Main Edition
US
FR
February 24, 2023 - 11:00am
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year, Western support for Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s regime has shown no sign of slowing — in fact, it may even be accelerating. But just how much military support should the West provide? Peter Hitchens, Konstantin Kisin, Edward Lucas and Thomas Fazi joined Freddie Sayers to debate whether ongoing western involvement really is the best way to end the war in Ukraine.
Watch above for this lively — and at times feisty — debate…
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeHitchens could go forever about how the eggs got broken. But as we can’t unbreak the eggs, he needed to say what sort of omelette he would make. And he never did.
But nevertheless he makes the essential point about how the eggs did get broken, in order to inform us about the type of omelette we now wish to create.
A friend of mine perfectly captured the problem with the Hitchens position : “it’s [partially] true, but not useful”.
Note also how it becomes such an emotional issue for Hitchens – there are only two positions – his and his opponents. And they’re all wrong. There really is no debating with the man. I’m deeply distrustful of any issue in which the main arguments given are purely emotional. It leads to very poor decision making in my experience.
It must be terrrible living in the shadow of his so much more eloquent and intelligent brother. He is like a blunderbuss, crude and ineffective but makes a loud noise.
He is a boor and neither as eloquent nor intelligent as his brother. He loves the sound of his own voice and uses the wall of sound tactic to drown out dissent. Did you notice how he feigned sleep when Konstantin Kisin was speaking. Childish and disrespectful and with nothing practical to say. The proponents won the day easily.
It must be terrrible living in the shadow of his so much more eloquent and intelligent brother. He is like a blunderbuss, crude and ineffective but makes a loud noise.
He is a boor and neither as eloquent nor intelligent as his brother. He loves the sound of his own voice and uses the wall of sound tactic to drown out dissent. Did you notice how he feigned sleep when Konstantin Kisin was speaking. Childish and disrespectful and with nothing practical to say. The proponents won the day easily.
A friend of mine perfectly captured the problem with the Hitchens position : “it’s [partially] true, but not useful”.
Note also how it becomes such an emotional issue for Hitchens – there are only two positions – his and his opponents. And they’re all wrong. There really is no debating with the man. I’m deeply distrustful of any issue in which the main arguments given are purely emotional. It leads to very poor decision making in my experience.
But nevertheless he makes the essential point about how the eggs did get broken, in order to inform us about the type of omelette we now wish to create.
Hitchens could go forever about how the eggs got broken. But as we can’t unbreak the eggs, he needed to say what sort of omelette he would make. And he never did.
Putin has always been clear that he does not consider the Ukraine to be a legitimate state. He has also invaded an annexed parts of it. On what planet does it make any moral or strategic sense to tolerate this aggression?
There are many who would prefer to avoid war and think sacrificing the Ukraine is an acceptable price to pay for peace. They are trying to justify realpolitik by focusing on the past.
They would be more convincing if they were honest about why they oppose this war and how they think things will play out if Ukraine is defeated.
Putin has always been clear that he does not consider the Ukraine to be a legitimate state. He has also invaded an annexed parts of it. On what planet does it make any moral or strategic sense to tolerate this aggression?
There are many who would prefer to avoid war and think sacrificing the Ukraine is an acceptable price to pay for peace. They are trying to justify realpolitik by focusing on the past.
They would be more convincing if they were honest about why they oppose this war and how they think things will play out if Ukraine is defeated.
Great debate.
One point that did not get enough coverage is that it is really up to the Ukrainians to decide when “enough is enough”, and when it is a good moment to start the negotiations. Every now and again we should remind ourselves in the West that this is not all about us, and in this particular case other people’s opinion (Ukrainians’) counts way more than ours. And they seem to be remarkably united at this point.
As far as the Western interests go, and I also think that this has not been mentioned in the debate, we are very lucky to have the Ukrainians fight this war for us. Imagine Putin took Kiev one year ago, and then after a few years to re-arm and re-supply decided that his next target is in the Baltics. Are you really sure that he would not dare to test the unity of NATO? Would you really like to uphold the article 5 and for Tom, d**k and Harry to go and fight and die for Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia? And risk the nuclear exchange and all the rest of it? I am sure that a large part of Western society would oppose such development in case Putin has invaded the Baltics, and, more importantly, I am sure Putin knows that full well and would be willing to gamble on it.
