For the Putin apologists…

[Deereyme66]

Couple of articles worth a read. One from John McDonnell explaining in detail why the Left should support arming Ukraine:

The Ukrainian Question for Socialists

and a multiple tweet post by Eliot Higgins from Belincat:

While today might be the 1 year anniversary of Russia's "official" invasion of Ukraine, lets not forget this started back in 2014, when Russia started to send Russian troops and military equipment into Ukraine, and fired artillery from Russia into Ukraine.

— Eliot Higgins (@EliotHiggins) February 24, 2023

The reaction I’m getting to these pieces from people I know on the Left who oppose arming Ukraine is complete silence. I thought the idea was to discuss and debate? Or doesn’t that apply to things things they’re so ideologically opposed to (US / NATO) they won’t budge? How very democratic.

[Deereyme66]

Another theory is they’re silent because they can’t find à disparaging play on words for ‘John McDonnell’. All that intelligent intellectual stuff…

[Siderite]

Credit where it’s due, McDonnell has always been sound on Ukraine. Not a fan of his persona or some of his domestic stuff and he is to the left of me, but he has more to him than Corbyn and that crowd, who just reflexively oppose the west. He probably would have been a more competent leader than Corbyn, but his terrier like style would have made it harder to present as this kindly old man who just cares about social justice, like with Corbyn.

[Siderite]

Looks like they’re not interested in the arguments of McDonnell:

On our way to #TrafalgarSquare to demand #PeaceNow in Ukraine! #EuropeForPeace pic.twitter.com/tTeSMX9imX

— CND (@CNDuk) February 25, 2023

For them peace means Ukraine subjugating to Russian demands and subjecting civilians to Bucha type massacres. Some have even made their support clear:

https://twitter.com/pauloCanning/status/1629485645147037697

Pacifists my backside! They don’t give a damn about peace if an anti-western nation is the aggressor. To them a nation defending itself and calling for support is imperialism, while a nation nakedly invading because Ukraine is a ‘fake country’ and whose independence signalled their loss of power is anti-imperialism.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Heath, Deereyme66

[Deereyme66]

I find it difficult to be generous or charitable to these people

[Deereyme66]

That sign that person’s holding up speaks volumes. ‘PTO’?!?!

[64]

Who are these apologists you aim this at on here?I haven’t seen any

[Deereyme66]

‘The reaction I’m getting to these pieces from people I know on the Left who oppose arming Ukraine is complete silence’

Aimed at people on here? No. Unless you feel you need to explain your stance on the issue? You haven’t made it explicit as far as I’m aware.

[Deereyme66]

Sorry, memory fade, I’ve seen you use the term ‘proxy war’ in reference to the current situation, which is a term often used by those Putin apologists I personally know and those in the public eye. As far as I’m aware Zelensky asked for help from other countries after Ukraine was invaded by Russia. Unless you or anyone else know different? I haven’t seen any evidence to convince me that the US encouraged Ukraine to start a war on it’s behalf. Just for clarity too, I would describe a ‘Putin apologist’ as anyone who said or continues to claim that Putin was pushed and provoked in to invading Ukraine, and therefore apologising for his actions. If anyone thinks that applies to them, on here or anywhere else, so be it.

[64]

You said” for the putin apologists” its the title of the thread on a members message board,as I’ve seen no apologists on here I found it odd

[Deereyme66]

Not sure why anyone would find it odd. Anyone is able to set up an account on here, and many do, and view the board without posting. There are many Putin apologists out there, as I would call them, as I’m sure you know. The OP title isn’t particularly aimed at any one person, it’s for the attention of Putin apologists, but not confined to them. Does that explanation clear it up for you?There are many things I find odd about what people post on here, someone posting that subject title wouldn’t be one of them.

[Deereyme66]

Any comments on the John McDonnell article or the Eliot Higgins Tweet content btw? That’s also on the OP.

[64]

Ultra right wing nutjob with an emperor complex paying the bills for our governing party has for a long time been an issue. We even had a KJB agent given a place in the lords, our Chancellor went to work for one owning our capitals most influential paper.Why is this not an issue?
The same right wing nutters baying for blood now condoned this,the same right wing nutters who reckon we cannot afford a few quid ,in comparison, to aid “foreigners” are now quiet on the idea of spending billions on this proxy war,even though we cannot properly arm our own army and navy due to cuts and the usual procurement issues . Protecting people is exactly what we should do, regardless .Not just because we don’t sell weapons to the the aggressor.

[Deereyme66]

‘spending billions on this proxy war,even though we cannot properly arm our own army and navy due to cuts and the usual procurement issues’

Farage said something quite similar.

I’ve stated before why I don’t think it’s a ‘proxy war’. Can you explain with evidence why it is? I agree that the US can be justifiably accused of proxy wars in the past, but this isn’t one of them.

[Siderite]

64 wrote:

The same right wing nutters baying for blood

Failing to support Ukraine means Russia could likely overwhelm them and lead to more death and massacres like Bucha and everywhere else the Russians have gained control. Are the lefties who don’t consider or care about this baying for Ukrainian blood?

In this war Russia has embarrassed themselves, and have suffered greatly. From the start the appeasers, left and right, have said Ukraine should give up and sue for peace. It looks even more ludicrous when Russia failed in their objectives and struggle. Why should Ukraine have to give up their territory to an invader? If Norway or Denmark invaded the east of England and said they’re rightfully reclaiming the Danelaw, would we be happy with ceding York, Norwich, Durham etc? No, yet these people expect the same of Ukraine.

