Bari, with all due respect, you sound exactly like the folks at the New York Times or WaPo when you always have to preface Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with “unprovoked”. It’s demonstrably true that they were provoked, and yes, two things can be true at the same time: it could be an illegal invasion, and also could be provoked. By analo…
Bari, with all due respect, you sound exactly like the folks at the New York Times or WaPo when you always have to preface Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with “unprovoked”. It’s demonstrably true that they were provoked, and yes, two things can be true at the same time: it could be an illegal invasion, and also could be provoked. By analogy, if Russia had been doing the same things for two decades in Canada that the USA was doing in Ukraine, you can bet that the US would not be standing by idly. And regardless of your view on whether or not it was provoked, conducting a reckless proxy war with the nation with the largest nuclear arsenal the world has ever seen is far from obviously in our best interests.
Correct, the threat of NATO in Ukraine is what provoked Putin. This is well documented by many in the foreign policy establishment that counter the DC eco chamber.
Bari parrots the mainstream on this too. It’s really sad, her platform is on Substack and yet she doesn’t even take that time to read other Substack posts, such as John Mearsheimer, who methodically lays this out. Mind boggling.
The whole thing about the threat of NATO in Ukraine is just complete garbage. There was never a serious chance for Ukraine to join NATO until the invasion happened. Any serious observer (I don't consider Tucker Carlson to be a serious observer) who has followed the issue for at least 5 minutes before Feb. 2022 knew this to be the case, including Putin. Saying that it did just belies a complete misunderstanding of Russia. John Mearsheimer has no idea what he is talking about. He doesn't speak Russian and doesn't use any Russian sources in his analysis, basically analysing his own mind's perception of the world, without grounding it in any objective reality. How someone can take him seriously is mind-boggling. He got one thing right in 1994, since then, he has been completely wrong on everything related to Ukraine. Kind of like that broken clock that nevertheless shows the right time twice per day.
On a separate note, it is truly mind-boggling to see the mental gymnastics people will go to, imagining Ukraine joining NATO, etc. rather than believing a simple truth that Russia is a led my a person who has no compunction about starting wars, killing people, etc. despite hundreds of separate facts supporting this view. Why is it so important for people to align their view on this with a person like Putin?
Mark, with all sincerity could you please unpack this more, because I personally have trouble following this train of thought.
So to paraphrase your arguments (maybe in a different thread) you are suggesting that if the U.S. doesn’t spend the resources now, that Russia will become “emboldened and strengthened” from a victory in Ukraine which may lead them to attack a NATO ally (maybe a smaller neighboring country in the Baltic?) and thus force U.S. involvement or to “slink” away from those NATO responsibilities.
Although, I understand the importance of having ally countries, I believe the U.S. should choose and prioritize their allies more carefully (and clearly state that). The idea that Estonia for example (a small NATO country that has less people & probably a smaller economy than the small county I live in) provides the same benefits (either militarily or intelligence or through trade or a geopolitical location, etc.) as other countries like Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc. doesn’t make sense to me. I guess how do you explain to everyday Americans why it is worth the opportunity costs (financial, human resources, potential lives, etc.) to support/protect these countries? And at what value (militarily, economically, etc.) do these countries provide to the U.S. and how much is that worth to protect? Also, this war is the backyard of European countries, so why shouldn’t the burden lay more heavily on their shoulders? Have you seen the difference in NATO spending between countries? These are sincere questions.
Great questions. There are several layers here, so I'll separate them out a bit to make it easier to handle.
Layer 1: Defence of NATO - at this point, the NATO treaty is already in place, and Estonia is already a part of NATO. In the US, the Treaty has a force of law (Including the Article 5 provisions). So at this point, it doesn't really matter whether Estonia is considered worth it, if it gets attacked, the US is obligated to come to its defense (along with the other 29 member countries). If the US does not, all of its treaties on which its national security is based, will immediately become worthless, as every one will assume that the US cannot be relied upon (and seize to be a reliable partner for the US). So from this perspective, that ship has sailed and a discussion of whether Estonia is worth it is purely academic. The American people, through their representatives in the Executive and Legislative branches, have agreed for Estonia to accede to the NATO Treaty, with all of the obligations that entails.
Layer 2: Was it worth for the US to become engaged in a mutual defense relationship with Estonia. This is slightly less clear-cut, but I believe the answer is yes for several reasons. This is a longer conversation to have, but strength in numbers, geographical position, Estonia punching way above its weight in contributions, etc. all play a role.