So, long story short, I think containment of Putin through armament of Ukraine and other Eastern European countries is our best bet here. I would vote in support of the motion.
”is that it is really up to the Ukrainians to decide when “enough is enough”,’‘
hahaaa – it is the armed Tax Man in USA who forces the US working tax payer to pay for it. And I say enough is enough. $113,000,000,000 too much actually.
No taxation without representation – and I say not One Bullet, not one penny to this evil war.
The US wasted trillions on bogus COVID aid, payoffs to Dem donors, and public sector union bailouts. If we recovered 25% of just the fraudulent COVID aid, we could pay for all the Ukraine support, and buy an aircraft carrier or three with the leftovers.
The US wasted trillions on bogus COVID aid, payoffs to Dem donors, and public sector union bailouts. If we recovered 25% of just the fraudulent COVID aid, we could pay for all the Ukraine support, and buy an aircraft carrier or three with the leftovers.
”is that it is really up to the Ukrainians to decide when “enough is enough”,’‘
hahaaa – it is the armed Tax Man in USA who forces the US working tax payer to pay for it. And I say enough is enough. $113,000,000,000 too much actually.
No taxation without representation – and I say not One Bullet, not one penny to this evil war.
Great debate.
One point that did not get enough coverage is that it is really up to the Ukrainians to decide when “enough is enough”, and when it is a good moment to start the negotiations. Every now and again we should remind ourselves in the West that this is not all about us, and in this particular case other people’s opinion (Ukrainians’) counts way more than ours. And they seem to be remarkably united at this point.
As far as the Western interests go, and I also think that this has not been mentioned in the debate, we are very lucky to have the Ukrainians fight this war for us. Imagine Putin took Kiev one year ago, and then after a few years to re-arm and re-supply decided that his next target is in the Baltics. Are you really sure that he would not dare to test the unity of NATO? Would you really like to uphold the article 5 and for Tom, d**k and Harry to go and fight and die for Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia? And risk the nuclear exchange and all the rest of it? I am sure that a large part of Western society would oppose such development in case Putin has invaded the Baltics, and, more importantly, I am sure Putin knows that full well and would be willing to gamble on it.
So, long story short, I think containment of Putin through armament of Ukraine and other Eastern European countries is our best bet here. I would vote in support of the motion.
Very interesting debate, the one thing I’d observe is that Thomas Fazi, despite being a superbly lucid and intelligent writer whose views I hugely respect, is nonetheless a terrible verbal debater and as a consequence I have almost no idea what he really thinks here – frustrating, because of all the participants, his view is the one I’m most likely to be persuaded by.
I am not surprised that both Konstantin and Edward’s side ended up being more persuasive in terms of the before/after polls, and it’s for the reason Konstantin pointed out himself: the anti-war position simply doesn’t have a plan for how to bring about a negotiated peace with Russia which can also provide a security guarantee to Ukraine (or any of Russia’s neighbours, come to that). And this is what I found quite frustrating about Peter Hitchens in particular: yes, he’s right that you cannot understand the present situation without understanding how we got here (I’m a George Kennan fan too), but what he appears not to understand is that we have no choice to move forward except from here, and he doesn’t have a credible plan for that.
His suggestion that western voters mobilise into overwhelming pressure to stop the war isn’t merely something that’s unlikely to happen: even if by some miracle it did happen, it would only produce a situation in which Vladimir Putin is handed the unexpected gift of facing a democratically-backed appeasement agenda. It would be like Theresa May vs the EU except this time it’s not about tariffs and border controls, but bullets, bombs and millions of Ukrainians disappearing back into the shadow of tyranny after a brief 30 year escape. Sorry Peter, but I don’t buy it.
Putin will never accept anything but a new Frozen Conflict.
Putin will never accept anything but a new Frozen Conflict.
Very interesting debate, the one thing I’d observe is that Thomas Fazi, despite being a superbly lucid and intelligent writer whose views I hugely respect, is nonetheless a terrible verbal debater and as a consequence I have almost no idea what he really thinks here – frustrating, because of all the participants, his view is the one I’m most likely to be persuaded by.
