May we talk about the war in Europe?

I think it is clear to everyone that we are one step closer to the third world war - or perhaps, as some analysts say, we have already entered the third world war. With Ukraine's offensive in the Donbass, and the proclamation of annexation to Russia (after referendums that everyone considers a farce), we are now experiencing a phase of total escalation. And in fact, after Ukraine blew up the Crimean bridge, Russia has now, in retaliation, started bombing all major Ukrainian cities, even those in western Ukraine, which are very close to the EU and NATO.

In Italy (and in other European countries) oceanic pacifist demonstrations are being prepared, which will be followed, if things go on like this, by popular demonstrations over the rising price of gas and electricity, a price rise that is bringing many poor families to their knees. 

We have never been so close to a nuclear war in Europe. And by now, talk of nuclear missiles or Armageddon has become commonplace. We must be aware that, if this war goes ahead, the consequences can be devastating and unpredictable, and not only in terms of loss of life, but also in terms of devastation of states, the environment, and the energy crisis, i.e. also on a social level.

A reflection by Chomsky:

Chomsky’s worldview is really quite a simple one. Yankee bad, in whatever situation. Now, it is perfectly acceptable to hold such views, but it doesn’t really make for a decent debate now, does it?

I gave up on this nonsense during the COVID “debates”. It is impossible to have a sober debate here any longer, and the sooner political threads are banned, the better.

Anyway, I remind you that months ago Chomsky signed an international appeal that very harshly condemned the Russian invasion and claimed to defend Ukraine.

Only two colours in your universe, you are championing a binary world? Sad .... No one is neutral? Really? How could you possibly be sure of that? I happen to be a complete neutral, Swiss educated and thereforeI know (for 50 years now) that there is a THIRD OPTION that is BIASED towards the two extremes who, like a boxing bout, needs two combattants and a figurehead referee to be valid. We don't have much of a voice as we are constantly pooh-poohed, accused of being the enemy by the two boring belligerents. Free speech is not limited to EITHER/OR. 

1- Journalism USED to be neutral and unbiased not anymore. 2- "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth". Quote from a rather famous Italian back in the day.... LOL 

I don't know how we can discuss anything these days ... which reminds me ... 

In 1968, I was suspended from school (or 1967 not sure!) ... why?

The history teacher (also the football coach btw, who hated soccer kickers!!!) was having a "discussion in class about the whole thing ... and I was kinda stunned and did not say anything. But the next day I brought to the school the latest Paris Match (can't even remember its proper name) and the London Times from that week ... and both of them had large headlines ... Israel Invades .... !!!

And I showed them to the class and to the teacher. He was furious and even called me an Israel hater. As if that was the case, but the point was ... the news was screwed up and we would never get any proper information. 

Likewise, in Ukraine, with the bombing only reporting building this and hospital that and how many civilian casualties there were, I can't help thinking how much of it is also stilted towards the end that makes the Russians look worse. Not to say that they are not that, but trying to be an Imperialist in the 21st Century, should have been dealt with already and him removed from the office, anyway ... but the news in Moscow is just as bad, in the opposite end of the spectrum ... which makes it difficult for anyone to believe anything and agree on anything else.

I miss the early days of CNN and how it was unbiased and clean, compared to the crap that news has become these days, owned by corporate entities that tell you what to say and such. Like Disney is the law at ESPN, and the group has no backbone anymore and they should all have walked out to force business deals to get broken and Disney to lose the group! NOOOOOOO ... we Americans sell out too easy and don't care that Apple gets its materials made in places where employees get a nickel ... and we say nothing ... and their news say that their employees get more ... than the average, which is probably 6 cents! Whhooooppppeeeedoooo ... and do we give a damn? Nope ... we still buy the Apple stuff as supposedly better!

I don't think we can find/have a meaningful discussion on all this ... without so many of us whining about this and that, and Roger, and then trying hard to counter what was said ... which is (obviously) largely ignored in all circles, except this thread! 

This isn't merely politics, it is an international catastrophe, which many members already have very raw feeling about. As such, I hope our members will see sense and leave this thread unanswered.

Well said---  fear, gloom, disaster.   War is bad; Peace is bad; Technology is bad; People are bad... everything sucks and we should all die.   Right?

Has the OP ever been in a streetfight?   I'm guessing not.   Life is short, bubbah.

By the way, I agree with most posters here that this thread should go lockabee. On the Big Big Train facebook group, politics and religion are third rail topics, and this works out rather fine.

Jared wrote: Speaking personally, I don't think this is at all a good idea and I hope an Admin comes along and closes this thread down. Over the years, far too many political threads on this site have very quickly become over-heated and the worst side of forum members have shown through.

And so what? Shouldn't grown up people be allowed to discuss and argue an existential threat - because it makes you uncomfortable? Why don't you simply stay away from these discussions like I do? At least wait until someone actually crosses the line.