Layer 3: This is the backyard of Europe, should the burden lay on them. Yes, it should. Yes, they've underinvested mightily and were incredible myopic in letting their military capabilities decay. Yes, Germany and France have been gorging on billions of dollars of Russian illicit cash flowing into Germany to pay off their entire elite. Yes, during the recent French election, Anne Applebaum wrote an elucidating article in the Atlantic, discussing not which of the presidential candidates was pro or anti-Russian, but which was a bigger fanboy/fangirl. Unfortunately, leaving them one on one with Russia to face the consequences of their actions would be counter-productive for the US. Just like in 1939-1941, eventually, the US would have to get involved, only with passage of time it would be a more difficult fight to have.
Layer 4: Burden, there really hasn't been any so far. What help the US provided to Ukraine, was basically 80's weaponry and armaments that were end-of-life, and would have required hundreds of millions of dollars in expenses to dispose of. All of that money was saved, by shipping it off to Ukraine, and putting it to use to defend a sovereign country from pure unadulterated external aggression. (Something the US has traditionally been a champion of, every since it itself has been helped back in the Revolutionary War, admittedly with a less than perfect record). So that argument about the burden that's making the rounds is very disingenuous.
Layer 5: Difference in NATO spending, yes. (Although this is a bit of a misnomer. The NATO treaty has a 2% of GDP investment into the military threshold, this is not exactly a spending level, but most countries in Western Europe have been far below for a very long time. Not so the countries of Eastern Europe that have the experience of being under Russian conquest). In general I think its atrocious in its shortsightedness. However, none of that is relevant at this point. The 30-year lull, where people in Europe thought that wars in Europe were a thing of the past is over. Putin did the impossible, he made NATO relevant again. I don't think anyone else could have rejuvenated it, but he managed to. The military capabilities across Europe are now being rebuilt, the investments will be coming in. American workers will be working to produce a lot of it, American companies will be the profits and paying the taxes, so this is a bit of a moot point as well.
It may be helpful to understand what provocation means. In terms of wars starting, a good illustration is the conditions Israel was in when it started the Six Days War. When it found itself facing mobilized armies of its neighbors, deployed in battle formations on its borders, with Egypt insisting that the UN peacekeepers separating Egypt and Israel be withdrawn. Those are provocations leading to the start of a shooting war. Your neighbor doing something you don't like, is not a provocation. Your neighbor choosing to align with a different world-view is not a provocation.
As far as the proxy war talking points... That's just sad. Putin has shown time and again that he only responds to strength. He views restraint as a show of weakness. He has broken every treaty he has ever signed. (He is actually proud of that fact, as to him, getting away with it means demonstrating strength.). And yet there seems to be a never-ending supply of dupes that keep wanting to believe him. Every time I see another missive like this I keep thinking back to George W, who looked into his eyes and saw his soul.
Go study the history of Ukraine for the past ~20 years including all the shenanigans the USA has been up to. Go back to the end of the cold war to get the whole picture. Go listen to / read translations of everything Russia has said along the way.
Regardless, none of your comments address why our reckless proxy war is a wise course for the USA to follow.
Haha, so you think Victoria Nuland was just pontificating into the ether?
We proved that we were willing to act in bad faith about playing slight of hand games about spoken vs written agreements in the Warsaw Pact. Makes sense that someone like you would prioritize technicalities over honor.
And with common sense reasoning powers as weak as yours... I have some masks and a Raccoon Dog to sell you, Mark. Go get another booster.
Of course she was, she was trying to put lipstick on a pig. Have you never seen a mid-level bureaucrat take credit for something they had nothing to do with? The US never had anywhere near the influence in 2014 in Ukraine to put together an uprising. If you think differently, you are grossly misinformed.
I can't understand what you mean by hand games, and Warsaw Pact? Can you make it a bit more coherent please?
“Slight of Hand”... meaning say one thing, do another. But then claim that because it wasn’t in writing that we would not expand NATO eastward, that it’s 100% legit for us to take action to do so. It simply not in good faith and a technicality... doesn’t make it ‘right’ for us to do so, even if technically we aren’t prohibited from doing so.
Also, we don’t have to orchestrate an uprising to manipulate how the dust settles in one that is already in inevitable.
Do you honestly believe that we would be sending all of this money and munitions to Ukraine if the Bidens and other corrupt members of the political/managerial class didn’t have a personal interest in doing so?
Oh, you are talking about that fairy tale. I have not seen one credible bit of evidence that this is anything more that a KGB disinformation op. And I have looked. This thing originated in Russia in the 1990s as a face-saving story to explain away the haphazard withdrawal from Eastern Europe. I have not seen one shred of actual evidence that there is any veracity to this claim. If you have, I would really (not being sarcastic) like to see it, as I have not been able to track it down.
