7 ms·

This is a good opportunity to suss out which of your "anti-imperialist" friends are anti-imperialist, and which are actually just anti-US-imperialist. Look for

This is a good opportunity to suss out which of your "anti-imperialist" friends are anti-imperialist, and which are actually just anti-US-imperialist. Look for signs of denying Ukrainians agency over their country's future and 19-th century law of the jungle logic (wait what happened to high minded ideals like decolonization and self-determination? Do those only apply when the West is/was in the wrong?).

cmrdporcupine 4y ago
100% agree. Like I said below, it's a litmus test of who is truly on the side of the oppressed. There's also a significant % of the so-called "left" which has inherited from the dark and vile Stalinist past some sort of bizarre Russophilism. A kind of binary thinking that divides the world into "imperialist western bloc" and "anti-imperialist bloc" [that somehow Russia and even Iran and Assad's Syria are a part of]. Idiots like George Galloway are parroting lines like this.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > Stalinist Chomsky is literally an anarchist who opposes the existence of all states.
testbjjl 4y ago
> This is a good opportunity to suss out which of your "anti-imperialist" friends are anti-imperialist, and which are actually just anti-US-imperialist. This opportunity has existed for some time. It’s clear to me at least where most Americans stand on this matter. I watched an In Depth with Chomsky on C-SPAN about a month back when in my opinion he summarized the position succinctly: America is willing to fight Russia and the invasion with every last Ukrainian.
- kspacewalk2 4y ago
  Ooh, "to the last Ukrainian", man what a zinger, har har. It can't be that Ukrainians are begging to be sent weapons to defend themselves from literal genocide and the US is the good guy in the story. That would just blow up Chomsky's Formula For All Global Affairs: US Bad. And since US cannot be good by definition, Ukrainians should just accept their country, language and culture being erased, like don't they know something something spheres of influence and some guy promised no NATO enlargement (actually not, but don't look into that because remember, US Bad).
  - nathanaldensr 4y ago
    How many "literal" things have happened recently that turned out to be far more nuanced?
    - stoltzmann 4y ago
      I don't quite see your point here. Russians were killing Ukrainian civilians in territory they attacked and occupied, and presumably this is still happening on the territory they still hold. I definitely count that as genocide, I don't see how this situation can be more nuanced.
    - kspacewalk2 4y ago
      Okay, so to what end do you wish to employ this appeal to nuance? I ask because usually this is just a naive argument in favour of inaction. Of course inaction is an action in itself, with consequences that can be just as serious as those of actions. See e.g. Obama on Syria.
    - EB-Barrington 4y ago
      OK, but in Ukraine, this is actually a genocide. Research it yourself, by any means, and see if you can come to any other conclusion. It's the opposite of nuanced.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- kcb 4y ago
  That's just the classic, the US is the only country that controls world foreign policy and everyone else just plays along.
- EB-Barrington 4y ago
  America fighting "with every last Ukrainian" is the literally the same line the Kremlin uses. It's propaganda, and makes no sense - against barbaric Russian soldiers committing countless rapes and civilian executions... Ukraine would fight to the last Ukrainian even without any external support.
- teh64 4y ago
  That is some real American Exceptionalism from Chomsky. It's as if he is saying Ukraine can't think for themselves and that everything everyone does is somehow attributable to America's meddling.
dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
I've found it shocking that people on the left have willfully taken up de-facto support of Russia in their zeal to oppose the US on ideological grounds. The MAGA crowd and the far right in the US are no better and perhaps much worse, but these people should know better. It's a deadly trap for them. That people can say that Ukraine is being manipulated by others into defending their country to the death makes no sense at all. The remaining claims are wife beater logic: Look what you made me do! Russia had to invade Ukraine because they wouldn't behave, because NATO wasn't cowed and showed no respect!