In this interview, Roger talks about objectivity and seeing both sides of a conflict before taking sides. 

It's something a lot of us westerners might want a lot more to do in order to understand (I didn't say approve or agree) the opposite side's reaction. 

It's not the west or the east is 100% innocent or 100% guilty, but the self-righteous (on both sides) refuse to see the beam in their own eye, while denouncing the straw on the guy's eye facing him. 

The whole planet could use a little (read lots) empathy. 

Of course, it's now too late as "brothers" will never reconcile and plenty of outsiders are hating each other just because they've taken side without taking time to look the other way. 

Jared wrote: Speaking personally, I don't think this is at all a good idea and I hope an Admin comes along and closes this thread down. Over the years, far too many political threads on this site have very quickly become over-heated and the worst side of forum members have shown through. This isn't merely politics, it is an international catastrophe, which many members already have very raw feeling about. As such, I hope our members will see sense and leave this thread unanswered.

I will stay out of this thread Oh well, I tried anyway, because indeed, only negative vibes can come out of one more thread about this awful European crisis. 

.

There has been only two US Prez since WW2 that haven't sent their soldiers somewhere on the planet to fight something. And surpringly enough, the Orange Blob Dump is one of the two... The other one was Jimmy Carter.

As for the commerce of arms, the US is ready to buttf**k its own NATO allies by forcing them into buying the catastrophic F-35 (still unable to fly without crashing) at the expense of European fighter jets builders (Saab, Dassault and the now-dead FRA/GER project).

And if Ukraine is actually winning the war, it's definitely not because their soldiers are better or more intelligent, but it's because of western arms' superiority. Russian weapons are still XXthC-derived. New modern rockets were able to pierce the Russian tank in one shot if aimed properly: Shoot were the amos are kept/stored, have the them blow up and kill the tank's crew with its own shells, since there was no protection between the crew and the amos. The Ukrainians knew about this since they owned the same tanks.

The reasons why Putin is able to bombard the opponent right now is because he's had to resort to buying weapons (drones) from the Mollahs (Iran) and the North Koreans.

Of course, once Ukraine will have won its territories back, the US will present them the bill (just like they did in Irak after its war against Iran in 88)... Meaning that all these incredibly fertile fields in the Donbass will fall into US control, because the country won't be able to pay.

.

Even during the cold war, no journalist was neutral or objective.

Journalism is reporting straight facts, not interpreting them to give them a slant.

Today's young journalists don't even know how to do the job properly (because they copy-pasted some texts somewhere >> not that this cheating didn't happen before Windows arrived, but at least the cheaters had to read and rewrite/paraphrase the job they were copying, which meant that at least, they knew something about the subject) and add their own feelings in there - which is somewhat unfortunately allowed for a private press company (since they are profit-driven and cater to a certain readership), but not for state/public-owned organisms.

The ethics for journalism in the last decades has really diminished and some see activism as something positive in their role or reporter. 

The worst part is when journalists started interviewing (roughly during the 80's) other journalist, pretending they are "experts". Of course, some of them journalists became stars.

.

richardh wrote: Well just a few days ago, an ex British ambassador to Russia suggested there is small possibility of Putin pressing the button although at that point he reckoned that Putin would lose his biggest ally in China. They don't want nuclear war anymore than the rest of us. Putin played his last card when he warned he could use tactical nuclear weapons and now he no more cards. Ukraine appears to be winning, Putin has desperately called up the reservists who understandably have tried to scarper. He's losing support in own country and he will lose the war. Of course he still has the nuclear option and that doesn't go away until Putin does.

Putin would be deposed, arrested, possibly assassinated.   Russians may be desperate but they. aren't stupid

Northstream pipeline bombing/sabotage. For those who have a brain, it's clearly not a Russian act, because the installations belong to GazProm at 55%. The Baltic Sea has a max depth of 80m (at one precise point) and its average depth is between 20m and 30m.... AFAIAC, even Tchadian pearl hunters diving apnea in canoes could've gone there and plant the bomb or sabotage it >> my first suspects would be Ukr or Poland. Damaging the installations make it impossible to using it until it will be replaced/repaired ($$$$££££€€€€ and many months/years) should the EC change their mind about the boycott*. The only country finding an advantage in that sabotage is Zelensyland. 

* : We all read everywhere that Russia has cut gas line to the EC, but part of the pack of first sanctions the EC took towards Russia was gradually boycotting the gas... with a certain timeframe ... Tit for Tat:  It's only normal that Russia cuts all delivery immediately, since the west is helping its foe. The shortages we are facing is the EC's fault, because of their dumb decision to meddle in in a local (regional at best) conflict. 

The only good news is that the boycott will be good for the planet. 

Food for thoughts. 

I agree with this Italian campaign for peace:

Hi,

I only have one thought. The megalomaniac that uses the atomic war, is going to be chased and killed and done away with really quick, regardless of who/where he is.