I am not surprised that both Konstantin and Edward’s side ended up being more persuasive in terms of the before/after polls, and it’s for the reason Konstantin pointed out himself: the anti-war position simply doesn’t have a plan for how to bring about a negotiated peace with Russia which can also provide a security guarantee to Ukraine (or any of Russia’s neighbours, come to that). And this is what I found quite frustrating about Peter Hitchens in particular: yes, he’s right that you cannot understand the present situation without understanding how we got here (I’m a George Kennan fan too), but what he appears not to understand is that we have no choice to move forward except from here, and he doesn’t have a credible plan for that.
His suggestion that western voters mobilise into overwhelming pressure to stop the war isn’t merely something that’s unlikely to happen: even if by some miracle it did happen, it would only produce a situation in which Vladimir Putin is handed the unexpected gift of facing a democratically-backed appeasement agenda. It would be like Theresa May vs the EU except this time it’s not about tariffs and border controls, but bullets, bombs and millions of Ukrainians disappearing back into the shadow of tyranny after a brief 30 year escape. Sorry Peter, but I don’t buy it.
I have mixed feelings about this debate which I watched in full yesterday.
Freddie struggled to moderate the discussion. All the participants, with the possible exception of Mr. Lucas, ranted, especially Hitchens who is a professional boor. This type of free-for-all style debate, rather than limiting each speaker to an extended statement of their case followed by one period for rebuttal of opponents, relies on participants playing more or less nicely.
I suspect, however, that the debate accurately reflects the sharp division in opinion, often driven more by emotion than reason, within the West regarding this war. I’m not sure our leaders and military are doing much better in private.
My opinion didn’t change as a result of this debate. Neither side impressed me.
Thanks to Unherd, though, for staging this event. It might have been a bit rough, but we really need more opportunities for public debate of this important issue and we’re certainly not getting that from the legacy media.
Konstantin Kisin did not rant. Watch it again.
Absolutely he did not. He showed great restraint, in fact bordering on a deference that Hitchens didn’t deserve.
Absolutely he did not. He showed great restraint, in fact bordering on a deference that Hitchens didn’t deserve.
Konstantin Kisin did not rant. Watch it again.
I have mixed feelings about this debate which I watched in full yesterday.
Freddie struggled to moderate the discussion. All the participants, with the possible exception of Mr. Lucas, ranted, especially Hitchens who is a professional boor. This type of free-for-all style debate, rather than limiting each speaker to an extended statement of their case followed by one period for rebuttal of opponents, relies on participants playing more or less nicely.
I suspect, however, that the debate accurately reflects the sharp division in opinion, often driven more by emotion than reason, within the West regarding this war. I’m not sure our leaders and military are doing much better in private.
My opinion didn’t change as a result of this debate. Neither side impressed me.
Thanks to Unherd, though, for staging this event. It might have been a bit rough, but we really need more opportunities for public debate of this important issue and we’re certainly not getting that from the legacy media.
Although I agree with Peter Hitchin’s stance deploring war, he does not put forward his arguments constructively and appears just to rant.
Thomas Fazi was the best debater and it was interesting that the young Ukrainian (who wanted more military support), was not too concerned about Russia keeping Crimea and some control over the Dombas region as long as Ukraine’s security was achieved. Edward Lucas just seemed to want the war to continue indefinitely, expecting Russia to accept defeat which I think was unrealistic.
Enjoyed the debate!
Konstantin Kisin is now British. And probably not that “young”. And a far better debater than Thomas Fazi.
KK is correct that Ukraine’s real need is a stable and sustainable settlement – and that probably means conceding some territory. I believe he’s also correct that “we’re not conceding any territory” is the position that Ukraine must take during the war – but this does not mean this is their bottom line for future negotiations. If Ukraine wants future Western security guarantees, I think it’s inevitable that it must relinquish Crimea and perhaps some parts of eastern Ukraine.
Konstantin is a smug guy who shouts down those who have better arguments. He is just into the war – Collateral Damage is I guess what he thinks the fruits of this fight are
haha
No it is not. It is death, destruction, lost education PTSD, legs blown off, infrastructure destroyed, 12,000,000 Refugees !!!! forced out, and that is Bad! It is millions of lived destroyed. Paid for by the USA taxpayer.
Please show some evidence of Kisin “shouting peopke down”. I’ve never seen it.
He’s the one with family actually in the firing line. You may not understand it, but many, many people would rather face danger and hardship (and even death) than lose their freedom.
Please show some evidence of Kisin “shouting peopke down”. I’ve never seen it.
