Russian invasion of Ukraine

Disgusting. Time for another call.

Even as European leaders sympathize publicly with Ukraine’s struggle
and in some cases have gone to great lengths to support the country,
they also fear that what French President Emmanuel Macron last week
called a “humiliation” of Russia could create a whole new set of
problems, Western officials say.

One big concern is that a Ukrainian win could destabilize Russia,
making it even more unpredictable and putting a normalization of
energy links further out of reach. That’s why some western European
capitals quietly favor a “face-saving” resolution to the conflict,
even if it costs Ukraine some territory.

https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-leaders-fall-out-of-key-on-ukraine/

That is a shit take from Macron. Russia needs a regime change and if they are given a way out, that will not happen, it will just fester!

They might need a regime change but it's very likely that what they change into will be a lot worse.

well this is depressing

Noam Chonsky has lost his mind, claiming Ukraine doesn’t want weapons and should give Putin everything he wants.

Real weak sauce from Macron and Scholz, looking at stuff like Eurovision, I wonder if they're out of touch with the public sentiment in France/Germany.

You serious? Got a link?

You serious? Got a link?

I personally didn't read it as Chomsky saying that Ukraine doesn't want weapons and should give Putin everything he wants but maybe i'm reading it wrong.

https://www.newsweek.com/noam-chomsky-says-ukraine-desire-heavy-weapons-western-propaganda-1706473

To boil it down that’s also how I understand it (similar to how Davidual summarised).

It literally says in the title that ‘Ukraines desire for heavy weapons is western propaganda’

Therefore he’s saying Ukraine doesn’t want them, The West is telling them and everyone else they do.

And that more weapons fuel fighting - will lead to their destruction.

So therefore you can read into it that they should capitulate if they want to survive.

What do you read into it?

What do you read into it?

From watching the interview, I thought Chomsky was giving a hypothetical answer to a hypophetical question.

I also noticed that the newsweek article title is incorrect. Chomsky did not say Ukraine does not want heavy weapons. Chomsky basically asks "what if the ukrainian people" do not want heavy weapons? What happens if there's a separation between the people and their leadership?

Just to add, if you guys are right and Chomsky does believe that Ukraine shouldn't get more weapons and should give up, I think he has indeed gone mad.

Chomsky's gone full Tankie

Russian soldier blows up his car with a UA anti tank missile he brought back from the war in the boot of his car.

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1526500532592193536?t=ILg7Al76KyAWLoAJriul8w&s=19

1 Attachment

I'd just urge people to watch the interview rather than go by the various twitter posts and crappy news articles about it before forming an opinion. Thats all.

I had no idea who Chonsky was until I saw his name being mentioned on LFGSS recently. Perhaps thats why I'm a bit on the fence about him...I don't know anything about him other than what I have heard him say recently.

He is just stuck in his own obsessions and has nothing meaningful to add.

has "repeatedly" called for a "pretty sensible" political settlement in which Ukraine would "commit itself to neutralization," give up NATO membership prospects, postpone the Crimea issue, and "move towards some kind of accommodation on Donbas."
"That's what you don't hear in the U.S.-British propaganda system," he added.

1 Attachment

As a french reader, I'd like to thank you all, this thread is my only information about the war and I like the way everyone can discuss without throwing names... you guys are peacefull even when you don't agree with each other.
I also like the different POV from all over the world.
Thanks.

This is interesting

Watch the video

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61484222

And buy that Ruskie a beer

https://www.instagram.com/p/CdoAu2yjqUT/

I believe Roman is member of this forum @NoFuckingChance

I follow him on instagram, and ever since the war started he was collecting and transporting aid and supplies from France to Ukraine, putting a hell of an effort in it. Now he went there personally to defend his country.

Just wanted to go back to the Chomsky discussion from yesterday. I listened to the interview again and then saw this thread from Owen Jones (who conducted the interview).

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1525031213609668608

Like Jones, I'm having a hard time reconcilling what Twitter think Chomsky said with what he actually said. Some serious biases going on with this. Its like the internet is incapable of reading complex discussions and understanding that discssing hypthetical scenarios does not mean you think those hypothetical scenarios are true or desirable.

Just to repeat, I'm no particular fan of his, just somebody who gets triggered by people misquoting other people to support their own preconceptions.

I am pretty sure bringing Owen Jones to a Chomsky fight is asking to be declared a card carrying tankie and called comrade lol

I don't disagree with your take but not sure it will win around those who dislike Chomsky

I don't disagree with your take but not sure it will win around those who dislike Chomsky

Jones points out himself that the there is a large overlap of people who hate him and Chomsky, and that is part of the reason why the interview has caused such a ripple.

No idea why, but I just can't stand Owen Jones. Normally somebody with opinions I don't like won't trigger me that much. That said, I think he has a point on this one.

Its also telling that usually when Chomsky says something stupid the online press are all over it, but at the moment its only fringe outlets who are reporting on that interview. Usually a warning sign that the opinion being expressed might not be accurate.

What’s the point of the interview? I don’t really get it. If people are talking in hypotheticals that’s fine. But it needs to be clear particularly in this day and age where as you say people can take snippets out of context and snowball it into something new.

But it needs to be clear particularly in this day and age

The use of the word 'if' combined with the conditional tense is usually enough for me. No trigger warnings required.

where as you say people can take snippets out of context and snowball it into something new.

Fuckwits gonna fuckwit. Their problem.

Tankie = those who love the tanks
Tanker/tankisty = those who die in the tanks