4 ms·

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 MAG

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...
- 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
  - stoltzmann 4y ago
    The war in Ukraine is extremely clear. One country attacked another in an attempt to overthrow their government and incorporate them into the Soviet Union 2.0. There is one side that is the clear aggressor that's killing civilians, and another one that is defending their right to self-determination. Russians ARE committing war crimes in Ukraine. There is a lot of evidence for them massacring civilians. See what they've done in Bucha. That being said, one thing you're right is that the "good guys" in this war were wrong before. What I think you don't see is that there were huge protests in the West against the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. I don't support what the US were doing in the Middle East, but I wholeheartedly support all efforts to get Russians out of Ukraine - including shipping American military gear.
    - yonaguska 4y ago
      [flagged]
- EB-Barrington 4y ago
  I spent the first two months+ of the war in Ukraine (my home, but I'm not Ukrainian). I completely accept that opposing interventionist foreign policy in the case of Ukraine support is a valid stance for US citizens. However, I hope that in this case the US continues to support Ukraine - we need it - as the price Ukraine has paid for Russia's truly barbaric aggression is already too high.
- Mordisquitos 4y ago
  You will find some on "the left" [0] who ostensibly condemn the Russian invasion but claim that, by providing Ukraine with the weapons, the intelligence and the financial aid it needs to defend itself, the West is somehow prolonging the conflict and causing greater suffering—the implication being that without such help, the war would be over much quicker (i.e. Ukraine would soon be defeated by Russia). While given a particular set of moral values this may be a legitimate argument, it is strangely inconsistent with other comparable events. Virtually nobody on "the left" will ever claim that France and the UK should have not declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland so as to decrease suffering. Going to a more local context, in my home country of Spain, many on the left hold a historical grudge against France and the UK for not coming to the support of the legitimate Spanish Republic in 1936 when a military/nationalist coup triggered what eventually became the Spanish Civil War and lead to Franco's far-right dictatorship. The USSR, in contrast, did come to the aid of the Republic for better or for worse. However, funnily enough, whenever I bring this point up with those who claim the West is "prolonging suffering" by supporting Ukraine, they never concede that France and UK's decision at the time would be consistent with their claimed non-interventionism, nor that the USSR prolonged suffering by supporting the eventually defeated Spanish Republic. [0] I hate the oversimplification and forced dichotomy that results from talking about "the left" or "the right", hence the quotation marks.
  - ttybird2 4y ago
    "Virtually nobody on "the left" will ever claim that France and the UK should have not declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland so as to decrease suffering." For this I have the following possible explanations: - They supported a war against Germany not for the protection of Poland but in order to topple the fascist government and stop the atrocities that were being committed. - They supported an early war against Germany because they believe that the German government would keep going with their demands and that the war was inevitable. - They are against the war but admitting it would be a social suicide. - They don't have an opinion about it or just have not voiced an opinion about it. (as it is an event that happened decades ago instead of one that is happening at this moment) "funnily enough, whenever I bring this point up with those who claim the West is "prolonging suffering" by supporting Ukraine, they never concede that France and UK's decision at the time would be consistent with their claimed non-interventionism, nor that the USSR prolonged suffering by supporting the eventually defeated Spanish Republic." This is interesting. What is their usual counterargument? I Presume that they either don't have a consistent logic behind it or they believe that protecting Ukraine would not benefit the common people (or would benefit them marginally) in comparison to the Spanish civil war which in their mind supporting the republican side would benefit the common people enough to counterbalance the loss of lives.
- FredPret 4y ago
  Non-intervention is all well and good but it is also the policy the West followed towards the Nazi’s in the 30’s. WW2 could have been stopped before it started if Britain or France marched into Germany (ad they could have won at many points) at any time between 1933 and 1939. So by arming Zelensky et al, maybe we are creating a monster (unlikely) but maybe we are stopping a much worse monster from starting WW3 (more likely).
- tzs 4y ago
  I'm not sure that Russia attacking Ukraine can be considered a regional conflict. First, when a country with nukes is involved in a conflict I think a good case can be made the "region" is the whole world if there is even a small chance nukes might be used. Second, Russia, the US, China, and others have an agreement to not use military force against Ukraine (the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances). Russia is violating that agreement, which automatically makes it a conflict with the US and so not regional.
weatherlight 4y ago

