Ukraine

Sad day for our Republican friends if their leader Putin is removed from office.

 

At least Democracy Now is consistent. 15:42 is apt for this thread.

 

Can the Ukraine hit the Russians from behind?????? Do they have that capability?

DD

 

behind is russia or belarus, so no....

 

I personally like free speech TV even though the production quality is crap, but they have some good progressive hosts like Thom Hartman. However it's important context that many on there like Hartman previously years ago were contributors to outlets like RT. Not that Hartman or Amy Goodman are pro-Russia at all, but they truly do come with a heavy history of "leave Russia alone" politics.

This stems from the generation of anti Vietnam activists like Hartman who saw Vietnam as an unnecessary proxy war with the Soviet Union... which is why RT for years pursued the far left anti-Vietnam American progressives in politics to share in "leave Russia alone" political opinions.

That's not to say Amy Goodman's guest here is wrong that the US isn't responsible for some escalatory talk here, but it's irresponsible to say that the US is sort of alone here. The Entire continent of Europe is probably even more directly responsible for escalating here in order to support Ukraine. NATO publicly pursing Finland right this second is highly escalatory, and that's not really the US' call alone.

But this is a sympathetic view from the Russia standpoint that sure... we should hear out, but the fact is even with the two sided history... IT IS PUTIN who is bombing hospitals, and committing war crimes against Ukrainians. Ukraine is not the pawn of the US that this commentator is saying that Russia says they are. They have agency here too, and they are the ones who ultimately have a say so in their countries future when they decide to accept help for their freedom instead of cow-towing to Russia and Putin.

 

Sticks and stones PUTIN ......he is just making excuses for his heinous actions.....did it in Chechnya, did it in Georgia, did it in Crimea, and now greater Ukraine.

He is a man that needs to be killed, TBH. for the greater good of the world.

DD

 

The truth is that Trump likely would have diplomatically avoided the US involvement in a war with Russia.

I am sure Trump would not have sent any aid at all to the Ukrainians, and the Ukraine would have already fallen and Trump would make some vague rambling comment either calling Putin a genius for taking the Ukraine or would kiss his ass.

I have zero doubt that is exactly what would happen and Russia and China would profit off of it and the influence of democracies and the West would continue to fade.

 

No idea if DD is or isn't racist. I do know there is a lot of overt and also subtle racism, and that West historically has been controlled by white men so there is obviously racism. Having said that, the geopolitical consequences of the Ukraine invasion are larger than Afghanistan's is.

It is a game of chess (the Ukraine).

 

From the perspective of a global power perspective? Yes, what happens in the Ukraine is more important than what happens in the Afghanistan.

From a straight moral perspective? No, a human life in the Ukraine isn't more important than someone in Afghanistan or Mexico or Poland..... but that isn't how governments operate historically. The reality is that as a conflict the Ukraine is more important for a number of reasons.

Does that mean there isn't racism? Of course not. Do a lot of Westerner's see Ukrainians that are white and Christian and have more sympathy for them? Absolutely..... and that certainly also drives policy to some extent.

 

Uhhhh have you been paying attention to what Putin and Russia have been doing? If anyone doesn't want diplomacy it is Putin.

 

We just came off two wars, one in the middle east and another in central asia, where policy leaders and the American public decided that the Evils there couldn't be eradicated. So we pretty much cut our losses and let the locals handle it. Now we want to "stop Putin"? Does that mean Regime Change?

I think our biases are clouded towards both a) the humanitarian effort and b) a score to settle for Putin's role in the 2016 elections.

The guest, George Bebe, isn't saying "leave Russia alone", he's throwing warning signs that the US is tipping the scales in Ukraine's peace talks by pushing for unconditional victory. We're throwing far more into Ukraine than whatever we send in aid to other countries by at least a factor of ten. What parts of it are humanitarian aid and what is military aid? I have no concrete idea.

That's troubling for me because these blurred lines provoke a sharper domestic reaction that overtakes "Ukraine's agency" and morphs it into the proxy war Russia is claiming it to be. I definitely didn't know about the (Europe brokered) Minsk Agreements that came in the aftermath of Ukraine's civil war. Many Americans assume Ukraine is ethnically homogenous and don't realize east and west is badly divided even more than our north and south.

I do agree the codepink guest is 100% Leave Russia (sphere of influence) Alone. I'm not sold on that side either because why not let China carve up their sphere...Give Saudi their own wahabbist playground...etc...


I just don't think we're upfront and honest with our own positions. I don't like that Pelosi and other Dem leaders made that trip because it signals they learned nothing from authorizing the Iraqi war. But hey, it makes a good photo op and distracts people from the issues they can't solve at home.

 

According to Russia and Putin they are not at war with Ukraine. US intelligence does say the Putin is expected to declare war on the Ukraine in the next week. It is almost like Russia is escalating this whole thing. Weird isn't it?

