|
Kalit posted:NATO hasn't let Ukraine join either and Russia has nuclear weapons, which can also be viewed as a threat to their neighbors. Ukraine having in their constitution a constant bid to join NATO destabilizes the region. They'd now be allied with a nuclear power in America right next to Russia's borders. So your argument defeats itself. RBA Starblade posted:I suspect that such a large part of why Putin invaded when he did is western leftists being able, even maybe inadvertently, to run interference for him, misunderstanding anti-imperialism for anti-americanism.. At the end of the day the invasion is unacceptable though. I too remember the great leftist surge in 2008 when Putin invaded Georgia, all that leftist representation like, uh, well, I'll think of someone. This is just empty swipes for the sake of swipes, very tiresome.
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Ukraine having in their constitution a constant bid to join NATO destabilizes the region. They'd now be allied with a nuclear power in America right next to Russia's borders. So your argument defeats itself. Oh I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing Ukraine and not Georgia. Please, continue then.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:19
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Ukraine having in their constitution a constant bid to join NATO destabilizes the region. They'd now be allied with a nuclear power in America right next to Russia's borders. So your argument defeats itself.  So.... Ukraine trying to join NATO, with NATO not accepting their membership = destabilizing the region. Russia invading neighboring countries over and over again != destabilizing the region  Seriously, take a step back and look at what your argument entails. Stop swallowing Putin's talking point without a second thought because it happens to be anti-USA.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:21
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I suspect that such a large part of why Putin invaded when he did is western leftists being able, even maybe inadvertently, to run interference for him, misunderstanding anti-imperialism for anti-americanism.. At the end of the day the invasion is unacceptable though. That makes no sense. Not only are western leftists are a pretty small group with no real effect on the broader narrative, almost none of us believe the invasion is justified, but just that it's a predictable geopolitical consequence of the actions taken post-2014.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:21
|
|
|
Kalit posted:
Please refer me to the post where I condoned the Russian invasion or said that Russia's invasion was not destabilizing the region.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:25
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I suspect that such a large part of why Putin invaded when he did is western leftists being able, even maybe inadvertently, to run interference for him, misunderstanding anti-imperialism for anti-americanism.. At the end of the day the invasion is unacceptable though. Yeah Putin obviously planned WW3 around the opinions of a small group of terminally online shitposters that are so ineffective at convincing people they can’t even get their own preferred candidates elected at any level of government in their own countries.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:26
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Please refer me to the post where I condoned the Russian invasion or said that Russia's invasion was not destabilizing the region. You condone the invasion by proxy when you use Putin's talking points to argue against supporting Ukraine, which youve done throughout the thread. If you're against supporting Ukraine's defense against aggression seeking to genocide the Ukrainian people then you can't claim to not condone the actions later.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:26
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:You're not giving anything worth responding to and even then the answers you are getting are still correct and valid even if you don't like them because you can't whataboutism your way out of it Again responding to "why is the US helping" with "the US is helping because they're the only ones that can help" is not an answer. The US could have stopped Saudi Arabia from committing genocide in Yemen but instead we actively helped them do it. Was it because Saudi asked for help and the US just helps anybody who asks regardless of the situation? I kinda doubt it. You can call it whataboutism if you want but to me it just looks like you're actively avoiding pattern recognition Heck Yes! Loam! posted:No, you should be able to explain your point and argument without just phishing for a response. I gave an answer. I don't think "Ukraine asked" is a sufficient explanation. I'm not sure what the point of showing the world the Russian army sucks is, either. I'm also not sure why defunding Nazification makes sense here given the US's historic support of fascism abroad. None of it actually posits any kind of intent either, which it feels like both of you are eliding RBA Starblade posted:I suspect that such a large part of why Putin invaded when he did is western leftists being able, even maybe inadvertently, to run interference for him, misunderstanding anti-imperialism for anti-americanism.. At the end of the day the invasion is unacceptable though. Is this a joke or are you seriously suggesting this, because if it's the latter, it is completely unmoored from reality because "western leftists" have zero material control over the US response to the war
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:27
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I suspect that such a large part of why Putin invaded when he did is western leftists being able, even maybe inadvertently, to run interference for him, misunderstanding anti-imperialism for anti-americanism.. At the end of the day the invasion is unacceptable though. What anti-interventionist left politicians have been inadvertently running interference and assisting Ukraine in misguided anti-imperialism? I'm a bit tuned out on mainstream news so are there a lot of mainstream pundits and policy makers who are running interference for him by accident?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Again responding to "why is the US helping" with "the US is helping because they're the only ones that can help" is not an answer. The US could have stopped Saudi Arabia from committing genocide in Yemen but instead we actively helped them do it. Was it because Saudi asked for help and the US just helps anybody who asks regardless of the situation? I kinda doubt it. You can call it whataboutism if you want but to me it just looks like you're actively avoiding pattern recognition "Yes 911, my home has been invaded by armed men and they're shooting my family, send help" "Sorry, asking for help isn't a good enough reason. *click*"
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Please refer me to the post where I condoned the Russian invasion or said that Russia's invasion was not destabilizing the region. You were placing blame on Ukraine, implying that Russia isn't 100% at fault for their invasion. Your claim of Ukraine's aspirations of joining NATO (without NATO's acceptance) is somehow destabilizing a region (without any concrete evidence on how that's destabilizing) but are silent about Russia's actual actions on destabilizing the region. You omitting these key points speaks volumes, regardless of you saying the literal phrases "Russia should invade" or "Russia has never destabilized the region".