He’s the one with family actually in the firing line. You may not understand it, but many, many people would rather face danger and hardship (and even death) than lose their freedom.
Agreed.
But listen to Putin. He will never willingly agree to let Ukraine go, without some sort of new “hold” over it. If not Crimea and Donbas, then it will be Kherson and Dnipro.
Otherwise, for him, it means the death of Russia.
Konstantin is a smug guy who shouts down those who have better arguments. He is just into the war – Collateral Damage is I guess what he thinks the fruits of this fight are
haha
No it is not. It is death, destruction, lost education PTSD, legs blown off, infrastructure destroyed, 12,000,000 Refugees !!!! forced out, and that is Bad! It is millions of lived destroyed. Paid for by the USA taxpayer.
Agreed.
But listen to Putin. He will never willingly agree to let Ukraine go, without some sort of new “hold” over it. If not Crimea and Donbas, then it will be Kherson and Dnipro.
Otherwise, for him, it means the death of Russia.
On the contrary, I think that Peter Hitchebs is simply trying to highlight the historical context to this war, which Edward Lucas and Konstantin Kisin (who I hugely admire, but who is a genuine Ukrainian from a geographically messy ‘Ukraine ‘) do their best to overlook. Or perhaps it all hinges on interpretations of events in events in 2007/2008 and 2014?
It’s refreshing and ‘enjoyable ‘ to be able to hear an open debate about this (potentially catastrophic) war from advocates on both sides, so thank you to all those concerned!
Hitchens sounded like an idiot. He claims the US would keep the war going if Ukraine stopped fighting. He also refused to address how the war might end by cutting support to Ukraine. “The people of Europe and North America should rise up and pressure their governments”. To do what?
Hitchens, with his Cassandra complex, is his own worst advocate and tediously focused on how we arrived at where we are rather than how we get out of this mess. Honestly, in what universe do governments respond to pressure from their actual citizens? Not the one I live in. And that’s where his position falls on its face. I took comfort from Kisin and Fazi who in the death of it, weren’t a million miles apart.
Vietnam war
Vietnam war
Hitchens, with his Cassandra complex, is his own worst advocate and tediously focused on how we arrived at where we are rather than how we get out of this mess. Honestly, in what universe do governments respond to pressure from their actual citizens? Not the one I live in. And that’s where his position falls on its face. I took comfort from Kisin and Fazi who in the death of it, weren’t a million miles apart.
Peter was right about the impossibility of a civil debate with two pro-War lizards against two people who care about humanity. The Humanity side just gets shouted down.
A total Wan* fest of a debate because it 100% missed the entire point of all this issue ———–> which is what will this regional conflict being made into WWIII do to THE WORLD!!!!!!!!
Just a couple points –
fertilizer production stopping in all Europe and Ukraine. Vital materials being choked off – metals, oil, gas, wheat, seed oils is going to cause a global Famine.
The War spawned energy and food inflation will cause a billion people to sink from poverty to Abject Poverty in the globe…
Russia has been pushed into a camp with Russia, Iran, Venezuela, KSA, Pakistan, Brazil, and sundry – creating a vastly stronger Polarized world – use WWII to describe this WWIII An AXIS power has been created by the insanely corrupt and stupid Biden-Boris ‘Allies’.
Germany de-industrializing, UK about to have a recession not seen since 1930, all Europe will be on the ropes.
You Neo-Con Warmongers – if you get a gun and die in the trenches – good! go for it. That you potentially wreck the world – which was on a knife edge after the Plandemic – That is Pure EVIL!
I could go on and on – the corruption this has spawned in Washington and the world with $113,000,000,000 hot money – Astounding! Every Fi ng politico and lobbyist is getting his 10% – we loosened corruption on the world even more than there was. Blackrock and Vanguard will OWN Ukraine when this is finished.
this was paid by DEBT! Your children will pay it back! Your children will not have pensions paying off this debt used to kill Ukrainian children, civilians, and Russian and Ukrainian young men!! What’s next? A $Trillion to re-build? You lizards want American tax payers to go in debt to pay for your death games, and then to rebuild after? F_You.
PEACE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stupid debate. Peter and Fazi were good – the other two…..
”Russia has been pushed into a camp with China, Iran, Venezuela, KSA, Pakistan, Brazil, and sundry”
I mean China, not Russia twice. The world is all different, and not in a good way because of this new Axis Power the Biden/Boris sanctions created!