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...
2Gkashmiri 4y ago
- stoltzmann 4y ago
  The war in Ukraine is extremely clear. One country attacked another in an attempt to overthrow their government and incorporate them into the Soviet Union 2.0. There is one side that is the clear aggressor that's killing civilians, and another one that is defending their right to self-determination. Russians ARE committing war crimes in Ukraine. There is a lot of evidence for them massacring civilians. See what they've done in Bucha. That being said, one thing you're right is that the "good guys" in this war were wrong before. What I think you don't see is that there were huge protests in the West against the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. I don't support what the US were doing in the Middle East, but I wholeheartedly support all efforts to get Russians out of Ukraine - including shipping American military gear.
  - yonaguska 4y ago
    [flagged]
EB-Barrington 4y ago
I spent the first two months+ of the war in Ukraine (my home, but I'm not Ukrainian). I completely accept that opposing interventionist foreign policy in the case of Ukraine support is a valid stance for US citizens. However, I hope that in this case the US continues to support Ukraine - we need it - as the price Ukraine has paid for Russia's truly barbaric aggression is already too high.
Mordisquitos 4y ago
You will find some on "the left" [0] who ostensibly condemn the Russian invasion but claim that, by providing Ukraine with the weapons, the intelligence and the financial aid it needs to defend itself, the West is somehow prolonging the conflict and causing greater suffering—the implication being that without such help, the war would be over much quicker (i.e. Ukraine would soon be defeated by Russia). While given a particular set of moral values this may be a legitimate argument, it is strangely inconsistent with other comparable events. Virtually nobody on "the left" will ever claim that France and the UK should have not declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland so as to decrease suffering. Going to a more local context, in my home country of Spain, many on the left hold a historical grudge against France and the UK for not coming to the support of the legitimate Spanish Republic in 1936 when a military/nationalist coup triggered what eventually became the Spanish Civil War and lead to Franco's far-right dictatorship. The USSR, in contrast, did come to the aid of the Republic for better or for worse. However, funnily enough, whenever I bring this point up with those who claim the West is "prolonging suffering" by supporting Ukraine, they never concede that France and UK's decision at the time would be consistent with their claimed non-interventionism, nor that the USSR prolonged suffering by supporting the eventually defeated Spanish Republic. [0] I hate the oversimplification and forced dichotomy that results from talking about "the left" or "the right", hence the quotation marks.
- ttybird2 4y ago
  "Virtually nobody on "the left" will ever claim that France and the UK should have not declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland so as to decrease suffering." For this I have the following possible explanations: - They supported a war against Germany not for the protection of Poland but in order to topple the fascist government and stop the atrocities that were being committed. - They supported an early war against Germany because they believe that the German government would keep going with their demands and that the war was inevitable. - They are against the war but admitting it would be a social suicide. - They don't have an opinion about it or just have not voiced an opinion about it. (as it is an event that happened decades ago instead of one that is happening at this moment) "funnily enough, whenever I bring this point up with those who claim the West is "prolonging suffering" by supporting Ukraine, they never concede that France and UK's decision at the time would be consistent with their claimed non-interventionism, nor that the USSR prolonged suffering by supporting the eventually defeated Spanish Republic." This is interesting. What is their usual counterargument? I Presume that they either don't have a consistent logic behind it or they believe that protecting Ukraine would not benefit the common people (or would benefit them marginally) in comparison to the Spanish civil war which in their mind supporting the republican side would benefit the common people enough to counterbalance the loss of lives.
FredPret 4y ago
Non-intervention is all well and good but it is also the policy the West followed towards the Nazi’s in the 30’s. WW2 could have been stopped before it started if Britain or France marched into Germany (ad they could have won at many points) at any time between 1933 and 1939. So by arming Zelensky et al, maybe we are creating a monster (unlikely) but maybe we are stopping a much worse monster from starting WW3 (more likely).
tzs 4y ago
I'm not sure that Russia attacking Ukraine can be considered a regional conflict. First, when a country with nukes is involved in a conflict I think a good case can be made the "region" is the whole world if there is even a small chance nukes might be used. Second, Russia, the US, China, and others have an agreement to not use military force against Ukraine (the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances). Russia is violating that agreement, which automatically makes it a conflict with the US and so not regional.

weatherlight 4y ago