From a historians perspective, triangulating facts, this story strains credulity. 1. USSR was in no position to demand any such concession. They ran out of Eastern Europe faster than US troops ran out of Afghanistan in 2021. The Soviets had no money to pay for any bloated military, and negative morale following their own withdrawal from Afghanistan. 2. No one in the West was in a position to make such a commitment. Why would Baker, or Scowcroft, or even HW entertain something like that, when they didn't have any standing to make this commitment. Only the NATO Council could make a promise like that. This actual strongly points to a Russian hoax origin, in their world-view there is an absolute ruler at the top, who can make this type of commitment. They don't understand diffusion of power and institutional processes. (That's why they are always a half-step away from a cult of personality, and they keep falling into one over and over again). 3. Agreements that get written down and signed don't necessarily happen (refer to the Budapest Memorandum). Agreements that are not written down surely never will. This is not a technicality, as you claim. Agreements are made between geopolitical actors - nation states, etc., not between individuals, who are mortal and fallible. That's why there is a process to put one in place. Saying "we didn't follow a well-known process but we now want to win" is very similar to all of the Clinton supporters in 2016 whining that she won the popular vote, even though everyone was clear on how the electoral process works, its the electoral votes that determine the winner, not the popular votes. Unless the NATO council signed on to this, there was no individual person in the world that had standing to make such a commitment.
Support for Ukraine is the only issue I agree with Biden on. Even when he is broadly correct policy-wise, he is grossly incompetent in its implementation, and is displaying his moral cowardice in line with the previous 40 years. Based on my own conclusions, I think this is the right course of action for the USA. Why he is doing it I don't really care, as long as he is not shilling the Russian propaganda like so many people in the US are. (I obviously think there is merit to all of the corruption allegations related to Chinese payments, Burisma payments, etc.).
Even if you are 100% about everything (and I think we do agree on most apart from this Ukraine issue)…
…I guess my basic premise is that we have such a great track record over the last 70 years of policing the world, spreading democracy, and just meddling in other people‘s countries… with so much to show for it. Why wouldn’t it be a great idea to dive back into a quagmire with a nuclear power while we have bigger problems with China/Taiwan (so obviously a two fronted war is a great idea)?? All at a time where the administration is weakening morale and military readiness with woke nonsense, draining our strategic petroleum reserve to help win some midterm votes, and NATO is as spineless and anti-US as ever. I just never have wholeheartedly bought in to the Russian Boogeyman fears. It’s got a terrible track record for being internally aimed propaganda. I think what we’re are doing here is simply fast forwarding the degradation of the US’s stature abroad and creating incentive/opportunity for our enemies to ally themselves against us.
But where I will agree Russia is winning… is in their long game. All the leftover Cold War spies that we never deported stayed and continue to spread Marxist ideology within our schools and institutions.
I simply don’t think spreading ourselves thin with weaklings and corrupt imbeciles in charge has a chance of a good outcome.
That is a longer discussion, but I'd point out that several things can be true at the same time.
Firstly, Russia is for real waging a brutal genocidal continental war in Europe committing proper, documented war crimes. Its not a boogeyman anymore. Not acknowledging that is simply wrong, myopic, and inexcusable.
Secondly, NATO is no longer spineless, Putin has given it a fresh lease on life. Prior to Feb. 2022, one could have been forgiven for seriously entertaining the option of kicking some countries out of the club.
Thirdly, the US has done a great job of making the world a better place. There are plenty of studies and books out there measuring global conflict today versus 70 years ago, global development, global hunger, global violent deaths, etc. By all those measures, the world is orders of magnitude better off than it was. Falling prey to people around the world, internally and externally, talking trash for their own varied purposes doesn't lead one to make educated analyses.
Fourthly, has the US done a bunch of stupid shit, oh yeah... I could probably rattle off a fair bit more than the average person. Does it mean serious people should act like 6-years take their toys and go home?.. I don't think so. We definitely should keep trying to do the right thing, recognizing that we don't always know what the right thing is, and we are not always able to do it.
Fifthly, is Biden one of the worst presidents in the last 150 years, oh yes. Beyond the corruption, the incompetence is staggering. Ukraine is a direct consequence of the Afghanistan debacle, and removing the sanctions on Nord Stream 2, which were implemented by Trump. Both seen as major displays of weakness in Moscow. I keep thinking back to Robert Gates, who was part of the Obama administration with Biden, saying that Biden has consistently been wrong on every foreign policy issue over the past 30 years.
