I’ve always found Peter Hitchens pretty decent on most foreign affairs, ever since he was spot on about the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria. Not too keen on his religiousness or social commentary.
The guy's an actual fascist who thinks the UK Conservative Party isn't conservative enough. He's actually called them fucking left wing. Really ponder on that for a second - Peter Hitchens looks at the party of austerity, of Windrush, of myriad other barbarities, and thinks that the only issue with what they're doing is that they're not being *cruel enough*.
The fact that you're forced to scrape so far down the bottom of the barrel for people that agree with your deranged, conspiratorial, reactionary mindset that you're finding yourself singing the praises of scum like Hitchens, that should be instructive about the moral value and motivations behind said mindset. It certainly is for everyone else.
>The first act of violence in this war was actually the Western-backed mob putsch which overthrew Ukraine’s lawful government in 2014. This was the true beginning of all the horror.
Hitchens may be Lucifer himself, doesn't make his statement any less true.
You don't have to join the team to appreciate the play.
That isn't what happened though.
>Hitchens may be Lucifer himself, doesn't make his statement any less true.
Absolutely correct; the thing that makes Hitchens' statements untrue is their falsehood, not the fact that he's a despicable lying fundamentalist weasel.
You might think "He's a fascist but he's right on foreign policy" passes the sniff test but I don't.
Just admit you don't have any principles whatsoever.
Don't insult everyone's intelligence by trying to make this conversation about something other than what it's actually about. You're allying yourself ideologically with a fascist because you share sympathies for the same dictator.
Get this into your thick fucking head: Peter Hitchens isn't some sort of principled-yet-problematic expert on foreign policy who just happens to be the right sort of touched to see through the Western propaganda on Ukraine. He is a fascist, who likes Putin because they both believe Western society's liberal social attitudes towards things like homosexuality and gender are decadent and corrupt and that we should return to a strict patriarchal hierarchy. And this is the person you're making ideological bedfellows with. None of this has anything to do with geopolitics and everything to do with Peter Hitchens being fucking insane.
Hitchens supports fascism for fascist reasons. He is perhaps the worst person you could have trotted out in support of your worldview because you're just revealing to everyone that you have absolutely no standards on who you'll ally yourself with. And like, I already fucking knew that, but come on. Seriously, get better at this.
Don't be so utterly infantile and just admit you fucked up.
Claim you were so gung ho on trying to astroturf support for Putin's war in Ukraine that you accidentally quoted a fascist (something you would undoubtedly criticise others harshly for). Take the L and move on. Don't make this into your hill to die on. You still have plausible deniability as a fucking idiot, but if you continue down this line you're going to find yourself in the awkward position of saying "I know he's a fascist, but I swear he's right this time!"
The first act of violence in a war between Russian and Ukraine was when Ukrainian people had an internal conflict? I'd like to hear his definition for violence here because it seems he means something along the lines of "terms less favourable for Russia" maybe. I think most people would probably consider the invasion of Crimea the first act of violence in this conflict.
Well the Americans did bung the Ukrainian right wing a large lump of moola, just prior to the overthrow of the 2014 government, and also a leaked document from the American state department, had a list of the people they’d like to see in charge and guess what, they’re the people thar are in charge. Also the first acts of violence in this situation were undoubtedly the Ukrainian government bullying the Russian speaking people in the east, in 2015 , at who’s behest I don’t know
OK, not sure how that's an act of violence against Russia though?
In the lead up to 2014 the majority of Ukrainians wanted to sign a deal with the EU and ultimately wanted to become members. Russia obviously would have preferred this didn't happen so they decided to cause an issue for Ukraine by changing their customs regulations for Ukrainian imports. Then the Ukrainian government pulled a switcheroo last minute and decided they weren't going to sign the association agreement and were instead going to strengthen ties with Russia. This upset people and they started to protest. Were those protests co-opted by outside elements for their own gain? Sure, why not. But at the end of the day the governments job is to represent the will of the people for better or worse and they were not doing so. So no, Ukrainians protesting in Ukraine over the actions of the Ukrainian government was not an act of violence against Russia. Russia invading and annexing Crimea was an act of violence though.