As Peter pointed out FDR gave all East Europe to Stalin for Peace and prosperity in West Europe – (I actually think it was more than that, why FDR did it – he did it to break Europe to make them calm down – same as why he enforced decolonization, but I am a conspiracy loon)
If FDR gave East Europe to the Satan Stalin in exchange for peace – I would give Ukraine to a New set of 100% corrupt Oligarchs – but who are Putin’s Puppets, to prevent the global disaster this WWIII brings!
USA per person GDP $70,000
UK per person GDP $45,000
Ukraine per person GDP $4,000
Look It UP! Less than the majority of poor countries! One of the very, very lowest in all the region! And that is a country with resources, industry, and education! F_Zalenski! Because the Ukraine Oligarchs are 100% Corrupt! Putin changing them to different corrupt Oligarchs – I could deal with that – save the whole Nation – save the USA Tax Payer, save maybe half a million deaths and disabled in the fighting – I am good with that. Not One more Bullet! Not one more penny!
PEACE NOW!
By saying you are on the “Humanity” side, you effectively dehumanize the people who bear the brunt of this war: the Ukrainians. They understand that a simple truce just means more war.
The goal of peace should be that this never happens again.
Allowing a revanchist Russia to rearm and try again will just create 100s of thousands more deaths, which I hope we both want to avoid.
”Russia has been pushed into a camp with China, Iran, Venezuela, KSA, Pakistan, Brazil, and sundry”
I mean China, not Russia twice. The world is all different, and not in a good way because of this new Axis Power the Biden/Boris sanctions created!
As Peter pointed out FDR gave all East Europe to Stalin for Peace and prosperity in West Europe – (I actually think it was more than that, why FDR did it – he did it to break Europe to make them calm down – same as why he enforced decolonization, but I am a conspiracy loon)
If FDR gave East Europe to the Satan Stalin in exchange for peace – I would give Ukraine to a New set of 100% corrupt Oligarchs – but who are Putin’s Puppets, to prevent the global disaster this WWIII brings!
USA per person GDP $70,000
UK per person GDP $45,000
Ukraine per person GDP $4,000
Look It UP! Less than the majority of poor countries! One of the very, very lowest in all the region! And that is a country with resources, industry, and education! F_Zalenski! Because the Ukraine Oligarchs are 100% Corrupt! Putin changing them to different corrupt Oligarchs – I could deal with that – save the whole Nation – save the USA Tax Payer, save maybe half a million deaths and disabled in the fighting – I am good with that. Not One more Bullet! Not one more penny!
PEACE NOW!
By saying you are on the “Humanity” side, you effectively dehumanize the people who bear the brunt of this war: the Ukrainians. They understand that a simple truce just means more war.
The goal of peace should be that this never happens again.
Allowing a revanchist Russia to rearm and try again will just create 100s of thousands more deaths, which I hope we both want to avoid.
Konstantin Kisin is now British. And probably not that “young”. And a far better debater than Thomas Fazi.
KK is correct that Ukraine’s real need is a stable and sustainable settlement – and that probably means conceding some territory. I believe he’s also correct that “we’re not conceding any territory” is the position that Ukraine must take during the war – but this does not mean this is their bottom line for future negotiations. If Ukraine wants future Western security guarantees, I think it’s inevitable that it must relinquish Crimea and perhaps some parts of eastern Ukraine.
On the contrary, I think that Peter Hitchebs is simply trying to highlight the historical context to this war, which Edward Lucas and Konstantin Kisin (who I hugely admire, but who is a genuine Ukrainian from a geographically messy ‘Ukraine ‘) do their best to overlook. Or perhaps it all hinges on interpretations of events in events in 2007/2008 and 2014?
It’s refreshing and ‘enjoyable ‘ to be able to hear an open debate about this (potentially catastrophic) war from advocates on both sides, so thank you to all those concerned!
Hitchens sounded like an idiot. He claims the US would keep the war going if Ukraine stopped fighting. He also refused to address how the war might end by cutting support to Ukraine. “The people of Europe and North America should rise up and pressure their governments”. To do what?
Peter was right about the impossibility of a civil debate with two pro-War lizards against two people who care about humanity. The Humanity side just gets shouted down.
A total Wan* fest of a debate because it 100% missed the entire point of all this issue ———–> which is what will this regional conflict being made into WWIII do to THE WORLD!!!!!!!!