And to round it out, you keep using this "nuclear power" moniker that I struggle to get a handle on. Every country that can stake a claim to being a serious international player is a nuclear power. (Japan and South Korea are not, buy they are at maximum 6-months away from capability as well). Dealing with major players means dealing with nuclear powers, that's par for the course. I don't understand the veracity of that argument. Is a suggestion being made that whatever Russia, China, India, Pakistan, France, etc. want to do, they should be allowed to do, because they are nuclear powers?
Used nuclear power once... stakes are higher if we screw up like we have in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, etc. if the other side isn’t just using gorilla tactics and has some real firepower with global reach.
The “world being a better place” through taxpayer funded bureaucratic institutions that are wholly corrupt and waste money while promoting policy at odds with our constitution, isn’t a great trade.
NATO is a proxy for the US. Nothing more. We just get to pay for everyone in exchange for not having to assemble a ‘coalition of the willing’ every time we want to bomb something. It’s a joke way of transferring taxpayer money to ‘Allies’ with not strings attached and no pro-rata contributions expected. It has lost its relevancy.
We have a president who fired government officials to protect mobster partners, funded Ukrainian bio labs, and has oligarch partners mysteriously left off of sanction lists. Ukraine is a money laundering vehicle for the elected class and nothing more. One of the most corrupt nations on earth did not change overnight when Russia stages troops on its border. If it’s so necessary and strategic for our ‘Allies’ let them put some blood and treasure on the line for this next wave of the war. Until then, nothing about this war is anything other than protecting corruption. No neocon talking points about how ‘this time is different’ carry any weight... our track record doesn’t allow for it.
I know the history of Ukraine very well both before and after the cold war. I don't know of any shenanigans the USA has been up to, please enlighten. Is there something specific you are referring to? Saying "go read everything" is like saying "I have nothing of substance to say, so I'll just throw out something nonsensical".
My comment addressed why it is not a "reckless proxy war" (I am not a fan of reusing Russian propaganda, which owns the copyright on this phrase). To unpack it a bit from just a reference to 1938 - getting involved is a wise course of action for the USA because the cost to solve this issue today is drastically lower, than the cost will be in 2-3 years time, when Russia, emboldened and strengthened by its victory in Ukraine, will calculate that the US is too weak politically to act in line with its NATO treaty obligations, and attack one of the NATO allies. At that point, the USA will either have to go to war with a much stronger opponent (those 10 million Ukrainian conscripts I mentioned), or slink away from its responsibilities within NATO, blowing up the entire international security order. I trust I don't need to unpack why either of those eventualities would not be a preferred outcome for the USA.
As soon as I saw "I know the history of Ukraine very well both before and after the cold war. I don't know of any shenanigans the USA has been up to, please enlighten. Is there something specific you are referring to?" I moved on. TTYL
Of course, its safer to stay in your echo chamber filled with simplistic slogans rather than to have them challenged. It certainly easier to continue as "useful idiot" (not trying to be offensive here, just reusing a common well-known term) for Mr. Putin, he appreciates your contributions to the restoration of Russian imperial greatness.
2014? Putting our guy in office rather than allowing a democratic process seems like it might fly... but probably not in an alternate Maddow-informed reality.
Not one US life is worth all of Ukraine. We are only in this to cover up Biden’s corruption and spending billions so that his family can pocket millions. Maybe secondarily that the Military Industrial Complex got jealous about Pharma’s COVID payday for defrauding the world and demanded their share. But Biden having family interests in one of the most corrupt countries on earth and the miraculously we end up promising to fund their war effort into perpetuity?! There is no such thing as coincidence. Full stop.
Our guy? Which our guy did "we put" in office in 2014? What happened there was in no way controlled or influenced by the US. Your ideas about the omnipresence of CIA inspired coups around the world belong in fiction novels, not in serious geopolitics. The US was caught completely unaware and struggled to come up with a coherent response, beyond "Yeay!"
Also, in 2014 Obama was in office, the one that set the red line for Assad and then ran away to do a puff piece with the Atlantic about why he was brave to waffle on it. You truly believe that Obama, while scared to enforce a red line against chemical weapons use by Assad, nevertheless had the gumption to approve "a coup" in Kiev in Putin's back yard? With reasoning powers like that, I would be careful of people trying to sell you a nice bridge in Brooklyn.
