This new Liberal warhawk movement cracks me up

@Elessar You sound just like the people who supported the Iraq war at the time...anyone who opposed it was suspect and deserved scorn and suspicion, and were likely sympathetic to radical Islam and al-qaeda.

@SumKindaMunster Re-read the first paragraph. Slowly.

@Elessar I don't need to do that Elessar, I understood it. I don't agree. It's not about "propping up" Ukraine its about thwarting Russian ambitions and pushing them away from Europe. And of course its about spending billions in the most corrupt nation in Europe as a means to launder money through the Defense industry. I don't disagree with your statement that opposing both the Iraq and Ukraine war is the most *consistent position. (coherent means clear or understandable)You know a lot of people like that?

@SumKindaMunster He's too young but I literally went on the Iraq War protests and I am against the Russian invasion of Ukraine for the same reasons. It's consistent anti-imperialism.

I don't support NATO and obviously, America (and everyone else) have their own geopolitical interests. However, the Ukrainian people are the ones being screwed and have the right to get support from whoever they need it from.

The left (as opposed to liberals, which is a mixed bag) has always consistently been anti-war due to our understanding of imperialism.

The greatest inconsistency here comes from the right. You guys voted for Dubya, during the War on Terror and then flipped to having an isolationist policy based on self-interest and conspiracy theories. Weirdly, this puts you closer to my position, but for the wrong reasons!

@Burnley123 So point of clarity Burnley, I am a former progressive voter who did not vote for Bush 2. I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 either, I voted for Jill Stein.

That being said, I DID support the invasion of Iraq because I chose to believe the bullshit about roving germ vans and other nonsense that Colin Powell detailed to the UN. But I learned from it, and was way more skeptical when it came to Libya and Syria.

I'm not buying ANY of the justifications of the US or NATO on the war in Ukraine. It is very much about weakening Russia and laundering money through the most corrupt nation in Europe.

Let me ask you something. If you truly support and care about the Ukranian people as you say, isn't the best option for them, right now, to end the fighting? Wouldn't that be the best way to help them? Put a stop to the killing, then figure out a peaceful way forward?

@SumKindaMunster Apologise for calling you wrong. It's fair to say I think that most Trump supporters voted for Dubya.

On negotiated settlement, I'm genuinely torn. I prioritise peace over who wins and I don't care about US geopolitical advantage. I would give up Crimea but not sure about the Dombass. National self determination is a good rule but it's really hard to judge there for a variety of reasons. Also, I wouldn't want Putin to be rewarded with a win after instigating a violent invasion.

@SumKindaMunster
Depends on how. If your idea of ending the fighting is withdrawing military support so that Russia can finish its genocidal campaign faster, no.

@Elessar I didn't say that. My question is about what is best for the people of Ukraine if that is what you truly care about. Again, I say end the fighting. THAT is the best for the people of Ukraine. Everyday the conflict goes on, more people die, more people are grievously wounded, more people are displaced. If you don't see that, I question whether or not you do truly care about Ukrainians.

@Burnley123 Russia recognized Crimean independence last I checked, and the only referenda on the matter happened while the territory was under Russian occupation.

It isn't "self determination" if you run over a piece of country and kill or force to move anyone who doesn't like your imperialistic ambitions, so imo Crimea is non negotiable either.

@SumKindaMunster And in fact keeping Russia out is the only way to peace. There's only two outcomes:

1) Russia withdraws, Ukraine can achieve peace
2) Russia succeeds, there's no Ukraine anymore

@Elessar No, it's not a binary situation. That's just your anti Russia programming. The fighting is now over Crimea and the Eastern provinces of Ukraine. Ukraine still exists if we stop the fighting right now, and of course nobody is going to accept them being swallowed up by Russia.

@Elessar Well, no.

Russia had Crimea before the latest invasion and it always has had a pro Russia majority. We agree with the principle of national self -determination, right?

What the population of the Dombass region want is a very murky issue.

@Burnley123 Crimea is under military occupation since 2014 so the referenda held back then are just as ridiculous as the ones held in 2022. It isn't really self determination if you point a gun to the head of people and 150% of them vote 'Russia' not to be killed.

If Crimeans really want independence that should happen via referenda closely monitored by the international community, and not during an invasion. There aren't the conditions for that to happen right now.

@Elessar I'm not disputing the second paragraph. It's naive because it's doubtful that the US would have allowed an independent referendum.

I mean it when I say that it's majority pro russion

@Burnley123 The U.S. isn't the only country that has a saying. Neither is nor should be Russia. If Russia believes that the U.S. Kyiv, or even the west at large is impeding self-determination, perhaps they should've collected evidence and brought up the question to the UN, rather than invading the peninsula and de-facto creating the conditions for anyone to doubt and reject the outcome of whichever referendum-at-gunpoint they'll hold.

The problem is, how do we assess this? Crimeans voted for Ukrainian independence with a 54% majority in 1991, then had subsequent referendums in which they voted for greater autonomy (from both Ukraine and Russia) and dual citizenship (1994), but none for integration with Russia. Chances are, if I had to place a bet, that even less Crimeans would be aligned with Russia following the 2022 events.

@Elessar I'm going to take a deep dive into this so bear with me.