To the ‘anti-imperialist’ left protecting Ukrainians means giving up and allowing Russia to take over against their whim, slaughter them, torture them expel them and hold them hostage. To the ‘anti-imperialist’ left baying for blood means allowing Ukrainians to defend themselves against aggressors, accept subjugation, and more bloodshed. All this talk from the hard left cowards of letting Putin have the Donbass and Crimea for ‘peace’. Are they so stupid to think Putin would be happy to settle with such gains? Are they so dumb to think that Russia would accept a ceasefire? How many more times do Russia have to violate ceasefires, as in Syria, before they think about their reliability and not just gobble up Russian propaganda?

It used to be that there was international solidarity from the left. They came to the aid of the Spanish republic during their civil war. Now an authoritarian right wing and essentially fascist despot launches a war of aggression, while deliberately massacring and targeting civilians and they whine about help. I thought the left was supposed to be about looking after the vulnerable. Now they show the same utter disregard for others, when it suits, like Farage and the other isolationist right wingers. 64 says the left is about caring and that’s it. Ha! Of course some do, but a large chunk (including those who make this claim) could not care less about suffering of those if they’re among western allies.

This war has really exposed them, the mask has slipped. The so called pacifists have every excuse in the book to appease the aggressor and only demand the victim to compromise. If their pacifism was in any way principled we’d see their anger at Russia for this and Syria, but they’re not, despite reminding us of how virtuous and superior they are to us neoliberals, red Tories, actual Tories, Blairites and other impure souls who can’t live up to their self-righteous standards.

[Deereyme66]

It seems that huge breaches of international law mean little if it’s Russia breaching it, daily.

[Heath]

Proxy war: a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved.

So to call it a proxy war Fans must believe the war was instigated by the west or the US.

Not the first time he has aligned with Farage.

[Lord Kitchener]

It doesn’t matter what side of the political divide you are on here. What Russia are attempting to do is atrocious. If they were left to overrun Ukraine it would end with a holocaust of Ukrainians.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe, Heath, Siderite

[Deereyme66]

There’s many on the far left and far right would agree with that but aren’t in favour of arming Ukraine. Where do you stand on that, out of interest?

[Siderite]

While ‘anti-imperialist’ lefties navel gaze over the evil west supplying a country with the means to defend itself, here is the result of Russian action:

Take a look. Take a long hard look. It's not a computer game. It's not Hiroshima after the nuclear explosion.

It's the town of Maryinka, in #Ukraine's Donetsk region. This is Russia's "liberation" of the Donbas. This is Russian genocide in Europe. pic.twitter.com/ngikccbxxD

— Glasnost Gone (@GlasnostGone) March 4, 2023

[Deereyme66]

This is what happens when you ‘push and prod Putin’, apparently.

[Siderite]

Which he has no agency over, of course. We have forced him to obliterate cities by existing, seemingly. They never listen to Putin’s grandiose proclamations of reclaiming Russia’s greatness against the fake nations who dared to break away. It has to be NATO.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Deereyme66]

What a strange mindset to think that the US via NATO has caused the devastation in those images. Beggars belief.

[Siderite]

The hard left and hard right come together when it comes to selling out Ukrainians and outright lying:

During a radio interview with Sean Hannity on Monday, the Donald Trump finally revealed how he personally would have prevented the Ukraine war. According to Trump, all he needed to do was let Russia “take over” parts of Ukraine. https://t.co/vMLz4nfY9W

— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) March 7, 2023

Really basic questions, like what do the Conservatives and Labour *actually mean* when they say that Ukrainian victory is the only acceptable outcome, go unasked.

Recovering all territory lost since 2022? Since 2014? These are big differences, and have huge implications.

— Ash Sarkar (@AyoCaesar) March 6, 2023

Another question that goes unasked: if Ukraine pushes Russia back but then decides it wants to keep fighting on into Russian territory, who are we to say they can’t and who are we to stop them? On that basis, our weapons would be used to attack Russia — with obvious ramifications https://t.co/N6QnxBiW6l

— Matt Zarb-Cousin (@mattzarb) March 6, 2023

Thank goodness the orange dimwit isn’t president now. As if he had the power to persuade Ukrainians to abandon their country and accept such atrocities upon them.

[Deereyme66]

Not sure he said he had the power to persuade Ukrainians to abandon defending their country – he’s saying he wouldn’t have supported them. So, long before now, the country would have been back under Russian rule, just as it should be according to Vlad and his useful idiots in the West.

[Siderite]

What I mean is that he thinks if he made some deal with Russia there would be no war. He doesn’t consider that forced annexation of territory would have met with resistance. The Ukrainians weren’t going to accept that if President Trump approved it.

[Iron-awe]

Trump is only interested in Trump and there it ends I’m afraid, not a fit and proper person to lead a nation IMO.

[Deereyme66]

Didn’t he also claim the other day that no country was aggressive towards the US while he was President because they were too frightened to due to his investment in the armed forces? Which was akin to saying ‘come and ‘ave a go if you think you’re hard enough!’.

[Iron-awe]

His investment in the USA armed forces was not that great actually, like any new leader the budgets of most armed forces increases year on year due to the normal funding of these institutions, from a percentage point of view he was nowhere near the greatest increase in spending by a US president but hey in his latest speech to CPAC the other day he lied 23 times, so what else is new with Trump.

[Deereyme66]

Only 23 times? Blimey, he’s slacking!

[Author]

Posts