Two key congressional Democrats have given their approval to allow the Biden administration to proceed with what is believed to be the biggest weapons package for Israel, expected to be worth more than $18 billion and include some 50 F-15 fighter jets.
Just in case you thought maybe the Dems had finally seen the light after Rafah. Nope! How about even more bombs for Israel?
Who you were responding to mentioned Hamas and you immediately equated that with the Palestinian people. You really can’t defend Hamas and Russia in this when this is just a recurrence of the power plays that have historically shaped our current system. There are very few on the “right” side of this.
How do you want us to push for peace there too? Because we have been since the beginning of the war in my eyes.
What do you mean by “won’t recover from”? Because they have lost things that can’t be recovered since the beginning of the war. Russia is losing things they can’t recover too; thousands of its people for example, it’s money reserves, its military inventory, its non-military-sector economy. Where do you draw the line for Russia and Ukraine of what is “won’t recover from”? Western nations have already committed to helping rebuild the country and especially its destroyed infrastructure.
How is the war in Ukraine “quickly turning into a much bigger global conflict”? Fighting is still only within Ukraine and the border to Russia. Western material support has been the case since the beginning.
I have to assume by pushing for peace you mean Ukraine should accept losing large parts of its territory and human atrocities in order for the fighting to end. Is letting Russia win going to reduce conflict long term though? They’ll have more resources to invade other countries next. And proof that it’s a worth investment. That works and they win from. There was precedent before the current war in Ukraine, which is why they started this invasion in the first place. Only this time it didn’t go as smoothly.
Are you seriously calling a populist uprising a “US backed coup”, implying the US had a hand in it, simply because the US ideologically supported their goals?
NATO expansion is not a justification for invading another country, especially a non-NATO one. Ukraine has the right to self-determination and freedom to associate with whomever they want, and Russia doesn’t get to tell them who they can or can’t be friends with.
I can only assume based on this that you philosophically support the Bay of Pigs operation, as the US saw Soviet expansion near them as a threat.
Putin didnt make his move on Crimea because he was trying to defend Russia, he did it because he knew that his plans to reassimilate Ukraine were threatened by the new Ukranian government. And the 2022 expansion of the invasion just proves that.
I appreciate your willingness to question the narrative and push for peace even while everyone seems to have a real appetite for war. I found this article from 2014 that discusses the US’s influence in the 2014 protests. The cited experts are Yale University history professor Timothy Snyder and retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern. They discuss a recorded phone conversation where two US State Dept officials are going over who they want in power in Ukraine. Snyder seems pretty convinced that the 2014 protests and elections were genuine, regardless of State Department conversations about who they want to win. Then you have McGovern, who has experience in this sort of thing, saying that the CIA does not really do this sort of thing anymore, and so the State Dept does it instead. And as i’m reading, he seems quite convinced that the US was placing its thumb on the scales, and he seems to agree that maybe this should be resolved by everyone coming to the table.
McGovern’s most convincing piece of evidence is this:
The other thing is, you know, Professor Snyder talks about the parliamentary vote, voting in the new government. Well, he must know that that was a rump vote. I think it was—I think it was unanimous, something like 253 to nothing, which, you know, really is sort of a nostalgic look back at the votes that I used to count in the Soviet Union. There’s something very smelly here.
But I looked it up, and it seems like in 2014, the Prime Minister Yatsenyuk was elected via a parliamentary election where he got 371 of the 372 members that voted. Which sounds suspicious, but you should factor in the other 78 members that were either abstaining or not voting. Is it strange? Sure, but here’s another theory: the protests happened with no or very little Western influence, but the elections happened with lots of implied Western influence. There was a lot of crisis and turmoil, protests and corruption combined with Russian soldiers on the doorstep. The Parliament was under a lot of pressure to act swiftly and decisively to ease unrest. So they picked up the phone when the US called, and listened to their advice. In this way, the US got the outcome it wanted, but not by particularly manipulative means. They just offered their advice, and the Parliament listened. And so, all of the anti or neutral-to-Russia Parliament simply fell in line, to bring stability to the country.
Now, I have no evidence of this. This is just my extended thoughts on the matter after trying to understand your point of view. I think the reason many are quick to defend Ukraine’s side in this conflict is that Russia has shown itself to be corrupt, fascistic, and manipulative in foreign and domestic affairs multiple times over the past decade or so. And in the context of what has happened and continues to happen, it’s hard to be sympathetic to Russia’s “position” when they’ve been shown to argue in bad faith over and over again. It’s impossible for us to know what the people of Crimea want because they live under an authoritarian regime. It’s impossible for us to make treaties and concessions to Russia because they always break them. Every barrier to peace seems to be created by Russia, so people side with Ukraine, the underdog that they know very little about.
You don’t get fewer war machines by rewarding aggressors for their invasions. You shut them down swiftly, and make it clear that war isn’t an acceptable means to resolve conflicts.
“If you invade us, we’ll try to sue for peace as quickly and obsequiously as possible to end the war so there are fewer wars” just encourages imperialist aggression.
Yes, obviously the US is a massive Imperialist power. I don’t want it to have those bases, or nuclear weapons, or even a military or government at all, but I sure as hell don’t want it to be replaced by an openly autocratic imperialist power that also has all those things anyways, which is what Russia is aspiring to be under Putin.
But that is a completely orthogonal discussion as to whether Force is required to stop malicious actors from imposing their will on others through violent Force themselves. That is, as an anarchist, a basic requirement of human interaction; self defense and defense of others.
These Jets should be going to Ukraine not an Israeli warlord.
deleted by creator
Russia is the country imposing the invasion in Ukraine. Russia is the only country that can stop doing the invasion.