Bari, with all due respect, you sound exactly like the folks at the New York Times or WaPo when you always have to preface Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with “unprovoked”. It’s demonstrably true that they were provoked, and yes, two things can be true at the same time: it could be an illegal invasion, and also could be provoked. By analogy, if Russia had been doing the same things for two decades in Canada that the USA was doing in Ukraine, you can bet that the US would not be standing by idly. And regardless of your view on whether or not it was provoked, conducting a reckless proxy war with the nation with the largest nuclear arsenal the world has ever seen is far from obviously in our best interests.
https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1688693194576613377
Correct, the threat of NATO in Ukraine is what provoked Putin. This is well documented by many in the foreign policy establishment that counter the DC eco chamber.
Bari parrots the mainstream on this too. It’s really sad, her platform is on Substack and yet she doesn’t even take that time to read other Substack posts, such as John Mearsheimer, who methodically lays this out. Mind boggling.
The whole thing about the threat of NATO in Ukraine is just complete garbage. There was never a serious chance for Ukraine to join NATO until the invasion happened. Any serious observer (I don't consider Tucker Carlson to be a serious observer) who has followed the issue for at least 5 minutes before Feb. 2022 knew this to be the case, including Putin. Saying that it did just belies a complete misunderstanding of Russia. John Mearsheimer has no idea what he is talking about. He doesn't speak Russian and doesn't use any Russian sources in his analysis, basically analysing his own mind's perception of the world, without grounding it in any objective reality. How someone can take him seriously is mind-boggling. He got one thing right in 1994, since then, he has been completely wrong on everything related to Ukraine. Kind of like that broken clock that nevertheless shows the right time twice per day.
On a separate note, it is truly mind-boggling to see the mental gymnastics people will go to, imagining Ukraine joining NATO, etc. rather than believing a simple truth that Russia is a led my a person who has no compunction about starting wars, killing people, etc. despite hundreds of separate facts supporting this view. Why is it so important for people to align their view on this with a person like Putin?
Mark, with all sincerity could you please unpack this more, because I personally have trouble following this train of thought.
So to paraphrase your arguments (maybe in a different thread) you are suggesting that if the U.S. doesn’t spend the resources now, that Russia will become “emboldened and strengthened” from a victory in Ukraine which may lead them to attack a NATO ally (maybe a smaller neighboring country in the Baltic?) and thus force U.S. involvement or to “slink” away from those NATO responsibilities.
Although, I understand the importance of having ally countries, I believe the U.S. should choose and prioritize their allies more carefully (and clearly state that). The idea that Estonia for example (a small NATO country that has less people & probably a smaller economy than the small county I live in) provides the same benefits (either militarily or intelligence or through trade or a geopolitical location, etc.) as other countries like Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc. doesn’t make sense to me. I guess how do you explain to everyday Americans why it is worth the opportunity costs (financial, human resources, potential lives, etc.) to support/protect these countries? And at what value (militarily, economically, etc.) do these countries provide to the U.S. and how much is that worth to protect? Also, this war is the backyard of European countries, so why shouldn’t the burden lay more heavily on their shoulders? Have you seen the difference in NATO spending between countries? These are sincere questions.
Great questions. There are several layers here, so I'll separate them out a bit to make it easier to handle.
Layer 1: Defence of NATO - at this point, the NATO treaty is already in place, and Estonia is already a part of NATO. In the US, the Treaty has a force of law (Including the Article 5 provisions). So at this point, it doesn't really matter whether Estonia is considered worth it, if it gets attacked, the US is obligated to come to its defense (along with the other 29 member countries). If the US does not, all of its treaties on which its national security is based, will immediately become worthless, as every one will assume that the US cannot be relied upon (and seize to be a reliable partner for the US). So from this perspective, that ship has sailed and a discussion of whether Estonia is worth it is purely academic. The American people, through their representatives in the Executive and Legislative branches, have agreed for Estonia to accede to the NATO Treaty, with all of the obligations that entails.
Layer 2: Was it worth for the US to become engaged in a mutual defense relationship with Estonia. This is slightly less clear-cut, but I believe the answer is yes for several reasons. This is a longer conversation to have, but strength in numbers, geographical position, Estonia punching way above its weight in contributions, etc. all play a role.
Layer 3: This is the backyard of Europe, should the burden lay on them. Yes, it should. Yes, they've underinvested mightily and were incredible myopic in letting their military capabilities decay. Yes, Germany and France have been gorging on billions of dollars of Russian illicit cash flowing into Germany to pay off their entire elite. Yes, during the recent French election, Anne Applebaum wrote an elucidating article in the Atlantic, discussing not which of the presidential candidates was pro or anti-Russian, but which was a bigger fanboy/fangirl. Unfortunately, leaving them one on one with Russia to face the consequences of their actions would be counter-productive for the US. Just like in 1939-1941, eventually, the US would have to get involved, only with passage of time it would be a more difficult fight to have.