- rayiner 4y ago
  What do you mean by “de facto support of Russia?” A necessary consequence of the logic of opposing interventionist US foreign policy is acknowledging that there will be no “Team America: World Police” to help countries like Ukraine in regional conflicts. There’s nothing ideologically inconsistent about it. You can’t micro-focus on a single incident. Maybe we are doing the right thing by arming the Ukrainians. But maybe we’re not. We thought we were doing the right thing arming Afghan freedom fighters against the Soviet Union. Look how that turned out. The US was ready to oppose the independence of my home country, to support western-aligned Pakistan against Soviet-aligned India: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/kissinger-nixon-tape-declassified-how-us-saved-west-pakistan-as-india-liberated-bangladesh-2655016 https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/kissinger-nixon-tape-declass.... There is a long track record of global powers intervening in regional wars that we can evaluate to see if on the whole the policy is a good one.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    There is a big difference between acknowledging there will be no Team America: World Police to help Ukraine in its regional conflict (currently the bipartisan position of the US government, as well as commentators of all stripes) and various individuals explaining that actually, Putin has been annexing parts of neighbouring countries not associated with NATO in self defence against NATO imperialism and Ukrainians mostly preferring closer economic and political ties with Western Europe to Russia is US imperialism (unlike Russia invading to enforce Putin's preference for closer economic and political ties!) and what about Ukraine having neo-Nazis etc etc...
rayiner 4y ago
Criticizing Noam Chomsky for not being sincerely anti-imperialist is a pretty remarkable.
- kspacewalk2 4y ago
  He's a very well known and consistent anti-US-imperialist. I'll gladly accept evidence of his wider anti-imperialism.
- sidlls 4y ago
  Noam Chomsky is anti-imperialist. He also prioritizes anti-imperialism lower than other things and justifies support for imperialist politicians (e.g. Obama, Biden) by proffering arguments from pragmatism and "lesser evilism". So it's possible to say he's anti-imperialist, but not sincerely so and be correct.
femiagbabiaka 4y ago
It’s interesting that so many people now deem to authoritatively speak of the agency of a country whose geopolitics were relatively unknown until recently. Chomsky and others simply have the benefit of having watched this completely avoidable tragedy unfold. Putins rise to power, Russia’s ostracization from the western order, etc. And I could say the same in the inverse: there are many who had no interest in anti-imperialism until it aligned with anti-Russian and pro U.S. sentiment. It’s easy to tell from the fact that U.S. imperialism that has been going on alongside the Russian invasion has gone almost entirely ignored. (Somalia being the latest example) Ultimately this is a pointless argument — the stage has been set, the rules agreed upon. The U.S. and EU will fund Ukraine indefinitely and NATO will continue to take in European countries. I hope and pray that the war comes to a resolution that allows Ukraine to keep its sovereignty on its own terms.
zosima 4y ago
I think you're missing that what is now being fought over is whether USA should have control over Ukraine or whether Russia should. I think you can be an anti-imperialist and not have a strong preference for neither USA nor Russia controlling Ukraine. And you can be against the war, and against imperialism and so naturally be against arming Ukraine to keep the war going and becoming even more vile and bloody.
- macintux 4y ago
  As the letter states, what you’re effectively denying is Ukrainian self-determination and agency. Does the U.S. “control” France? Germany? Clearly not.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    The US clearly does indeed have significant power over France and Germany and is always vying for more.
    - macintux 4y ago