Just a couple points –
fertilizer production stopping in all Europe and Ukraine. Vital materials being choked off – metals, oil, gas, wheat, seed oils is going to cause a global Famine.
The War spawned energy and food inflation will cause a billion people to sink from poverty to Abject Poverty in the globe…
Russia has been pushed into a camp with Russia, Iran, Venezuela, KSA, Pakistan, Brazil, and sundry – creating a vastly stronger Polarized world – use WWII to describe this WWIII An AXIS power has been created by the insanely corrupt and stupid Biden-Boris ‘Allies’.
Germany de-industrializing, UK about to have a recession not seen since 1930, all Europe will be on the ropes.
You Neo-Con Warmongers – if you get a gun and die in the trenches – good! go for it. That you potentially wreck the world – which was on a knife edge after the Plandemic – That is Pure EVIL!
I could go on and on – the corruption this has spawned in Washington and the world with $113,000,000,000 hot money – Astounding! Every Fi ng politico and lobbyist is getting his 10% – we loosened corruption on the world even more than there was. Blackrock and Vanguard will OWN Ukraine when this is finished.
this was paid by DEBT! Your children will pay it back! Your children will not have pensions paying off this debt used to kill Ukrainian children, civilians, and Russian and Ukrainian young men!! What’s next? A $Trillion to re-build? You lizards want American tax payers to go in debt to pay for your death games, and then to rebuild after? F_You.
PEACE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stupid debate. Peter and Fazi were good – the other two…..
Although I agree with Peter Hitchin’s stance deploring war, he does not put forward his arguments constructively and appears just to rant.
Thomas Fazi was the best debater and it was interesting that the young Ukrainian (who wanted more military support), was not too concerned about Russia keeping Crimea and some control over the Dombas region as long as Ukraine’s security was achieved. Edward Lucas just seemed to want the war to continue indefinitely, expecting Russia to accept defeat which I think was unrealistic.
Enjoyed the debate!
Very interesting discussion. I think in terms of arguments E.Lucas and K.Kisin won, although I was at the beginning on the side of “no more weapons”… It was interesting to see Kisin say, that Ukraine doesn‘t really care so much about Crimea and part of Donbas, if it could be given a solid guarantee of independence, where the country can make its own economic treaties and military pacts. Maybe that would give Putin enough not to appear as a loser and being toppled by an even worse dictator.
The motion seemed a little confused to me. How were you supposed to vote if you thought that the West is providing the correct amount of weapons right now and that “more” are not needed ? The implication is that you should vote against it. Crazy.
The motion seemed a little confused to me. How were you supposed to vote if you thought that the West is providing the correct amount of weapons right now and that “more” are not needed ? The implication is that you should vote against it. Crazy.
Very interesting discussion. I think in terms of arguments E.Lucas and K.Kisin won, although I was at the beginning on the side of “no more weapons”… It was interesting to see Kisin say, that Ukraine doesn‘t really care so much about Crimea and part of Donbas, if it could be given a solid guarantee of independence, where the country can make its own economic treaties and military pacts. Maybe that would give Putin enough not to appear as a loser and being toppled by an even worse dictator.
A useful and interesting debate.
And one which usefully highlighted the shallowness of the Hitchens/Fazi case. Note how calm Lucas and Kisin remained throughout and how overwrought and emotional Hitchens became. That alone tells you something.
Thomas Fazi was dreadful. Apart from speaking much too fast (to the point of becoming unintelligible), he really seems to have nothing useful or constructive to say. Claiming that “the people of Western Europe haven’t been heard” just isn’t credible. There has been a lot of public discussion and debate.
I note also just how much Hitchens and Fazi focus on talking about the past. It’s reminiscent of Irish nationalism – the constant need to stoke up grievances from the past – together with the usual attempts to create false equivalences – “both sides are equally bad” (Hitchens), “George W. Bush turned Putin against NATO”, etc. I particularly mention the George W. Bush point because Hitchens et al are consciously trying to create an impression that anyone who supports current Western policy in Ukraine agrees with all historical Western/US policies. And this is blatantly untrue.
Similarly, so many loose assertions were offered – some ex-US official is cited (Hitchens) as being “cleverer than anyone in this room”. Even if true (unlikely), “cleverness” is absolutely no guarantee of wisdom or judgement – as Hitchens surely knows.
