukraine. A comparison can be made here with certain US soldiers of my acquaintance, who had not wanted the invasion of Iraq, but who also, once the US military was engaged there, did not want to see it beaten.

This causes a severe dilemma for Russian liberals: how to oppose the war without supporting the Ukrainian side in a war in which Russian soldiers are dying and that threatens Russia with catastrophic defeat. It recalls an interview with John Musgrave, a wounded Vietnam veteran who had become a passionate opponent of the war, but who nonetheless reacted with shock and fury when Jane Fonda travelled to North Vietnam and was photographed with Viet Cong soldiers. Many Russian liberals in the west have essentially taken the Fonda approach of open support for Russia’s enemies. This may be morally correct, but it is extremely unlikely to help them win a future free election in Russia, should one ever happen...

Edited September 3 by Strannik

[Roman Alymov]

wrong thread, sorry

Edited September 3 by Roman Alymov

[DB]

The Guardian article quoted is superficially good, but it is viewed through a delightfully focussed Guardianista lens.

"Elite" Muscovites selected from a Guardian reader perspective are anti war and liberal, but smart/cynical enough to realise that their real ambition (political power) is hurt by not aligning themselves with the hoi-polloi.

Ignoring that liberal is not equivalent to anti-war universally, and almost certainly it is not true that elite = liberal and elite = anti-war. After all, the Western Appeasement party is arguably full of "elites", and without them there would be no war. Or something. They're also only "liberal" in the sense that they have a very liberal sense of ownership, along the lines of "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine, too", although that may apply only to another country's land.

[mkenny]

On 9/3/2023 at 6:20 PM, Strannik said:

A rare objective article in Guardian.................

 

Though oft pilloried as a biased newspaper it score highly as a 'trusted news source' in the UK. In fact the BBC, Channel 4 and The Guardian all appear in the top 5 trusted sources and  the hard right Faux News wannabes are  all at the bottom of the charts.

Just shows how you should never believe everything you hear-unless its in The Guardian, BBC or Channel 4!

Edited September 12 by mkenny

[Strannik]

18 minutes ago, mkenny said:

Though oft pilloried as a biased newspaper it score highly as a 'trusted news source' in the UK. In fact the BBC, Channel 4 and The Guardian all appear in the top 5 trusted sources and  the hard right Faux News wannabes are  all at the bottom of the charts.

Just shows how you should never believe everything you hear-unless its in The Guardian, BBC or Channel 4!

I used to give more trust (criteria: stating the facts correctly and hopefully not having too biased opinions) to articles appearing in the "esteemed/papers of record" media like NYT, WaPo, BBC, FT, etc.

After Yugoslavia and  Iraq wars I realized they are just more polished outfits serving the posh "correct" elites, so look now at the specific writers who are tested by time.  Anatol Lieven (the author of that article) is, imo, one of them.

Edited September 12 by Strannik

[mkenny]

51 minutes ago, Strannik said:

I used to give more trust (criteria: stating the facts correctly and hopefully not having too biased opinions) to articles appearing in the "esteemed/papers of record" media like NYT, WaPo, BBC, FT, etc.

After Yugoslavia and  Iraq wars I realized they are just more polished outfits serving the posh "correct" elites, so look now at the specific writers who are tested by time.  Anatol Lieven (the author of that article) is, imo, one of them.

That may be but all the  cries of 'fake noos' seem to have made no impact on how newspaper readers judge the veracity of the Guardian and the other claimed 'left-wing' news outlets. Despite a relentless all-out war on The BBC by every single right-wing newspaper  (that is 80% of all UK Newspapers) no one is buying their guff.  The BBC is by far the most read/most trusted news source in the UK. 

 

[Strannik]

1 hour ago, mkenny said:

That may be but all the  cries of 'fake noos' seem to have made no impact on how newspaper readers judge the veracity of the Guardian and the other claimed 'left-wing' news outlets. Despite a relentless all-out war on The BBC by every single right-wing newspaper  (that is 80% of all UK Newspapers) no one is buying their guff.  The BBC is by far the most read/most trusted news source in the UK. 

 

I found BBC coverage of any significant geopolitical event (and not just this war) to be quite biased, just in the typically underhanded upper crusty British way

But the general issue is: 

@lieven_anatol

"In much of the U.S. establishment and media,belief in the innate righteousness of U.S. actions is so deeply-rooted that it can become a serious danger to the successful conduct of Washington policy."