So, in that sense, I want to see these monsters come alive sooner than later as they disguise themselves behind some curtains espousing some rhetoric that says absolutely nothing, except that the media and the public don't really know what it all means.

Monsters are easier to get rid of, because everyone will be on them. And I have no doubt that no one in this world is immune to that anymore like they were for years.

You know what? We need a fudging Lysistrata fighting wars again! Be it Russia or anywhere else!

Have their been any anti-war protests? We can't depend on politicians, and have to put pressure on them.

Everywhere I go, all I hear about is nuclear war, especially from my European friends, who seem very worried. I know many Americans who have been "preppin" every since the pandemic.

I didn't think there would be a war, so my earlier thoughts of, "I can see things getting much worse, war, but nuclear annihiliation?" but all it takes is one little mistake. Sometimes it happens "in real life", where tension explodes after someone punches someone, then all the friends and enemies (allies/foes) jump in, and ..

As mentioned above. We don't learn. We just find more efficient ways to killing each other. I definitely don't see Nuclear Arms Reduction, but the opposite, because countries don't want to end up like Iraq. And Iraq (and all the other countries) make it so the US has no room to talk about invasions, lies, WMDs, etc., so everything is f**ked up.

Hi,

It is similar in many aspects to everything here on PA. It won't help to put pressure on a politician (AKA Admin) and it gets nothing done, except maybe suspending someone for a few days!

The thought, though, is that the whole thing is based on a top of the pop's idea, and that is the same "rule" that gets someone elected, right or wrong, with or without the rhetoric that says nothing ... say KAGA one more time ... like it wasn't before!

MortSahlFan wrote: ... Everywhere I go, all I hear about is nuclear war, especially from my European friends, who seem very worried.  ...

It's not like they did not have 2 incredibly destructive wars in the 20th Century that has left its marks on generations to come ... still! 

But the worst, is like to continue, as long as there is no alternative media to help folks understand the issues better. Everyone went for "Brexit" but no one even bothered saying that it was a plot by the folks that control the economy to make sure they could get further control of things, specially imports that they were not collecting from! AND still ... no one says anything while artists suffer from this process in England!

We simply cannot continue on this style of misleading the public ... it's not even by guns anymore, it's by media that is owned by the same folks speaking. And you really think they are going to give you an opposing viewpoint?

It's the same "media" that continually keeps giving us stupid stories about the monarchy ... why? ... they own the country along with so many other rich folks that own the land! And we find their parties and this and that so fascinating ... 

My only thoughts are ... we don't want to learn anything! We've given up to a status quo, regardless of if it being right or wrong.

Obviously one can try to negotiate a ceasefire and then a peace, however the fundamental problem that is to be solved is this:

It is clear that the Russians want to win parts of the Ukraine, and chances are they won't be happy with the Crimea alone, and they won't stop fighting until they have won more, probably all the parts that they have recently declared Russian based on their fake referenda. On the other hand handing over parts of the Ukraine to Russia will basically reward them for the invasion and may encourage them (or others) to do more of that kind. In Moldova, Georgia, Latvia... people are very worried about this, and probably also the people of Taiwan. Ultimately it is not up to the West to tell the Ukrainians (or the Russians) what to accept. Obviously the West can stop sending arms to the Ukraine, which ultimately in all likelihood will have the effect that the Russians will win part of the Ukraine, but then, for the reason stated above, this will probably not be the end of the story. A peace that makes the aggressor a winner is not a good peace, and will probably not last for long.    

So what is your suggestion here, Lorenzo?

Regarding WWIII, as long as the other countries directly stay out of the conflict, as they have, that, too, is a practical impossibility. There are still survivors from WWII and the fatigue from it still exists. As useless as the UN tends to be be, their existence is a massive power balance that will continue to keep the peace outside Eastern Europe. 

We're not close to a nuclear war, and WWIII won't happen.

The only thing to fear are rising living costs and economic challenges that will continue to worsen due to global supply chain shortages and Russian sanctions. We're due for a recession soon...

Nuclear war has always been close, apparently the number of times we were on the brink during the cold war days was a lot more than we'd like to believe. In terms of whether its any closer than it ever was is of course debateable.

''WWIII won't happen'' is not based on anything. It could actually have already started. WWII officially started in 1939 2 years before the US and Japan got directly involved. Before then it was primarily Europe and North Africa.

I would suggest that Climate change is going to cause as many issues as this war. I have little confidence in anyone sorting that one out. Sunak was not even going to bother going to the summit in Egypt (quite sensible in my view) until domestic political pressure forced him to change his mind.

Zelensky has pretty good reasons not to accept them. So somebody comes and violently grabs some of your country, and in exchange for peace you are asked to give them half of what they grabbed/they wanted? Referenda in the east of the Ukraine are an idea to be considered, but they are hard to do in a fair way as people have been forced to leave or have left because of fear, and those who vote may still have in mind in the first place the threat and only as an afterthought where they would like to belong.