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:31
|
|
|
I'm reposting this as it got buried on the last page. The argument isn't about how much power leftists/left leaning politicians have, it's just about the views that many leftists on line and elsewhere are espousing in regards to the Ukraine war.The Sean posted:Oh. So you weren't engaging in in-thread discussion. I see now. I said "leftists." The way the English language works, my statement means that more than one Leftist is expressing the thought that Ukraine should just stop resisting to end the conflict more quickly. The statement encompassed leftists in and out of the the thread. Here is an e-mail I received from the Green Party, stating that giving aid to Ukraine is like pouring gasoline on a fire. They also call for an immediate cease-fire, which, ok, but the United States doesn't control the Ukrainian government or the Russian government. So who are they calling on? As far as why this war has garnered such support to Ukraine, it's because Russian launched a war at a time of it's choosing for no good reason other than it was upset that its smaller neighbors choose to defy it. When people talk about NATO spreading east, they act like it's a blob absorbing anything in its path rather than a mutual defense pact that countries have to purposefully choose to join. Poland, Finland, Sweden, the Baltic states joining NATO is a result of those countries wanting to, not because they were strong armed into it, and for Russia objecting is just showing them to be objecting their neighbors showing self-determination rather than being vassal states. Green Party posted:PeterCat --
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:31
|
|
|
Kalit posted:You were placing blame on Ukraine, implying that Russia isn't 100% at fault for their invasion. Your claim of Ukraine's aspirations of joining NATO is somehow destabilizing a region (without any concrete evidence on how that's destabilizing) but are silent about Russia's actual actions on destabilizing the region. I will repeat, for the final time, please quote me where I condoned Russia's invasion or I said Russia's invasion never destabilized the region. Here, let me help you: Probably Magic posted:Even if Ukraine was completely Nazi, it's not Russia's job to "liberate" them any more than it was America's job to liberate Iraq from a dictator like Saddam.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:35
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:I'm reposting this as it got buried on the last page. The argument isn't about how much power leftists/left leaning politicians have, it's just about the views that many leftists on line and elsewhere are espousing in regards to the Ukraine war. Yes, the green party is anti war in all circumstances. That's not shocking. is there a point beyond being mad that leftists are being too disloyal?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:36
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:"Sorry, asking for help isn't a good enough reason. *click*" Literally what we've done to Yemen, Palestine, and Ethiopia but go off.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:40
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:I will repeat, for the final time, please quote me where I condoned Russia's invasion or I said Russia's invasion never destabilized the region. Here, let me help you: Let me use an analogous example to see if you can understand what I'm talking about. If I say "US shouldn't have involved itself in Chile in the 70s. But..... maybe if Allende didn't start a war against capitalism, then that wouldn't have happened", what do you think my stance on the US's actions would be?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:41
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Yes, the green party is anti war in all circumstances. That's not shocking. is there a point beyond being mad that leftists are being too disloyal? Yes, saying that giving aid to Ukraine is "pouring gasoline on a fire" is implying that without aid the war would be over more quickly because Russia would have won by now. It's grotesque, especially when you consider that they don't call out Russia or Putin for starting a war of discretion by invading Ukraine. That's what I mean by the Left is just yelling "stop resisting."