Russia is also supporting Hamas. Both wars are part of a global conflict already.
deleted by creator
Don’t be myopic about it, Russia has been just as manipulative in the Middle East as the U.S.
deleted by creator
Who you were responding to mentioned Hamas and you immediately equated that with the Palestinian people. You really can’t defend Hamas and Russia in this when this is just a recurrence of the power plays that have historically shaped our current system. There are very few on the “right” side of this.
deleted by creator
How do you want us to push for peace there too? Because we have been since the beginning of the war in my eyes.
What do you mean by “won’t recover from”? Because they have lost things that can’t be recovered since the beginning of the war. Russia is losing things they can’t recover too; thousands of its people for example, it’s money reserves, its military inventory, its non-military-sector economy. Where do you draw the line for Russia and Ukraine of what is “won’t recover from”? Western nations have already committed to helping rebuild the country and especially its destroyed infrastructure.
How is the war in Ukraine “quickly turning into a much bigger global conflict”? Fighting is still only within Ukraine and the border to Russia. Western material support has been the case since the beginning.
I have to assume by pushing for peace you mean Ukraine should accept losing large parts of its territory and human atrocities in order for the fighting to end. Is letting Russia win going to reduce conflict long term though? They’ll have more resources to invade other countries next. And proof that it’s a worth investment. That works and they win from. There was precedent before the current war in Ukraine, which is why they started this invasion in the first place. Only this time it didn’t go as smoothly.
deleted by creator
Fire is not sentient. It doesn’t strategize. It can’t use your feelings about wanting to minimize it’s damage against you. Humans can, and do.
Does your diplomacy include Ukraine giving up land?
How much does Putin pay you?
deleted by creator
Because you literally act like a mouthpiece with your constant apologetics for the aggression and war crimes of a tinpot dictator.
deleted by creator
I generally stay out of these Ukraine discussions, but Russia is clearly the aggressor.
Unless you can justify what valid reason Russia had to attack Ukraine or what you mean by diplomacy, then it’s a non argument.
Russia clearly isn’t interested in discussions unless they involve surrendering…
deleted by creator
Are you seriously calling a populist uprising a “US backed coup”, implying the US had a hand in it, simply because the US ideologically supported their goals?
NATO expansion is not a justification for invading another country, especially a non-NATO one. Ukraine has the right to self-determination and freedom to associate with whomever they want, and Russia doesn’t get to tell them who they can or can’t be friends with.
I can only assume based on this that you philosophically support the Bay of Pigs operation, as the US saw Soviet expansion near them as a threat.
Putin didnt make his move on Crimea because he was trying to defend Russia, he did it because he knew that his plans to reassimilate Ukraine were threatened by the new Ukranian government. And the 2022 expansion of the invasion just proves that.
deleted by creator
I appreciate your willingness to question the narrative and push for peace even while everyone seems to have a real appetite for war. I found this article from 2014 that discusses the US’s influence in the 2014 protests. The cited experts are Yale University history professor Timothy Snyder and retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern. They discuss a recorded phone conversation where two US State Dept officials are going over who they want in power in Ukraine. Snyder seems pretty convinced that the 2014 protests and elections were genuine, regardless of State Department conversations about who they want to win. Then you have McGovern, who has experience in this sort of thing, saying that the CIA does not really do this sort of thing anymore, and so the State Dept does it instead. And as i’m reading, he seems quite convinced that the US was placing its thumb on the scales, and he seems to agree that maybe this should be resolved by everyone coming to the table.
McGovern’s most convincing piece of evidence is this:
But I looked it up, and it seems like in 2014, the Prime Minister Yatsenyuk was elected via a parliamentary election where he got 371 of the 372 members that voted. Which sounds suspicious, but you should factor in the other 78 members that were either abstaining or not voting. Is it strange? Sure, but here’s another theory: the protests happened with no or very little Western influence, but the elections happened with lots of implied Western influence. There was a lot of crisis and turmoil, protests and corruption combined with Russian soldiers on the doorstep. The Parliament was under a lot of pressure to act swiftly and decisively to ease unrest. So they picked up the phone when the US called, and listened to their advice. In this way, the US got the outcome it wanted, but not by particularly manipulative means. They just offered their advice, and the Parliament listened. And so, all of the anti or neutral-to-Russia Parliament simply fell in line, to bring stability to the country.
Now, I have no evidence of this. This is just my extended thoughts on the matter after trying to understand your point of view. I think the reason many are quick to defend Ukraine’s side in this conflict is that Russia has shown itself to be corrupt, fascistic, and manipulative in foreign and domestic affairs multiple times over the past decade or so. And in the context of what has happened and continues to happen, it’s hard to be sympathetic to Russia’s “position” when they’ve been shown to argue in bad faith over and over again. It’s impossible for us to know what the people of Crimea want because they live under an authoritarian regime. It’s impossible for us to make treaties and concessions to Russia because they always break them. Every barrier to peace seems to be created by Russia, so people side with Ukraine, the underdog that they know very little about.
You don’t get fewer war machines by rewarding aggressors for their invasions. You shut them down swiftly, and make it clear that war isn’t an acceptable means to resolve conflicts.
“If you invade us, we’ll try to sue for peace as quickly and obsequiously as possible to end the war so there are fewer wars” just encourages imperialist aggression.
deleted by creator
Yes, obviously the US is a massive Imperialist power. I don’t want it to have those bases, or nuclear weapons, or even a military or government at all, but I sure as hell don’t want it to be replaced by an openly autocratic imperialist power that also has all those things anyways, which is what Russia is aspiring to be under Putin.
But that is a completely orthogonal discussion as to whether Force is required to stop malicious actors from imposing their will on others through violent Force themselves. That is, as an anarchist, a basic requirement of human interaction; self defense and defense of others.
What hypocrisy do you think is taking place here?