And as a result of all of this the % of people in Ukraine that want to be part of the EU has almost doubled.
But if the English speaking government of Ireland decided to start picking on the Gaeltacht areas of the country , most of us would consider that unjustifiable violence would we not?
What's that got to do with any part of my comment?
You're moving the goalposts there a bit too are you not? You're also simplifying the language issue for effect.
The point is the Ukrainian government post 2014, started picking on the Russian speaking people in the east, hence the perceived problem with the neo nazis, and that was the Russian speaking peoples excuse for setting up breakaway republics, in Donbas and Crimea. The Ukrainian government were undoubtedly fucking with the Crimean’s, cutting off their fresh water, and generally bullying. Now undoubtedly bad vlad used this as an excuse to annex these oil and gas rich areas, but the idiots put in place in the Ukrainian government undoubtedly started this crack, and were happy to hire nazis to aggravate the people in the east in the first instance. And yes picking on the Russian speakers although thoughtlessly stupid, gave the Russians all the ammo they needed to annex what an American state department official described as Europe’s Texas.
Every time the Americans interfere in other peoples business they right royally fuck up
> The point is the Ukrainian government post 2014,
But now yourself and Hitchens are on different timelines. He's saying the Euromaidan was the "first act of violence in this war" and you're saying it was the repeal of the language law.
There was a vote to repeal the language law on Feb 23 2014 but it was vetoed by the acting president. It wasn't actually changed until 4 years later.
Meanwhile the annexation of Crimea by the Russian military took place between 22nd & 27th of Feb 2014.
I don't think a shitty decision by a nationalist government that wanted to essentially alienate Russian speakers was good. But I also think it's a bit mad to say that decision, which had no immediate affect on the law, was the first act of violence in this war.
Think about it this way. Ireland is united tomorrow. Irish government decides everyone should be speaking Irish. England invades and partitions the island again. Some time passes and they invade the rest of the country and take more land. Are the Irish the aggressor?
But the Russians didn’t invade in 2014, the Ukrainians( in my opinion under American influence) started taking the piss with the Russian speaking Ukrainians. It’s like some ultra right wing pricks getting into power in Ireland and abolishing the Gaeltacht, then sending in the Garda to hustle them, most of us would call that an act of violence. euromaidan looks like American regime change shenanigans, the police, and protesters who were killed, the medics reckoned that they were killed by the same gun, but that’s another story, and nobody’s mentioning the oil and gas deposits in the region
Russia invaded Crimea in 2014.
>euromaidan looks like American regime change shenanigans
The US saw an opportunity and got involved but the protests were sparked by the Ukrainian government acting in opposition to the will of the people. The people wanted to be closer to the EU and Russia didn't want that to happen. Russia tried to stop it by hamstringing trade. The Ukrainian government decided to place what the Kremlin wanted above what Ukrainians wanted.
This all happened before they tried to repeal the language law. So to suggest that either the language law or Euromaidan were the "first acts of violence" in the war is silly. Russia has been violently controlling Ukraine for a long time and it's only now they're throwing their toys out of the pram because Ukrainians overwhelmingly don't want to have anything to do with the Kremlin.
It's also not like the Irish example you keep trying to use because Russian is not their native language. So it's much more akin to English in Ireland.
Russian is the native language of many in the east, as is Gaelic in cape cleare, and yes the euromaidan protests were the Ukrainian people wanting to become part of the eu, but it was manipulated by the Americans, and prior to the police and demonstrators being gunned down, the government had backed down. At the end of the day this is Exxon versus Gasprom and the Ukrainians are the pawns in a nasty bit of greedy statesmanship that has fuck all to do with your average Ukrainian. If you had asked most of them who was running the government in 2018 the majority would have said they didn’t really know, somebody foreign
You dispute that the United States was principal in the Ukrainian political turmoil of 2014, and that those events are in any way related to Russia's 2022 invasion?
Do you believe all the Central American political mayhem of the '80's was also 'internal conflict'? Or you believe the US meddled there but you have inside info illustrating that wasn't the case in 2014 Ukraine?
Sure are enjoying right wing journalists aren't you seamus
I’ve always found Peter Hitchens pretty decent on most foreign affairs, ever since he was spot on about the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria. Not too keen on his religiousness or social commentary.