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:41
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Here's the quote I was responding to: It's the "perpetuating the conflict in complete disregard of Ukraine's ability to sustain it" part, specifically. You said that argument was effectively "stop resisting"--which seemed to me like you changing the argument. It's possible to think both that A) Russia should get the gently caress out and B) The US is escalating the conflict in a way that will make Ukraine suffer for decades to come. We're not providing effective, targeted support; we're setting the entire region up to be a chaotic running bloodbath. It's a hosed situation that we are unequivocally making way more hosed. It's not a simple conflict, and we shouldn't discuss it in simplified terms. I'm not trying to be a dick, or pick a fight with you, or ~beat you in an argument~ or anything. I'm just responding to what I saw as your argument, and if it came off as personal or disrespectful, that's my bad. How are u posted:It's about as clear-cut a conflict as we've seen in god knows how long. Putin's utterly unjustifiable war of imperial expansion and aggression is a thing of pure evil, and everybody loves to root for the underdog. Ukraine's cultural and social media outreach to the West is incredibly well done. People are glad to rally around the flag, except this time it's the Ukrainian flag / EU flag. I'm sure as gently caress not gonna argue that Russia was right to invade, but it's not hard to identify one reasonable justification for it doing so: pushing the "gently caress Russia Alliance" up to Russia's borders was inevitably going to trigger some kind of response, and that's something the US has been aware of for decades and has nevertheless pursued. For clarity, this isn't me saying that Russia was justified, just observing that there is at least some kind of identifiable justification. That's in contrast to the "denazification" argument the Russians are pushing, which is obvious horseshit. Not saying Ukraine doesn't have a Nazi problem, mind you; just saying that Russia probably isn't the one to be making that accusation, given that they literally hired a Nazi mercenary group to assassinate Zelenskyy. The Russian invasion was absolutely wrong, and the fact that it happened is horrible, but I'd argue that there were stronger arguments for it than (one example) Saudi Arabia plowing into Yemen. And my discomfort with the intensity of the American cultural response is, I will freely confess, a product of what I saw happen before the invasion of Iraq. It's giving me some real ugly deja vu, and my (undeniably cynical) feeling is that there's somebody pushing an agenda. Which isn't to undercut the fact that this is a horrible conflict that needs to stop--but there have been plenty of other flags for people to rally around in the past few years, and the fact that this was the case where it happened makes me deeply suspicious. I'm sorry to hear that you've got family in Ukraine. Here's hoping they stay safe. Also: I'm gonna bail on this thread, because there are way too many arguments in here and they seem way too torturous to get dragged into. Namaste.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:42
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:The EU is militarily toothless as evidenced by their best economic power being so militarily useless they could only sent 5000 helmets instead of guns and armor. They still haven't sent the Marders either. The EU wouldn't be able to do this. Not only have France and Germany sent billions to Ukraine, but also heavy weaponary like tanks, anti-aircraft guns, etc.: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/france-will-increase-financial-aid-ukraine-by-300-mln-macron-tells-donor-2022-05-05/ https://news.yahoo.com/germany-sends-heavy-weapons-ukraine-130800806.html https://berlinspectator.com/2022/04/16/military-aid-germany-to-provide-1-5-billion-euro-to-ukraine/ https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/major-shift-germany-send-weapons-ukraine-83131834 Without U.S. help they would definitely pick up a lot of slack.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:44
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Literally what we've done to Yemen, Palestine, and Ethiopia but go off. Miss me with that whataboutism poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:49
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Not only have France and Germany sent billions to Ukraine, but also heavy weaponary like tanks, anti-aircraft guns, etc.: I never said they didn't help. I said the scale at which they could help is not one that can match the United States. Nothing in those articles indicates that they are able to conjure $35+ billion dollars multiple times like the US.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:50
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Let me use an analogous example to see if you can understand what I'm talking about. If I say "US shouldn't have involved itself in Chile in the 70s. But..... maybe if Allende didn't start a war against capitalism, then that wouldn't have happened", what do you think my stance on the US's actions would be? Well, not only am I still waiting for you to quote me on the position you keep accusing me of having, now I have to ask you if you truly believe NATO is a force for good on the same level as socialism. Let me use an analogy for you: I'm 15, in high school, arguing against the Iraq War, and keep getting met with, "Oh, so you think Saddam Hussain was a good guy?!!" Imagine how bored I get. Imagine how bored I feel right now.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:52