      And they also seek to influence the U.S. out of self-interest. That doesn’t make the U.S. a puppet state, nor are they puppet states.
      - wowokay 4y ago
        Exactly! Plus I know it might sound crazy, but US influence doesn’t involve invading other countries or even threatening them into some form of submission. If The whole world joined Warsaw and the US felt isolated I guarantee you wouldn’t see us invading Canada/Mexico/Europe in the name of self defense, even though provocative USSR tactics might actually warrant such a response. But the US doesn’t roll that way, generally we want good trade relations and non-interference, practically the whole world has been against us as different times and we still didn’t lash out. Providing humanitarian aid and weapons is not the same as sending your own people into a country against the worlds interest and claiming self defense.
unknown_apostle 4y ago
Not just anti-imperialism but many other political and philosophical opinions too. Many things in history and politics are dense. It's expected that people will disagree on these things. But every so often something happens which is genuinely quite simple to understand. This Ukraine invasion allows you to discriminate between those who are still committed to reality and those who are not. If you cannot understand that countries desire to join Nato (because they understand the Kremlin better than most Westerners); that ex-KGB Putin holding a candle once a year doesn't make him the grand protector of Christendom; that Russians are victims of this regime too; that this invasion was predicted by many (see Kasparov); etc etc... Then I really cannot take you serious anymore.
webmobdev 4y ago
What is a fact is that Ukraine is caught between the geo-politics of US and Russia because of incompetent Ukrainian political leadership. Unlike the Ukranian and NATO propaganda that tries to portray the current Ukrainian President as a hero, anyone who has a good grasp of politics can see that the man is clearly politically incompetent. He is foolish enough to believe that he can stay in power and derive political mileage by siding with one power while openly snubbing another (clearly showing no understanding of geo-politics and spheres of influence and their own standing in the world order). While Biden and Putin's ego in the conflict are understandable because of their superpower rivalry, it is incredibly sad that the amateur politics of the current Ukranian leadership has plunged the country into such a disaster. Ukraine is just another Iraq or Afghanistan because of similar incompetent and selfish leadership who care more about politics than the suffering of their fellow citizens. I have no doubt that by the time the conflict ends, US and Russia would have balkanised Ukraine, and the war will turn into a stalemate prolonged low-intensity conflict with proxy battles between the superpowers in this region. Both Russia and US want to prolong the battle, as it is in their interest to do so, and the incompetent Ukranian leadership is totally blind to this.
- gus_massa 4y ago
  > He is foolish enough to believe that he can stay in power and derive political mileage by siding with one power while openly snubbing another I think he needs weapons but he has no money, so he is running the biggest tv donation marathon ever.
- teh64 4y ago
  You make it sound that the "suffering of their fellow citizens" is somehow the fault of Ukraine's leaders, and they should just surrender to Russia's interests, which would somehow would end the suffering? Also the "snubbing another", i.e. Russia is quite the victim-blaming. Ukraine snubs Russia, which it has the right to do, therefore Russia is allowed to invade? Also Iraq and Afghanistan were attacked by the US, which according to your words means the leadership there should have just surrendered to the imperialist USA instead, instead of caring about "politics".
  - 4y ago
caret 4y ago
When it comes to foreign policy, the Ukrainians have as much agency as the average American, and it doesn’t help them that in this case it’s American foreign policy that has caused them issue.
refurb 4y ago
No, what’s amazing is hearing people who are well versed in the multiple US foreign adventures that more often than not results in thousands of civilian deaths, political instability and worsening opinions about the US, vehemently argue that of course the US should intervene and anyone who even raises the idea that maybe we should mind our own business gets labeled as “pro-Russia”. The left is basically parroting the exact same language the right did for all its foreign interventions.