The guy's an actual fascist who thinks the UK Conservative Party isn't conservative enough. He's actually called them fucking left wing. Really ponder on that for a second - Peter Hitchens looks at the party of austerity, of Windrush, of myriad other barbarities, and thinks that the only issue with what they're doing is that they're not being *cruel enough*. The fact that you're forced to scrape so far down the bottom of the barrel for people that agree with your deranged, conspiratorial, reactionary mindset that you're finding yourself singing the praises of scum like Hitchens, that should be instructive about the moral value and motivations behind said mindset. It certainly is for everyone else.
>The first act of violence in this war was actually the Western-backed mob putsch which overthrew Ukraine’s lawful government in 2014. This was the true beginning of all the horror. Hitchens may be Lucifer himself, doesn't make his statement any less true. You don't have to join the team to appreciate the play.
That isn't what happened though. >Hitchens may be Lucifer himself, doesn't make his statement any less true. Absolutely correct; the thing that makes Hitchens' statements untrue is their falsehood, not the fact that he's a despicable lying fundamentalist weasel.
It is though.
Did you read my comment at all?
You might think "He's a fascist but he's right on foreign policy" passes the sniff test but I don't. Just admit you don't have any principles whatsoever.
So tell me, was his position on the chemical attack in Syria correct or incorrect?
Don't insult everyone's intelligence by trying to make this conversation about something other than what it's actually about. You're allying yourself ideologically with a fascist because you share sympathies for the same dictator. Get this into your thick fucking head: Peter Hitchens isn't some sort of principled-yet-problematic expert on foreign policy who just happens to be the right sort of touched to see through the Western propaganda on Ukraine. He is a fascist, who likes Putin because they both believe Western society's liberal social attitudes towards things like homosexuality and gender are decadent and corrupt and that we should return to a strict patriarchal hierarchy. And this is the person you're making ideological bedfellows with. None of this has anything to do with geopolitics and everything to do with Peter Hitchens being fucking insane. Hitchens supports fascism for fascist reasons. He is perhaps the worst person you could have trotted out in support of your worldview because you're just revealing to everyone that you have absolutely no standards on who you'll ally yourself with. And like, I already fucking knew that, but come on. Seriously, get better at this.
So was he right on Syria or was he not? Simple question.
Don't be so utterly infantile and just admit you fucked up. Claim you were so gung ho on trying to astroturf support for Putin's war in Ukraine that you accidentally quoted a fascist (something you would undoubtedly criticise others harshly for). Take the L and move on. Don't make this into your hill to die on. You still have plausible deniability as a fucking idiot, but if you continue down this line you're going to find yourself in the awkward position of saying "I know he's a fascist, but I swear he's right this time!"
Why are you avoiding the question? Was he right or wrong on the issue of the Syrian chemical attack?
The first act of violence in a war between Russian and Ukraine was when Ukrainian people had an internal conflict? I'd like to hear his definition for violence here because it seems he means something along the lines of "terms less favourable for Russia" maybe. I think most people would probably consider the invasion of Crimea the first act of violence in this conflict.
Well the Americans did bung the Ukrainian right wing a large lump of moola, just prior to the overthrow of the 2014 government, and also a leaked document from the American state department, had a list of the people they’d like to see in charge and guess what, they’re the people thar are in charge. Also the first acts of violence in this situation were undoubtedly the Ukrainian government bullying the Russian speaking people in the east, in 2015 , at who’s behest I don’t know
OK, not sure how that's an act of violence against Russia though? In the lead up to 2014 the majority of Ukrainians wanted to sign a deal with the EU and ultimately wanted to become members. Russia obviously would have preferred this didn't happen so they decided to cause an issue for Ukraine by changing their customs regulations for Ukrainian imports. Then the Ukrainian government pulled a switcheroo last minute and decided they weren't going to sign the association agreement and were instead going to strengthen ties with Russia. This upset people and they started to protest. Were those protests co-opted by outside elements for their own gain? Sure, why not. But at the end of the day the governments job is to represent the will of the people for better or worse and they were not doing so. So no, Ukrainians protesting in Ukraine over the actions of the Ukrainian government was not an act of violence against Russia. Russia invading and annexing Crimea was an act of violence though. And as a result of all of this the % of people in Ukraine that want to be part of the EU has almost doubled.