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:"Yes 911, my home has been invaded by armed men and they're shooting my family, send help" The US is not a rescue agency that nominally exists to direct help to people during emergencies. The US is a rival group of home invaders It's a more accurate analogy than you intended considering that 911 will itself send armed men to your home to shoot your family, but it doesn't apply to the situation as you meant it to
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:56
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Without U.S. help they would definitely pick up a lot of slack. Do you honestly believe that of the current German government? Really, after the level of leadership they've shown to date? I mean the French love shipping arms, so fair enough they'd pick it up a little, but Germany has in no sense shown initiative in this conflict. Like here https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/ The United States is giving about as much as all of Europe combined. 10 billion to 12. If it wasn't there, Europe would have to double everything. Do you realistically think that would happen? Do you think most of Europe has double the material to instantly give? The reality is that Europe doesn't have the ability to meet the needs of Ukraine alone. By design, Europe has never firmly committed to meeting the totality of it's defense needs without United States involvement. In a war with Russia, America would always be an issue. That's why NATO exists, and the EU hasn't changed that dynamic. It might, in 20 or 30 years. Today? No.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 04:57
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Well, not only am I still waiting for you to quote me on the position you keep accusing me of having, now I have to ask you if you truly believe NATO is a force for good on the same level as socialism. I mean in this analogy you're the 15 year old arguing that the Iraq War is an unfortunate necessity and that other countries should get out of the way and not interfere with how the US is gallavanting around. That Saddam was provoking it by his use of chemical weapons and the previous conflict a decade prior where he should have instead acceded immediately. Zore fucked around with this message at 05:04 on May 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 05:00
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:Miss me with that whataboutism poo poo That's not whataboutism, it is explaining the point that was made. That asking for help is insufficient. That the existence of a humanitarian crisis is insufficient. When you're arguing from ethical principles, you're arguing nonsense, because the United States never has and never will intervene in a nation's affairs for ethical reasons. The United States intervenes when it benefits the United States. Regardless of whether you believe whether US military involvement in Ukraine is justifiable on ethical grounds, that is absolutely not why the United States is there.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 05:03
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:That's not whataboutism, it is explaining the point that was made. That asking for help is insufficient. That the existence of a humanitarian crisis is insufficient. When you're arguing from ethical principles, you're arguing nonsense, because the United States never has and never will intervene in a nation's affairs for ethical reasons. The United States intervenes when it benefits the United States. Regardless of whether you believe whether US military involvement in Ukraine is justifiable on ethical grounds, that is absolutely not why the United States is there. Of course it isnt and I never argued that was the sole reason why we are helping. It absolutely serves US core foreign policy and national security interests for there to be a weak Russia that can't continue doing what it has been doing. My point is that there is an overlap this time between interest serving actions and the ethically, morally right thing to do. And it being hypocritical with regards to Yemen etc doesn't make it any less ethically or morally right to do, along with being the only country which has a reasonable and easy ability to supply financial and military aid at scale that nobody else that is morally and ethically aligned (see, EU/NATO) is able to match. Hypocrisy doesn't negate that.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 05:11
|
|
|
Zore posted:I mean in this analogy you're the 15 year old arguing that the Iraq War is an unfortunate necessity and that other countries should get out of the way and not interfere with how the US is gallavanting around. That Saddam was provoking it by his use of chemical weapons and the previous conflict a decade prior where he should have instead acceded immediately. Even in this scenario, you're the one arguing that billions of dollars in arms should be handed to Saddam Hussain, lol. I also love that Kalit tried to use Allende as the comparison when Zelensky has shut down every leftist party in Ukraine under the guise of "anti-Russianism," really flying close to the sun there with these arguments.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 05:11
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Even in this scenario, you're the one arguing that billions of dollars in arms should be handed to Saddam Hussain, lol. I know I've disagreed with you earlier but on this we agree, this is the right take imo
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 05:16
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Literally what we've done to Yemen, Palestine, and Ethiopia but go off.  I really don't think Ethiopia's similar to the other two. Yemen and Palestine are being attacked by much more powerful foreign invaders. The Tigray War is more or less an internal matter afaik, unless you're saying one or more of the rebel groups merits international support.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 05:17