- thomassmith65 4y ago
  The left is basically parroting the exact same language the right did for all its foreign interventions. I don't find it hypocritical to oppose wars of aggression. GWB's invasion of Iraq was America breaking international law. I was against that. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is Russia breaking international law. I am against that. I am for whatever strategy (military aid? diplomacy? alliances?) most effectively addresses the Ukraine invasion and limits future illegal invasions. Nobody can know yet which strategy would be best, but it's not hypocrisy to be open to military aid, etc. I want to live in a world where leaders obey the rules.
  - shrimp_emoji 4y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y23mTSviCZo&t=46s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y23mTSviCZo&t=46s
  - refurb 4y ago
    But the left is NOT opposing military intervention (or escalation), it’s promoting it in response to Russia’s invasion. And I’m not sure I understand the jump from “i oppose X” to “the US must get involved with X”. Noam Chomsky is critical of Russia’s invasion, just like you. But doing “something” is an entirely separate decision. People seem to be operating with the default of “if there is a problem, the US has an obligation to fix it” It’s that mentality that has gotten us into so much trouble over the past 60-70 years. My opinion is the default is “we do nothing”, and anything more needs justification and a careful analysis to ensure we don’t make things worse (which has been the outcome of almost every intervention since WW2).
stjohnswarts 4y ago
I am unabashedly a fan of my country. As soon as the US showed some disinterest in Europe and pull back a bit because we have a ton of internal issues and issues with China. Because Trump opened up the doors and made NATO look weak Russia attacked Ukraine thinking NATO would just let it slide. I have been a critic of the Afghan war in particular and what happened in Libya. However, I 100% agree with fighting off Russian aggression in Europe. If Ukraine falls then Russia will roll over all the former Soviet satellite countries and take them back as well. The US doesn't just pass a bipartisan $40 billion for no reason. We know it will cost trillions if the Russians aren't stopped now.
- justsomehnguy 4y ago
  > The US doesn't just pass a bipartisan $40 billion for no reason Everything for the victory, I guess? > US Congress quietly enables funding for Ukrainian neo-Nazi-led Azov Regiment > David Levine > 1 February 2016 > The 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed into law by US President Barack Obama late last year, did not include a previously expected ban against the funding of the Azov Regiment, a military organization that originated as a volunteer militia in May 2014 and was subsequently incorporated into the National Guard of Ukraine. > The Azov Regiment is notorious for the openly white supremacist and anti-Semitic views of its members, and its use of the Wolfsangel, a swastika-like symbol once used by certain divisions of the armed forces of Nazi Germany, as well as its leading role in the Battle of Mariupol in May-June 2014. The regiment’s leader is Andriy Biletsky, a current member of the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada (parliament) and also leader of the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly. In a characteristic statement, Biletsky was quoted by the UK Telegraph last August as stating, “The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival, a crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen.” https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/01/azov-f01.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/01/azov-f01.html
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    Keep buying that Russian propaganda that Ukraine is rife with Nazi-ism. Every country in the western world has small contingents of Nazis, all less than 1% of the population. You are allowing that Russian BS to cloud your judgement. Also the they have had -jewish- leaders, that doesn't sound like much of a Nazi group to me lmfao