I love these arbitrary rules that are drawn. Sending in troops or planes is a "no go" according to Russia and the USA. Yet training Ukrainian troops, providing cutting edge tactical support and intelligence on Russia is fine.... so is spending many billions in aid and providing weapons and drones and missile defense systems. Even when Russia is losing the war this type of support is perfectly fine.... it is almost like Russia threatens nuclear war for things that the USA hasn't done, but doesn't make the USA and NATO stop what they are already doing to undermine their annexation of Ukraine. Why would they do that? It is a bluff? Is it that Russia thinks it is "okay" until it is clear that they will lose and then suddenly they will use nuclear weapons if the USA doesn't stop providing aid?...... it is all very bizarre.

Right, these wealthy and powerful elites want WWIII and a nuclear holocaust.... that will greatly improve their quality of life. If they wanted that, they could have had Ukraine brought into NATO sooner or they could have sent in troops as soon as Russia invaded Ukraine.

If Putin (the opinion of Russia means nothing as they have no say in any of this) doesn't want nuclear warfare, there won't be nuclear warfare. There is no reason to believe that the USA or the West has any intention to invade the **** hole called Russia. It has little comparative value to the West.

 

"any country interfering in Ukraine would be met with a “lightning-fast” response from Moscow"

Has he watched the news? Someone should probably tell Putin that most of Europe and the USA have been interfering in the Ukraine ever since the invasion happened.... the weapons killing Russian slugs are bought and paid for by Uncle Sam and her European allies.

After awhile his absent threats become nauseating.

 

I want to be clear that I do think it's a valuable debate to have from the "further left" post-Vietnam wing of the Democratic party on these points that you are also urging debate over. After Iraq I agree... we need to think long and hard about tipping the scales, and making things worse for peace.

However I do think that when you step back for a second, I do think at least right now... these folks are being a bit too reactionary, and aren't realizing that Ukraine has agency too, and has shown that they do. They aren't IMO a US vassal state the way the Iraq replacement regime was, or Saigon was, etc.

My biggest beef with the "further left" (I hate saying FAR left because it implies radicalism on par with the far right) is that they are overly idealistic, and they don't see enough of the reality, and instead just treat situations as though you can snap your fingers and everything is perfect for everyone. I think we cannot debate the war in Ukraine that way thinking that we can just sit on the sideline, and we'll be better off for it. Our sitting on the sideline means we are taking the side of Putin in many ways because sitting on the sideline means we are likely funding genocide, and terrorism.

Everyone knows that the world would be a better place if the Russian military chess piece was off the table and not a threat to global peace, and everyone believes that the world would be better off if Putin was replaced by a peaceful more democratic president. So I don't want to jump to conclusions by a couple non-diplomatic slips from Lloyd Austin, and Biden. Because they are just saying what everyone agrees with, but as a diplomat yeah... choose those words wiser of course because our over involvement would just provide propaganda to galvanize Russia and prolong the war.

So respectfully... yeah we need to be mindful, but the "leave Russia alone" people right now are not really being completely fair to the White House, and have to watch out to sound too much like Tulsi Gabbard who is a Russian superstar at this point.

 

I agree that some viewpoints trend idealistic in either direction.

The part you bolded was not Democracy Now's viewpoint in the video I posted. Their guest Bebe said the "US vassal state" was Russia's mindset, and we have the risk of emboldening their claims by pouring in an incredible amount of money into the effort. All of Putin's correspondence with peace talks have been directed at the US, so while you mention "Ukrainian agency" or Europe's ineffectual harumphs as an event outside American dominated influence, that is not the reality of the situation.

If the US gave up Ukraine, as posited under a re-elected Trump admin, the war in Ukraine would likely be over by now, despite Poland, Spain, Turkey, or whatever.

It's nice to hide behind a coalition of the willing, and to say that it's a war of good vs. evil. That leads us back to the original concerns. What are our win conditions? Are they reasonable? Does it risk misunderstandings and escalation? Or those risks reasonable?

How much will it ultimately cost us? Is that worth more than the ethnic Ukrainians fighting for their survival?

Is Ukraine declaring itself as a neutral nation acceptable? Is ruling out NATO/EU membership ok? That likely means their gas pipelines are out of play. Is that worth it?

How far do we want to punish Putin? How far can we punish Putin?

Are we comfortable turning Ukraine into rubble while carrying out those goals?

 

My point is that you can't argue that we should get involved to stop all the rape and murder because of the sanctity of human life (which was one poster's argument) and then turnaround and make an argument that this one is more important than other ones because of global political reasons.

It's one or the other, right? It's either moral or political. Once someone says it's moral AND political, it sorta tarnishes the moral aspect of ones appeal. That was the point I was trying to make to @DaDakota

Ukraine may be more strategically important, but what I criticize is the moral arguments being made for us to take action.