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:Ah yeah we have to just let Russia invade its former imperial possessions with impunity because the US is also bad, got it. Also, advocating for formalizing spheres of influence? Along with this talk of a time machine it seems you have fallen out of 1875 and the Great Game is afoot. If the alternative is having continents fall to war and nuke spin in their siles whenever one power steps onto another's turf, by design or accident? Yes, formalize spheres of power. My enture subcontinent had their governments knocked over in favor of military juntas backing the same country, but hey, there's no Great Game afoot! Everyone is free to chase their national self-determination! Pretending they don't exist is pointless and serves only to let some people believe they don't live in an empire. Do the Solomon Islands get to host a chinese military base? How is that any different from Putin not wanting NATO nukes within 10 minutes of Moscow? Same poo poo, different flag.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 05:30
|
|
|
Again this is like a greatest hits of bad arguments. "It certainly is interesting that the US cares about Ukraine and not dozens of other less visible people in as bad or worse situations." Yes. This is a correct observation: the US cares here and not in other situations because it's a European war, because the victims are white, and because the enemy is a great American villain, Russia. It is not complicated. Europe could or would not have summoned aid on this scale. They had the opportunity and Germany, just as a for instance botched initial shipment of arms to Ukraine. It is absolutely racist that America cares more for a European people than people of other regions. That's not a good enough reason on its own not to support Ukraine, it just points out the hilariously bad America is at hiding its motivations. It is entirely possible that shipment of arms to Ukraine will eventually have a destabilizing effect. It may also protect Ukranian sovereignty and lives in the short term. Things can be both good and bad.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 05:31
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:If the alternative is having continents fall to war and nuke spin in their siles whenever one power steps onto another's turf, by design or accident? Yes, formalize spheres of power. My enture subcontinent had their governments knocked over in favor of military juntas backing the same country, but hey, there's no Great Game afoot! Everyone is free to chase their national self-determination! E: okay I understand now, gimme a bit to think about it and reply
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 05:34
|
|
|
When the dude nominally in charge of a country facing an existential threat responds to an offer to be air-lifted out with "i don't need a ride i need ammo" and you had chemistry students mass producing molotov cocktails, i think all concerns about perpetuating a conflict beyond the citizenry's willingness to take part can be safely thrown out the window. They already started going through this poo poo eight years ago, which seems to be glossed over on the regular. Yeah, America bad and all but when you combine the above with our electorate's willingness to go all in on backing what we see as an (admittedly white, european) underdog it's not surprising to see a happy meeting between "wow we can kinda do the right thing" and the MIC choking on the firehose of funding going their way. That's not even getting in to the actual war crimes and Holomodor 2.0 Electric Boogaloo (This Time We Won't Wait To Starve Them) attempt in Bucha.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 05:35
|
|
|
A practical reason for the US not engaging in a proxy war with Russia is the chance that some miscommunication or an itchy trigger finger by only a single person could spiral out of control into an armed conflict between nuclear powers. It doesn't help when Biden says that Putin has to go or the number 2 Democrat in congress says that the US is at war with Russia.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 05:39
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:If the alternative is having continents fall to war and nuke spin in their siles whenever one power steps onto another's turf, by design or accident? Yes, formalize spheres of power. My enture subcontinent had their governments knocked over in favor of military juntas backing the same country, but hey, there's no Great Game afoot! Everyone is free to chase their national self-determination! Ukraine wasn't getting into NATO with giant territorial disputes and I don't think anyone ever proposed to station nukes there even if they were admitted. That being said, why is it that you think the spheres of influence depriving your subcontinent's governments of democracy is a great shining example of what should be inflicted on the Ukrainian people? Much less, are they an excuse to declare the Ukrainian people a fiction and pursue a genocidal war? I don't think the United States or anyone else is planning a violent genocidal invasion of the Soloman Islands regardless of what actions China takes
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 05:41