Edited September 12 by Strannik

[mkenny]

3 hours ago, Strannik said:

I found BBC coverage of any significant geopolitical event (and not just this war) to be quite biased, 

We have a term in The UK, MRD Applies. 

Translation:

While giving evidence at the trial of Stephen Ward, (Mandy) Rice-Davies (A Lady of the night! ) made the quip for which she is most remembered. When the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied having an affair or having even met her, she replied, "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" (from Wikipedia).

Hence, "MRD applies" means "he would say that, wouldn't he". Usually used to devalue an opinion by drawing attention to the other-than-impartial situation of the person voicing it.

Edited September 12 by mkenny

[DB]

For once I tend toward agreement with mkenny.

 

A couple of caveats, though. Firstly, one needs to separate Guardian Opinion articles from their news reports. That way you can safely ignore most of the bias accusations, particularly the ravings of people like Monbiot.

Secondly, the BBC bias is not "upper crust" it is strictly associated with the "trendy" middle class media. It aligns with the socio-political proclivities of its employees (and contractors), which I judge to be similar to that ethereal middle-class wishful thinking associated with the Liberal Democrats, likes to think of itself as somewhat more radically left than that, but quietly sweeps under the carpet how much money they make.

Idealistic social democrats, perhaps?

[TrustMe]

I always found that the most unbiased reporting was in the Financial Times. Especially regarding taxation matters.

[sunday]

1 hour ago, DB said:

Secondly, the BBC bias is not "upper crust" it is strictly associated with the "trendy" middle class media. It aligns with the socio-political proclivities of its employees (and contractors), which I judge to be similar to that ethereal middle-class wishful thinking associated with the Liberal Democrats, likes to think of itself as somewhat more radically left than that, but quietly sweeps under the carpet how much money they make.

Yes, you said to me first time we met in London back in August 2010, and it continues to be true.

[Strannik]

On 9/12/2023 at 1:25 PM, mkenny said:

We have a term in The UK, MRD Applies. 

Translation:

While giving evidence at the trial of Stephen Ward, (Mandy) Rice-Davies (A Lady of the night! ) made the quip for which she is most remembered. When the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied having an affair or having even met her, she replied, "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" (from Wikipedia).

Hence, "MRD applies" means "he would say that, wouldn't he". Usually used to devalue an opinion by drawing attention to the other-than-impartial situation of the person voicing it.

He says, she says... This is what BBC says (see the tweet).

You don't think it warrants to mention how these "years of lawlessness"  came upon the country?  And this is a mild example. Dixi. 

 

 

Edited September 14 by Strannik

[mkenny]

1 hour ago, Strannik said:

He says, she says... This is what BBC says (see the tweet).

You don't think it warrants to mention how these "years of lawlessness"  came upon the country?  And this is a mild example. Dixi. 

 

 

I simply pointed out that The BBC has been under sustained and relentless attacks by The Conservative Party and all the right-wing Newspapers for over a decade. Despite this The BBC is still by far the most consulted and trusted news source in the UK. The Guardian and Channel 4 news  are also  regular targets for the right but  are  still considered more reliable/trustworthy than those who despise and traduce them.   You could say the  attacks on the 'left-wing'  UK press have been about as successful as Ukraine's  summer offensive!

Edited September 14 by mkenny

[Strannik]

On 9/14/2023 at 5:34 PM, mkenny said:

 

 

I simply pointed out that The BBC has been under sustained and relentless attacks by The Conservative Party and all the right-wing Newspapers for over a decade. Despite this The BBC is still by far the most consulted and trusted news source in the UK. The Guardian and Channel 4 news  are also  regular targets for the right but  are  still considered more reliable/trustworthy than those who despise and traduce them.   You could say the  attacks on the 'left-wing'  UK press have been about as successful as Ukraine's  summer offensive!

I specifically mentioned "geopolitical events" analysis, not UK's internal squabbles.

That's why I used "upper crust" comment about the style - in comparison US media lies are quite pedestrian.

Edited Monday at 11:03 AM by Strannik

[DB]

You use "upper crust" because you don't understand the remnants of the class system, and the meaning of that term.

That someone who seems to be American mistakes the insufferable media middle class for "upper crust" isn't a surprise, given that anyone who doesn't speak cock-ern-ey like Dick van Dyck is assumed to be that way.

[urbanoid]