Likewise Fazi’s repeated claim that “a peace deal was almost agreed … until the US/Britain wrecked it”. But “almost agreed” means nothing – even if it is true (which none of us actually know). Why ? There is no guarantee that it would have a) actually been agreed, b) been kept by all parties and c) had a good chance of securing a sustainable peace. Fazi simply glosses over these vital details. Sloppy, sloppy work. Fazi’s words also imply that Western countries have no business whatever being involved in any peace agreement. Again, this is fundamentally mistaken. As the only future potential guarantors of Ukraine’s future security, of course their opinions count. Only a dolt could not see this.
Ukraine abuts on half a dozen NATO and/or EU countries. It thus might be of some importance to us.
Ukraine abuts on half a dozen NATO and/or EU countries. It thus might be of some importance to us.
A useful and interesting debate.
And one which usefully highlighted the shallowness of the Hitchens/Fazi case. Note how calm Lucas and Kisin remained throughout and how overwrought and emotional Hitchens became. That alone tells you something.
Thomas Fazi was dreadful. Apart from speaking much too fast (to the point of becoming unintelligible), he really seems to have nothing useful or constructive to say. Claiming that “the people of Western Europe haven’t been heard” just isn’t credible. There has been a lot of public discussion and debate.
I note also just how much Hitchens and Fazi focus on talking about the past. It’s reminiscent of Irish nationalism – the constant need to stoke up grievances from the past – together with the usual attempts to create false equivalences – “both sides are equally bad” (Hitchens), “George W. Bush turned Putin against NATO”, etc. I particularly mention the George W. Bush point because Hitchens et al are consciously trying to create an impression that anyone who supports current Western policy in Ukraine agrees with all historical Western/US policies. And this is blatantly untrue.
Similarly, so many loose assertions were offered – some ex-US official is cited (Hitchens) as being “cleverer than anyone in this room”. Even if true (unlikely), “cleverness” is absolutely no guarantee of wisdom or judgement – as Hitchens surely knows.
Likewise Fazi’s repeated claim that “a peace deal was almost agreed … until the US/Britain wrecked it”. But “almost agreed” means nothing – even if it is true (which none of us actually know). Why ? There is no guarantee that it would have a) actually been agreed, b) been kept by all parties and c) had a good chance of securing a sustainable peace. Fazi simply glosses over these vital details. Sloppy, sloppy work. Fazi’s words also imply that Western countries have no business whatever being involved in any peace agreement. Again, this is fundamentally mistaken. As the only future potential guarantors of Ukraine’s future security, of course their opinions count. Only a dolt could not see this.
Bertrand Russell in 1959 asked future generations to consider only the facts. In 1964 Marshal McLuhan’s ‘The Medium is the Massage’ appeared – never more apposite than now. There is a ‘garden’ of facts out there, selectively harvested for whoever’s narrative.
Here are some facts. Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Putin is president of Russia. Putin imprisons and murders the opposition. Russia has never been democratic, or had a democracy. This breeds fear and insecurity.
As a collective living on this planet the situation in Ukraine concerns us all – how we govern our lives. We have seen these situtations before, as arguably this is yet another ‘act’ in the play of ‘The History of the World’. We know the denouement. You can talk about the history, but more relevant is our behaviour, which never changes, especially the pathologically insecure behaviour of people like Putin. I would have hoped for and liked to seen some reflection of these points during this discussion.
Bertrand Russell in 1959 asked future generations to consider only the facts. In 1964 Marshal McLuhan’s ‘The Medium is the Massage’ appeared – never more apposite than now. There is a ‘garden’ of facts out there, selectively harvested for whoever’s narrative.
Here are some facts. Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Putin is president of Russia. Putin imprisons and murders the opposition. Russia has never been democratic, or had a democracy. This breeds fear and insecurity.
As a collective living on this planet the situation in Ukraine concerns us all – how we govern our lives. We have seen these situtations before, as arguably this is yet another ‘act’ in the play of ‘The History of the World’. We know the denouement. You can talk about the history, but more relevant is our behaviour, which never changes, especially the pathologically insecure behaviour of people like Putin. I would have hoped for and liked to seen some reflection of these points during this discussion.
One can only applaud peace talks.
But the only agreement Putin will accept is the opposite of peace.