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:Of course it isnt and I never argued that was the sole reason why we are helping. It absolutely serves US core foreign policy and national security interests for there to be a weak Russia that can't continue doing what it has been doing. My point is that there is an overlap this time between interest serving actions and the ethically, morally right thing to do. And it being hypocritical with regards to Yemen etc doesn't make it any less ethically or morally right to do, along with being the only country which has a reasonable and easy ability to supply financial and military aid at scale that nobody else that is morally and ethically aligned (see, EU/NATO) is able to match. Hypocrisy doesn't negate that. The thing you don't seem to be able to quite get hold of is that the US isn't doing "hypocrisy" here except as it relates to the language it uses to spin its involvement in the war to the public, which is irrelevant when you're trying to figure out what the US is actually doing. It's doing exactly what it always does in Ukraine, it has not changed its behavior If the US running guns for Ukraine happens to dovetail with the correct ethical, moral course, that's just simple coincidence, and if conditions shift in such a way that US interests no longer align with the correct ethical, moral course, the US is not going to make any effort to adjust to follow it because ethics and morals were never actually a US consideration in the first place. They would not "disregard" the ethical, moral course or any other similar verb, because it was always entirely orthogonal
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 05:43
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:When the dude nominally in charge of a country facing an existential threat responds to an offer to be air-lifted out with "i don't need a ride i need ammo" and you had chemistry students mass producing molotov cocktails, i think all concerns about perpetuating a conflict beyond the citizenry's willingness to take part can be safely thrown out the window. Yeah, the "oh gosh why is America prolonging this suffering" argument feels like it was spooled up when it was possible to believe (if you curated your media sources carefully and squinted a little) that Ukraine really was going to collapse at invasion by the world's second-most-powerful military, that the Russian-speaking Ukrainians would welcome them as liberators, that most of the rest would accept their lot, and that the US would only be arming insurgent groups of hardcore Ukrainian nationalists. It doesn't seem to hold up well to facts on the ground at any level.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 05:44
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:The thing you don't seem to be able to quite get hold of is that the US isn't doing "hypocrisy" here except as it relates to the language it uses to spin its involvement in the war to the public, which is irrelevant when you're trying to figure out what the US is actually doing. It's doing exactly what it always does in Ukraine, it has not changed its behavior That.. Was exactly my point? I specifically said IN THIS CASE that ethics and morals aligned with US interests. I'm not sure what you're driving at because what I posted and what you're talking about here seem to align. If US interests shifted overnight to, say, pro-Russia interests (in the event of a Trump 2024 victory for example), I would expect that aid to stop overnight. I'm not naive or stupid, I specifically limited what I was talking about to this circumstance.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 06:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
HonorableTB posted:That.. Was exactly my point? I specifically said IN THIS CASE that ethics and morals aligned with US interests. I'm not sure what you're driving at because what I posted and what you're talking about here seem to align. If US interests shifted overnight to, say, pro-Russia interests (in the event of a Trump 2024 victory for example), I would expect that aid to stop overnight. I'm not naive or stupid, I specifically limited what I was talking about to this circumstance. If you look at your own previous posts on this subject tonight, you were originally characterizing US involvement as anti-imperialist in nature rather than another expression of imperialism that, this particular time, happens to be arrayed against a more aggressive imperial rival, and that the US did so in response to a call for help rather than to advance its own interests. The ideal outcome for the US here is not "free Ukraine" or whatever, it's to secure a functional client state for itself. You can certainly say that's a preferable outcome for Ukraine because the US would be a less directly violent imperial manager than Russia would be, but that's a different argument than the one you've been making until now I also think your example in this post, intentionally or not, elides more instructive hypotheticals about what the US involvement here really entails. Like yeah the US could full-on switch sides, sure, but as the primary bankroller of Ukrainian resistance, a greater risk is that if US and Ukrainian interests diverge, the US can(and will, if the US decides it's worth it) leverage that into compelling Ukraine to act in the imperial interests of the US instead of in its own interests(just to throw out a vague hypothetical for illustration purposes, something like forgoing a potential Russian offramp back to a state of detente because the specific conditions are unfavorable to the US, poo poo like that). Even if you think everything so far has been above board and the US hasn't had to push Ukraine into doing anything it doesn't already want to do, the only thing preventing a divergence-to-compulsion event from happening in the future is the continued cooperation of circumstance All of that is incompatible with your prior characterization of the US as behaving as an anti-imperialist ally, which it is not
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 07:39
|
|