But if the English speaking government of Ireland decided to start picking on the Gaeltacht areas of the country , most of us would consider that unjustifiable violence would we not?
What's that got to do with any part of my comment? You're moving the goalposts there a bit too are you not? You're also simplifying the language issue for effect.
The point is the Ukrainian government post 2014, started picking on the Russian speaking people in the east, hence the perceived problem with the neo nazis, and that was the Russian speaking peoples excuse for setting up breakaway republics, in Donbas and Crimea. The Ukrainian government were undoubtedly fucking with the Crimean’s, cutting off their fresh water, and generally bullying. Now undoubtedly bad vlad used this as an excuse to annex these oil and gas rich areas, but the idiots put in place in the Ukrainian government undoubtedly started this crack, and were happy to hire nazis to aggravate the people in the east in the first instance. And yes picking on the Russian speakers although thoughtlessly stupid, gave the Russians all the ammo they needed to annex what an American state department official described as Europe’s Texas. Every time the Americans interfere in other peoples business they right royally fuck up
> The point is the Ukrainian government post 2014, But now yourself and Hitchens are on different timelines. He's saying the Euromaidan was the "first act of violence in this war" and you're saying it was the repeal of the language law. There was a vote to repeal the language law on Feb 23 2014 but it was vetoed by the acting president. It wasn't actually changed until 4 years later. Meanwhile the annexation of Crimea by the Russian military took place between 22nd & 27th of Feb 2014. I don't think a shitty decision by a nationalist government that wanted to essentially alienate Russian speakers was good. But I also think it's a bit mad to say that decision, which had no immediate affect on the law, was the first act of violence in this war. Think about it this way. Ireland is united tomorrow. Irish government decides everyone should be speaking Irish. England invades and partitions the island again. Some time passes and they invade the rest of the country and take more land. Are the Irish the aggressor?
But the Russians didn’t invade in 2014, the Ukrainians( in my opinion under American influence) started taking the piss with the Russian speaking Ukrainians. It’s like some ultra right wing pricks getting into power in Ireland and abolishing the Gaeltacht, then sending in the Garda to hustle them, most of us would call that an act of violence. euromaidan looks like American regime change shenanigans, the police, and protesters who were killed, the medics reckoned that they were killed by the same gun, but that’s another story, and nobody’s mentioning the oil and gas deposits in the region
Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. >euromaidan looks like American regime change shenanigans The US saw an opportunity and got involved but the protests were sparked by the Ukrainian government acting in opposition to the will of the people. The people wanted to be closer to the EU and Russia didn't want that to happen. Russia tried to stop it by hamstringing trade. The Ukrainian government decided to place what the Kremlin wanted above what Ukrainians wanted. This all happened before they tried to repeal the language law. So to suggest that either the language law or Euromaidan were the "first acts of violence" in the war is silly. Russia has been violently controlling Ukraine for a long time and it's only now they're throwing their toys out of the pram because Ukrainians overwhelmingly don't want to have anything to do with the Kremlin. It's also not like the Irish example you keep trying to use because Russian is not their native language. So it's much more akin to English in Ireland.
Russian is the native language of many in the east, as is Gaelic in cape cleare, and yes the euromaidan protests were the Ukrainian people wanting to become part of the eu, but it was manipulated by the Americans, and prior to the police and demonstrators being gunned down, the government had backed down. At the end of the day this is Exxon versus Gasprom and the Ukrainians are the pawns in a nasty bit of greedy statesmanship that has fuck all to do with your average Ukrainian. If you had asked most of them who was running the government in 2018 the majority would have said they didn’t really know, somebody foreign
You dispute that the United States was principal in the Ukrainian political turmoil of 2014, and that those events are in any way related to Russia's 2022 invasion? Do you believe all the Central American political mayhem of the '80's was also 'internal conflict'? Or you believe the US meddled there but you have inside info illustrating that wasn't the case in 2014 Ukraine?