Layer 4: Burden, there really hasn't been any so far. What help the US provided to Ukraine, was basically 80's weaponry and armaments that were end-of-life, and would have required hundreds of millions of dollars in expenses to dispose of. All of that money was saved, by shipping it off to Ukraine, and putting it to use to defend a sovereign country from pure unadulterated external aggression. (Something the US has traditionally been a champion of, every since it itself has been helped back in the Revolutionary War, admittedly with a less than perfect record). So that argument about the burden that's making the rounds is very disingenuous.
Layer 5: Difference in NATO spending, yes. (Although this is a bit of a misnomer. The NATO treaty has a 2% of GDP investment into the military threshold, this is not exactly a spending level, but most countries in Western Europe have been far below for a very long time. Not so the countries of Eastern Europe that have the experience of being under Russian conquest). In general I think its atrocious in its shortsightedness. However, none of that is relevant at this point. The 30-year lull, where people in Europe thought that wars in Europe were a thing of the past is over. Putin did the impossible, he made NATO relevant again. I don't think anyone else could have rejuvenated it, but he managed to. The military capabilities across Europe are now being rebuilt, the investments will be coming in. American workers will be working to produce a lot of it, American companies will be the profits and paying the taxes, so this is a bit of a moot point as well.
Hope this was helpful.
Thanks Mark, I appreciate the broken-down, detailed answer!
It may be helpful to understand what provocation means. In terms of wars starting, a good illustration is the conditions Israel was in when it started the Six Days War. When it found itself facing mobilized armies of its neighbors, deployed in battle formations on its borders, with Egypt insisting that the UN peacekeepers separating Egypt and Israel be withdrawn. Those are provocations leading to the start of a shooting war. Your neighbor doing something you don't like, is not a provocation. Your neighbor choosing to align with a different world-view is not a provocation.
As far as the proxy war talking points... That's just sad. Putin has shown time and again that he only responds to strength. He views restraint as a show of weakness. He has broken every treaty he has ever signed. (He is actually proud of that fact, as to him, getting away with it means demonstrating strength.). And yet there seems to be a never-ending supply of dupes that keep wanting to believe him. Every time I see another missive like this I keep thinking back to George W, who looked into his eyes and saw his soul.
Sorta like our government right? We've all seen how our so called leaders enjoy destabilizing other countries so they can engage in war, proxy or not.
And further is rich themselves.
Go study the history of Ukraine for the past ~20 years including all the shenanigans the USA has been up to. Go back to the end of the cold war to get the whole picture. Go listen to / read translations of everything Russia has said along the way.
Regardless, none of your comments address why our reckless proxy war is a wise course for the USA to follow.
I blame Victoria Nuland for all of it
There are none so blind as those that will not see PL
Haha, so you think Victoria Nuland was just pontificating into the ether?
We proved that we were willing to act in bad faith about playing slight of hand games about spoken vs written agreements in the Warsaw Pact. Makes sense that someone like you would prioritize technicalities over honor.
And with common sense reasoning powers as weak as yours... I have some masks and a Raccoon Dog to sell you, Mark. Go get another booster.
Of course she was, she was trying to put lipstick on a pig. Have you never seen a mid-level bureaucrat take credit for something they had nothing to do with? The US never had anywhere near the influence in 2014 in Ukraine to put together an uprising. If you think differently, you are grossly misinformed.
I can't understand what you mean by hand games, and Warsaw Pact? Can you make it a bit more coherent please?
“Slight of Hand”... meaning say one thing, do another. But then claim that because it wasn’t in writing that we would not expand NATO eastward, that it’s 100% legit for us to take action to do so. It simply not in good faith and a technicality... doesn’t make it ‘right’ for us to do so, even if technically we aren’t prohibited from doing so.
Also, we don’t have to orchestrate an uprising to manipulate how the dust settles in one that is already in inevitable.
Do you honestly believe that we would be sending all of this money and munitions to Ukraine if the Bidens and other corrupt members of the political/managerial class didn’t have a personal interest in doing so?
Oh, you are talking about that fairy tale. I have not seen one credible bit of evidence that this is anything more that a KGB disinformation op. And I have looked. This thing originated in Russia in the 1990s as a face-saving story to explain away the haphazard withdrawal from Eastern Europe. I have not seen one shred of actual evidence that there is any veracity to this claim. If you have, I would really (not being sarcastic) like to see it, as I have not been able to track it down.