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

100% agree. Like I said below, it's a litmus test of who is truly on the side of the oppressed. There's also a significant % of the so-called "left" which has inherited from the dark and vile Stalinist past some sort of bizarre Russophilism. A kind of binary thinking that divides the world into "imperialist western bloc" and "anti-imperialist bloc" [that somehow Russia and even Iran and Assad's Syria are a part of]. Idiots like George Galloway are parroting lines like this.

guerrilla 4y ago
> Stalinist Chomsky is literally an anarchist who opposes the existence of all states.

testbjjl 4y ago

> This is a good opportunity to suss out which of your "anti-imperialist" friends are anti-imperialist, and which are actually just anti-US-imperialist. This opportunity has existed for some time. It’s clear to me at least where most Americans stand on this matter. I watched an In Depth with Chomsky on C-SPAN about a month back when in my opinion he summarized the position succinctly: America is willing to fight Russia and the invasion with every last Ukrainian.

kspacewalk2 4y ago
Ooh, "to the last Ukrainian", man what a zinger, har har. It can't be that Ukrainians are begging to be sent weapons to defend themselves from literal genocide and the US is the good guy in the story. That would just blow up Chomsky's Formula For All Global Affairs: US Bad. And since US cannot be good by definition, Ukrainians should just accept their country, language and culture being erased, like don't they know something something spheres of influence and some guy promised no NATO enlargement (actually not, but don't look into that because remember, US Bad).
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  How many "literal" things have happened recently that turned out to be far more nuanced?
  - stoltzmann 4y ago
    I don't quite see your point here. Russians were killing Ukrainian civilians in territory they attacked and occupied, and presumably this is still happening on the territory they still hold. I definitely count that as genocide, I don't see how this situation can be more nuanced.
  - kspacewalk2 4y ago
    Okay, so to what end do you wish to employ this appeal to nuance? I ask because usually this is just a naive argument in favour of inaction. Of course inaction is an action in itself, with consequences that can be just as serious as those of actions. See e.g. Obama on Syria.
  - EB-Barrington 4y ago
    OK, but in Ukraine, this is actually a genocide. Research it yourself, by any means, and see if you can come to any other conclusion. It's the opposite of nuanced.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
kcb 4y ago
That's just the classic, the US is the only country that controls world foreign policy and everyone else just plays along.
EB-Barrington 4y ago
America fighting "with every last Ukrainian" is the literally the same line the Kremlin uses. It's propaganda, and makes no sense - against barbaric Russian soldiers committing countless rapes and civilian executions... Ukraine would fight to the last Ukrainian even without any external support.
teh64 4y ago
That is some real American Exceptionalism from Chomsky. It's as if he is saying Ukraine can't think for themselves and that everything everyone does is somehow attributable to America's meddling.

dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago

I've found it shocking that people on the left have willfully taken up de-facto support of Russia in their zeal to oppose the US on ideological grounds. The MAGA crowd and the far right in the US are no better and perhaps much worse, but these people should know better. It's a deadly trap for them. That people can say that Ukraine is being manipulated by others into defending their country to the death makes no sense at all. The remaining claims are wife beater logic: Look what you made me do! Russia had to invade Ukraine because they wouldn't behave, because NATO wasn't cowed and showed no respect!

rayiner 4y ago
What do you mean by “de facto support of Russia?” A necessary consequence of the logic of opposing interventionist US foreign policy is acknowledging that there will be no “Team America: World Police” to help countries like Ukraine in regional conflicts. There’s nothing ideologically inconsistent about it. You can’t micro-focus on a single incident. Maybe we are doing the right thing by arming the Ukrainians. But maybe we’re not. We thought we were doing the right thing arming Afghan freedom fighters against the Soviet Union. Look how that turned out. The US was ready to oppose the independence of my home country, to support western-aligned Pakistan against Soviet-aligned India: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/kissinger-nixon-tape-declassified-how-us-saved-west-pakistan-as-india-liberated-bangladesh-2655016 https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/kissinger-nixon-tape-declass.... There is a long track record of global powers intervening in regional wars that we can evaluate to see if on the whole the policy is a good one.
- notahacker 4y ago
  There is a big difference between acknowledging there will be no Team America: World Police to help Ukraine in its regional conflict (currently the bipartisan position of the US government, as well as commentators of all stripes) and various individuals explaining that actually, Putin has been annexing parts of neighbouring countries not associated with NATO in self defence against NATO imperialism and Ukrainians mostly preferring closer economic and political ties with Western Europe to Russia is US imperialism (unlike Russia invading to enforce Putin's preference for closer economic and political ties!) and what about Ukraine having neo-Nazis etc etc...

rayiner 4y ago

Criticizing Noam Chomsky for not being sincerely anti-imperialist is a pretty remarkable.

kspacewalk2 4y ago
He's a very well known and consistent anti-US-imperialist. I'll gladly accept evidence of his wider anti-imperialism.
sidlls 4y ago
Noam Chomsky is anti-imperialist. He also prioritizes anti-imperialism lower than other things and justifies support for imperialist politicians (e.g. Obama, Biden) by proffering arguments from pragmatism and "lesser evilism". So it's possible to say he's anti-imperialist, but not sincerely so and be correct.