He will only accept another “Frozen Conflict.”
Frozen Conflicts are Putin’s Post-Soviet strategy. The population of the non-Russian Soviet republics is equal to that of Russia’s. Ditto for Eastern Europe. As long as all those nations are outside Putin’s control, he sees them as a deadly threat to his regime.
The Minsk “Agreements” were expressly designed to be unworkable. Just as with the earlier Frozen Conflicts with Georgia and Moldova, they are Putin’s means of holding hostage states outside of NATO–until he eventually finds some means of getting them all back into the Russian fold.
But the problem is: no former Soviet republic could now accept a Frozen Conflict. They know it just means more war down the line.
So unless someone–or something–changes Putin’s mind, this war will grind on until Russia loses at least a million men.
No other option.
That’s why he’s set no goals for his war. If he did, he’d be giving the game away.
One can only applaud peace talks.
But the only agreement Putin will accept is the opposite of peace.
He will only accept another “Frozen Conflict.”
Frozen Conflicts are Putin’s Post-Soviet strategy. The population of the non-Russian Soviet republics is equal to that of Russia’s. Ditto for Eastern Europe. As long as all those nations are outside Putin’s control, he sees them as a deadly threat to his regime.
The Minsk “Agreements” were expressly designed to be unworkable. Just as with the earlier Frozen Conflicts with Georgia and Moldova, they are Putin’s means of holding hostage states outside of NATO–until he eventually finds some means of getting them all back into the Russian fold.
But the problem is: no former Soviet republic could now accept a Frozen Conflict. They know it just means more war down the line.
So unless someone–or something–changes Putin’s mind, this war will grind on until Russia loses at least a million men.
No other option.
That’s why he’s set no goals for his war. If he did, he’d be giving the game away.
A very good analisys of Putin and Russia, by a Russian sociologist:
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2023/02/25/russia-ends-nowhere-they-say
He says Putin can’t win, knows it, but is still preparing the country for a very long war.
The real driver, he continues, is the resentment by most Russians about their current situation, as much personal as political. They’ve pretty much lost hope, and so simply tie in their personal grievances with Putin’s own political resentments.
One of the best studies of this war I’ve read so far–not surprising, since the researcher is Russian.
A very good analisys of Putin and Russia, by a Russian sociologist:
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2023/02/25/russia-ends-nowhere-they-say
He says Putin can’t win, knows it, but is still preparing the country for a very long war.
The real driver, he continues, is the resentment by most Russians about their current situation, as much personal as political. They’ve pretty much lost hope, and so simply tie in their personal grievances with Putin’s own political resentments.
One of the best studies of this war I’ve read so far–not surprising, since the researcher is Russian.
How do you vote?
Think that facility was only available on the night if you were there or watched on live stream – which I did.
Brilliant.
I’m very pleased to see all this being discussed openly and properly, the short BBC debate was brilliant too.
Brilliant.
I’m very pleased to see all this being discussed openly and properly, the short BBC debate was brilliant too.
No. Next daft question?
Oh, and we should recover the billions already wasted on the gangster in Kiev, and his handlers.
The gangsters are in Moscow.
Factually, Russia is rated more corrupt than Ukraine.
And since a number of the most corrupt oligarchs have fled or lost access to their wealth things will only get better.
Exchanging the very corrupt Medvedchuk for the Azov “Spartans” was especially encouraging.
The gangsters are in Moscow.
Factually, Russia is rated more corrupt than Ukraine.
And since a number of the most corrupt oligarchs have fled or lost access to their wealth things will only get better.
Exchanging the very corrupt Medvedchuk for the Azov “Spartans” was especially encouraging.
No. Next daft question?
Oh, and we should recover the billions already wasted on the gangster in Kiev, and his handlers.
Although I agree with both Hitchens and Fazi on virtually every point they made, it was interesting to watch them lose their tempers: far easier to ride the wave of party-line indignation against Russia as Lucas and Kisin did.
Or as it’s said:
“The angry man in any argument is usually wrong.”
To which gapsh!te do we attribute that charming deepity?
To which gapsh!te do we attribute that charming deepity?
Or as it’s said:
“The angry man in any argument is usually wrong.”
Although I agree with both Hitchens and Fazi on virtually every point they made, it was interesting to watch them lose their tempers: far easier to ride the wave of party-line indignation against Russia as Lucas and Kisin did.