From a historians perspective, triangulating facts, this story strains credulity. 1. USSR was in no position to demand any such concession. They ran out of Eastern Europe faster than US troops ran out of Afghanistan in 2021. The Soviets had no money to pay for any bloated military, and negative morale following their own withdrawal from Afghanistan. 2. No one in the West was in a position to make such a commitment. Why would Baker, or Scowcroft, or even HW entertain something like that, when they didn't have any standing to make this commitment. Only the NATO Council could make a promise like that. This actual strongly points to a Russian hoax origin, in their world-view there is an absolute ruler at the top, who can make this type of commitment. They don't understand diffusion of power and institutional processes. (That's why they are always a half-step away from a cult of personality, and they keep falling into one over and over again). 3. Agreements that get written down and signed don't necessarily happen (refer to the Budapest Memorandum). Agreements that are not written down surely never will. This is not a technicality, as you claim. Agreements are made between geopolitical actors - nation states, etc., not between individuals, who are mortal and fallible. That's why there is a process to put one in place. Saying "we didn't follow a well-known process but we now want to win" is very similar to all of the Clinton supporters in 2016 whining that she won the popular vote, even though everyone was clear on how the electoral process works, its the electoral votes that determine the winner, not the popular votes. Unless the NATO council signed on to this, there was no individual person in the world that had standing to make such a commitment.
Support for Ukraine is the only issue I agree with Biden on. Even when he is broadly correct policy-wise, he is grossly incompetent in its implementation, and is displaying his moral cowardice in line with the previous 40 years. Based on my own conclusions, I think this is the right course of action for the USA. Why he is doing it I don't really care, as long as he is not shilling the Russian propaganda like so many people in the US are. (I obviously think there is merit to all of the corruption allegations related to Chinese payments, Burisma payments, etc.).
Even if you are 100% about everything (and I think we do agree on most apart from this Ukraine issue)…
…I guess my basic premise is that we have such a great track record over the last 70 years of policing the world, spreading democracy, and just meddling in other people‘s countries… with so much to show for it. Why wouldn’t it be a great idea to dive back into a quagmire with a nuclear power while we have bigger problems with China/Taiwan (so obviously a two fronted war is a great idea)?? All at a time where the administration is weakening morale and military readiness with woke nonsense, draining our strategic petroleum reserve to help win some midterm votes, and NATO is as spineless and anti-US as ever. I just never have wholeheartedly bought in to the Russian Boogeyman fears. It’s got a terrible track record for being internally aimed propaganda. I think what we’re are doing here is simply fast forwarding the degradation of the US’s stature abroad and creating incentive/opportunity for our enemies to ally themselves against us.
But where I will agree Russia is winning… is in their long game. All the leftover Cold War spies that we never deported stayed and continue to spread Marxist ideology within our schools and institutions.
I simply don’t think spreading ourselves thin with weaklings and corrupt imbeciles in charge has a chance of a good outcome.
That is a longer discussion, but I'd point out that several things can be true at the same time.
Firstly, Russia is for real waging a brutal genocidal continental war in Europe committing proper, documented war crimes. Its not a boogeyman anymore. Not acknowledging that is simply wrong, myopic, and inexcusable.
Secondly, NATO is no longer spineless, Putin has given it a fresh lease on life. Prior to Feb. 2022, one could have been forgiven for seriously entertaining the option of kicking some countries out of the club.
Thirdly, the US has done a great job of making the world a better place. There are plenty of studies and books out there measuring global conflict today versus 70 years ago, global development, global hunger, global violent deaths, etc. By all those measures, the world is orders of magnitude better off than it was. Falling prey to people around the world, internally and externally, talking trash for their own varied purposes doesn't lead one to make educated analyses.
Fourthly, has the US done a bunch of stupid shit, oh yeah... I could probably rattle off a fair bit more than the average person. Does it mean serious people should act like 6-years take their toys and go home?.. I don't think so. We definitely should keep trying to do the right thing, recognizing that we don't always know what the right thing is, and we are not always able to do it.
Fifthly, is Biden one of the worst presidents in the last 150 years, oh yes. Beyond the corruption, the incompetence is staggering. Ukraine is a direct consequence of the Afghanistan debacle, and removing the sanctions on Nord Stream 2, which were implemented by Trump. Both seen as major displays of weakness in Moscow. I keep thinking back to Robert Gates, who was part of the Obama administration with Biden, saying that Biden has consistently been wrong on every foreign policy issue over the past 30 years.