femiagbabiaka 4y ago

It’s interesting that so many people now deem to authoritatively speak of the agency of a country whose geopolitics were relatively unknown until recently. Chomsky and others simply have the benefit of having watched this completely avoidable tragedy unfold. Putins rise to power, Russia’s ostracization from the western order, etc. And I could say the same in the inverse: there are many who had no interest in anti-imperialism until it aligned with anti-Russian and pro U.S. sentiment. It’s easy to tell from the fact that U.S. imperialism that has been going on alongside the Russian invasion has gone almost entirely ignored. (Somalia being the latest example) Ultimately this is a pointless argument — the stage has been set, the rules agreed upon. The U.S. and EU will fund Ukraine indefinitely and NATO will continue to take in European countries. I hope and pray that the war comes to a resolution that allows Ukraine to keep its sovereignty on its own terms.

zosima 4y ago

I think you're missing that what is now being fought over is whether USA should have control over Ukraine or whether Russia should. I think you can be an anti-imperialist and not have a strong preference for neither USA nor Russia controlling Ukraine. And you can be against the war, and against imperialism and so naturally be against arming Ukraine to keep the war going and becoming even more vile and bloody.

macintux 4y ago
As the letter states, what you’re effectively denying is Ukrainian self-determination and agency. Does the U.S. “control” France? Germany? Clearly not.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  The US clearly does indeed have significant power over France and Germany and is always vying for more.
  - macintux 4y ago
    And they also seek to influence the U.S. out of self-interest. That doesn’t make the U.S. a puppet state, nor are they puppet states.
    - wowokay 4y ago
      Exactly! Plus I know it might sound crazy, but US influence doesn’t involve invading other countries or even threatening them into some form of submission. If The whole world joined Warsaw and the US felt isolated I guarantee you wouldn’t see us invading Canada/Mexico/Europe in the name of self defense, even though provocative USSR tactics might actually warrant such a response. But the US doesn’t roll that way, generally we want good trade relations and non-interference, practically the whole world has been against us as different times and we still didn’t lash out. Providing humanitarian aid and weapons is not the same as sending your own people into a country against the worlds interest and claiming self defense.

unknown_apostle 4y ago

Not just anti-imperialism but many other political and philosophical opinions too. Many things in history and politics are dense. It's expected that people will disagree on these things. But every so often something happens which is genuinely quite simple to understand. This Ukraine invasion allows you to discriminate between those who are still committed to reality and those who are not. If you cannot understand that countries desire to join Nato (because they understand the Kremlin better than most Westerners); that ex-KGB Putin holding a candle once a year doesn't make him the grand protector of Christendom; that Russians are victims of this regime too; that this invasion was predicted by many (see Kasparov); etc etc... Then I really cannot take you serious anymore.

webmobdev 4y ago

What is a fact is that Ukraine is caught between the geo-politics of US and Russia because of incompetent Ukrainian political leadership. Unlike the Ukranian and NATO propaganda that tries to portray the current Ukrainian President as a hero, anyone who has a good grasp of politics can see that the man is clearly politically incompetent. He is foolish enough to believe that he can stay in power and derive political mileage by siding with one power while openly snubbing another (clearly showing no understanding of geo-politics and spheres of influence and their own standing in the world order). While Biden and Putin's ego in the conflict are understandable because of their superpower rivalry, it is incredibly sad that the amateur politics of the current Ukranian leadership has plunged the country into such a disaster. Ukraine is just another Iraq or Afghanistan because of similar incompetent and selfish leadership who care more about politics than the suffering of their fellow citizens. I have no doubt that by the time the conflict ends, US and Russia would have balkanised Ukraine, and the war will turn into a stalemate prolonged low-intensity conflict with proxy battles between the superpowers in this region. Both Russia and US want to prolong the battle, as it is in their interest to do so, and the incompetent Ukranian leadership is totally blind to this.

gus_massa 4y ago
> He is foolish enough to believe that he can stay in power and derive political mileage by siding with one power while openly snubbing another I think he needs weapons but he has no money, so he is running the biggest tv donation marathon ever.
teh64 4y ago
You make it sound that the "suffering of their fellow citizens" is somehow the fault of Ukraine's leaders, and they should just surrender to Russia's interests, which would somehow would end the suffering? Also the "snubbing another", i.e. Russia is quite the victim-blaming. Ukraine snubs Russia, which it has the right to do, therefore Russia is allowed to invade? Also Iraq and Afghanistan were attacked by the US, which according to your words means the leadership there should have just surrendered to the imperialist USA instead, instead of caring about "politics".
- 4y ago

caret 4y ago

When it comes to foreign policy, the Ukrainians have as much agency as the average American, and it doesn’t help them that in this case it’s American foreign policy that has caused them issue.