And to round it out, you keep using this "nuclear power" moniker that I struggle to get a handle on. Every country that can stake a claim to being a serious international player is a nuclear power. (Japan and South Korea are not, buy they are at maximum 6-months away from capability as well). Dealing with major players means dealing with nuclear powers, that's par for the course. I don't understand the veracity of that argument. Is a suggestion being made that whatever Russia, China, India, Pakistan, France, etc. want to do, they should be allowed to do, because they are nuclear powers?
Used nuclear power once... stakes are higher if we screw up like we have in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, etc. if the other side isn’t just using gorilla tactics and has some real firepower with global reach.
The “world being a better place” through taxpayer funded bureaucratic institutions that are wholly corrupt and waste money while promoting policy at odds with our constitution, isn’t a great trade.
NATO is a proxy for the US. Nothing more. We just get to pay for everyone in exchange for not having to assemble a ‘coalition of the willing’ every time we want to bomb something. It’s a joke way of transferring taxpayer money to ‘Allies’ with not strings attached and no pro-rata contributions expected. It has lost its relevancy.
We have a president who fired government officials to protect mobster partners, funded Ukrainian bio labs, and has oligarch partners mysteriously left off of sanction lists. Ukraine is a money laundering vehicle for the elected class and nothing more. One of the most corrupt nations on earth did not change overnight when Russia stages troops on its border. If it’s so necessary and strategic for our ‘Allies’ let them put some blood and treasure on the line for this next wave of the war. Until then, nothing about this war is anything other than protecting corruption. No neocon talking points about how ‘this time is different’ carry any weight... our track record doesn’t allow for it.
I know the history of Ukraine very well both before and after the cold war. I don't know of any shenanigans the USA has been up to, please enlighten. Is there something specific you are referring to? Saying "go read everything" is like saying "I have nothing of substance to say, so I'll just throw out something nonsensical".
My comment addressed why it is not a "reckless proxy war" (I am not a fan of reusing Russian propaganda, which owns the copyright on this phrase). To unpack it a bit from just a reference to 1938 - getting involved is a wise course of action for the USA because the cost to solve this issue today is drastically lower, than the cost will be in 2-3 years time, when Russia, emboldened and strengthened by its victory in Ukraine, will calculate that the US is too weak politically to act in line with its NATO treaty obligations, and attack one of the NATO allies. At that point, the USA will either have to go to war with a much stronger opponent (those 10 million Ukrainian conscripts I mentioned), or slink away from its responsibilities within NATO, blowing up the entire international security order. I trust I don't need to unpack why either of those eventualities would not be a preferred outcome for the USA.
As soon as I saw "I know the history of Ukraine very well both before and after the cold war. I don't know of any shenanigans the USA has been up to, please enlighten. Is there something specific you are referring to?" I moved on. TTYL
Of course, its safer to stay in your echo chamber filled with simplistic slogans rather than to have them challenged. It certainly easier to continue as "useful idiot" (not trying to be offensive here, just reusing a common well-known term) for Mr. Putin, he appreciates your contributions to the restoration of Russian imperial greatness.
2014? Putting our guy in office rather than allowing a democratic process seems like it might fly... but probably not in an alternate Maddow-informed reality.
Not one US life is worth all of Ukraine. We are only in this to cover up Biden’s corruption and spending billions so that his family can pocket millions. Maybe secondarily that the Military Industrial Complex got jealous about Pharma’s COVID payday for defrauding the world and demanded their share. But Biden having family interests in one of the most corrupt countries on earth and the miraculously we end up promising to fund their war effort into perpetuity?! There is no such thing as coincidence. Full stop.
Posted like a champion!
Our guy? Which our guy did "we put" in office in 2014? What happened there was in no way controlled or influenced by the US. Your ideas about the omnipresence of CIA inspired coups around the world belong in fiction novels, not in serious geopolitics. The US was caught completely unaware and struggled to come up with a coherent response, beyond "Yeay!"
Also, in 2014 Obama was in office, the one that set the red line for Assad and then ran away to do a puff piece with the Atlantic about why he was brave to waffle on it. You truly believe that Obama, while scared to enforce a red line against chemical weapons use by Assad, nevertheless had the gumption to approve "a coup" in Kiev in Putin's back yard? With reasoning powers like that, I would be careful of people trying to sell you a nice bridge in Brooklyn.
Search Substack and YouTube for John Mearsheimer.
He has written / spoke about this for a very long time.
Very compelling.
To anyone that is able to read sources in Russian, this guy is completely clueless.