refurb 4y ago

No, what’s amazing is hearing people who are well versed in the multiple US foreign adventures that more often than not results in thousands of civilian deaths, political instability and worsening opinions about the US, vehemently argue that of course the US should intervene and anyone who even raises the idea that maybe we should mind our own business gets labeled as “pro-Russia”. The left is basically parroting the exact same language the right did for all its foreign interventions.

thomassmith65 4y ago
The left is basically parroting the exact same language the right did for all its foreign interventions. I don't find it hypocritical to oppose wars of aggression. GWB's invasion of Iraq was America breaking international law. I was against that. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is Russia breaking international law. I am against that. I am for whatever strategy (military aid? diplomacy? alliances?) most effectively addresses the Ukraine invasion and limits future illegal invasions. Nobody can know yet which strategy would be best, but it's not hypocrisy to be open to military aid, etc. I want to live in a world where leaders obey the rules.
- shrimp_emoji 4y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y23mTSviCZo&t=46s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y23mTSviCZo&t=46s
- refurb 4y ago
  But the left is NOT opposing military intervention (or escalation), it’s promoting it in response to Russia’s invasion. And I’m not sure I understand the jump from “i oppose X” to “the US must get involved with X”. Noam Chomsky is critical of Russia’s invasion, just like you. But doing “something” is an entirely separate decision. People seem to be operating with the default of “if there is a problem, the US has an obligation to fix it” It’s that mentality that has gotten us into so much trouble over the past 60-70 years. My opinion is the default is “we do nothing”, and anything more needs justification and a careful analysis to ensure we don’t make things worse (which has been the outcome of almost every intervention since WW2).

stjohnswarts 4y ago

I am unabashedly a fan of my country. As soon as the US showed some disinterest in Europe and pull back a bit because we have a ton of internal issues and issues with China. Because Trump opened up the doors and made NATO look weak Russia attacked Ukraine thinking NATO would just let it slide. I have been a critic of the Afghan war in particular and what happened in Libya. However, I 100% agree with fighting off Russian aggression in Europe. If Ukraine falls then Russia will roll over all the former Soviet satellite countries and take them back as well. The US doesn't just pass a bipartisan $40 billion for no reason. We know it will cost trillions if the Russians aren't stopped now.

justsomehnguy 4y ago
> The US doesn't just pass a bipartisan $40 billion for no reason Everything for the victory, I guess? > US Congress quietly enables funding for Ukrainian neo-Nazi-led Azov Regiment > David Levine > 1 February 2016 > The 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed into law by US President Barack Obama late last year, did not include a previously expected ban against the funding of the Azov Regiment, a military organization that originated as a volunteer militia in May 2014 and was subsequently incorporated into the National Guard of Ukraine. > The Azov Regiment is notorious for the openly white supremacist and anti-Semitic views of its members, and its use of the Wolfsangel, a swastika-like symbol once used by certain divisions of the armed forces of Nazi Germany, as well as its leading role in the Battle of Mariupol in May-June 2014. The regiment’s leader is Andriy Biletsky, a current member of the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada (parliament) and also leader of the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly. In a characteristic statement, Biletsky was quoted by the UK Telegraph last August as stating, “The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival, a crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen.” https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/01/azov-f01.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/01/azov-f01.html
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  Keep buying that Russian propaganda that Ukraine is rife with Nazi-ism. Every country in the western world has small contingents of Nazis, all less than 1% of the population. You are allowing that Russian BS to cloud your judgement. Also the they have had -jewish- leaders, that doesn't sound like much of a Nazi group to me lmfao