@Elessar One of the things that I've found in talking with you and other leftists on this foreign policy issue is that there is a clear difference between me and others on these issues. Its the difference between left-liberals and social democrats with someone who is a Marxist at the point of analysis. This is not just about you but I'm also thinking of BlueCeins, DeadGerbill and others.

We agree on a lot: that Trumpsters are nuts, that what claims to be the centre-left is really centre-right and we agree on policy. There is a fundamental philosophical difference though.

I believe that the historical record shows that state power operates primarily in the interests of the ruling class. Caveats and contradictions apply but the general thrust is the same. The 'national interest' (including foreign policy) of any country is based on self-interest or the self-interest of those with power. Where it has been beneficial for that national interest, one country has dominated another, whether via empire, hegemony, trade exploitation etc. Though obviously, things carry an ideology to justify them: whether it be the white man's burden, self-defence (Russia's justification) or the desire to spread freedom and democracy (by bombing people). NATO is not a value-neutral system of alliances based on the free will of people but a key organisational pillar of (US led) Western military power. Its reason d'etra is to push the military and economic interests of its leading member states by defense'.

The UN's role in world politics is also not neutral. It's a body that attempts to provide a rule-based world order and structure relations between different nations. It has audible aims and some good people working for it but really, it only has significance in what its most powerful member states are prepared to allow. Though the UN claims to be in favour of national self-determination, there is no way that the UN would allow it, given that all five permanent members of the Security Council have veto power. Also, the US has disproportionate power in the UN because it funds it heavily and (due to its money and hegemony) has a huge number of subordinate allies. Like Britain and Italy. The US effectively ignored the UN during the invasion of Iraq, as have many other nations many times. Uts a paper tiger that people ignore whenever they have the power to do so.

When I talk about national self-determination, it's in an attempt to think through clear solutions to geopolitics. What is right or wrong in the clash between rival powers? I believe that the majority of people in a country or region should decide which state they should belong to. Hence, I support Scotland and Catalonia's rights to binding referendums even though I'm solidly against either country splitting.

Prior to the annexation of Crimea, in 2014 Ukraine was not split into left-right camps but pro-Russia and pro-west camps and the political parties reflected this. Ukraine even had a pro-Russian president prior to 2014 and Crimea is the most Russian part of the country. If we don't trust the 2014 referendum (I don't and trust none of them) we still can't avoid the conclusion that the most pro-Russian part of an evenly divided country is pretty likely to be pro-Moscow.


This is really hard to know. Most of the news we get is propaganda, either pro-Western or pro-Russian. I've met pro-Russian Ukrainians who are against the war but also blame Zelensky for escalating things. He won an election on the promise to stick to the Minsk 2 agreement and de-escalate the conflict with Russia but then (probably with white house approval) did the opposite.

None of this means that I support the invasion because I don't

@Burnley123 I don't disagree with any of this actually, nor I was trying to make a point that NATO / US / west are necessarily and inherently arbiters or paladins of international justice.In this one specific scenario, NATO's the metaphorical rod in the wheels for Russia's imperialistic machinations (and it was designed with that goal in mind), so it has a valid reason to exist. i]The enemy of the enemy is my friend[/i], if you want. Then we may argue that NATO was exploited to some degree to drag the other allied countries into Iraq, but we're out of the scope of this issue, and at the end of the day the balance is still net positive from an European PoV.

I don't really get leftwingers that arguably sit left of center because they oppose (American) imperialism, and then take the side of Russia when it's just as imperialistic and deep down the rabbit hole of far-right authoritarianism (not saying it's you, I know you aren't; but just saying that the so called tankies definitely exist out of the internet, they're virtually everywhere in what's remained of the actual leftwing here, for instance). For me, a leftist that opposed American imperialism at the time of Iraq should naturally oppose Russian imperialism now, if they're consistent* with their beliefs.

The UN is essentially a forum where Russia has a seat on the very same security council in which the US has one. Russia isn't Iraq, or even Britain or Italy, they're one of the big players. The other big player is China (and in this case, also in terms of funding), which certainly isn't going to side with the U.S. Saying that the UN would under American pressure side against both Russia and China seems quite a stretch to me, when even after literal occupation several countries are still playing the "neutral" card (India, Brazil, South Africa to mention a few).

If Russia skipped the UN step and went directly with a military approach, in my personal opinions, it means they believed they had nothing remotely believable to bring to the table, and/or that they're just strategically incompetent. Even if they presented an instance and it was ignored/rejected, they would be in a much better position at the eyes of the international community right now: at least they could justify the intervention and accuse the UN of being partisan. This way, they've essentially dug their own grave.

Yes, I'm aware of that, a former president that has gone into hiding in Russia. However, the only reliable way for self-determination is through a vote, and if Russia really believed that the pro-Russia Ukrainians were/are the majority, they wouldn't be forcing people to vote at gunpoint.

I legit don't know about this, which points of the agreements did Zelensky violate?

Also worth mentioning that Minks II (2015) was signed *after* Russia had already violated the Budapest memorandum (1994) by invading Crimea. I fail to blame Ukrainians for not sticking with an agreement made with a party that had already demonstrated that can't be diplomatically trusted.

@Elessar There is much that I agree with. If I haven;t mentioned it then I'm on your page. However, a few things leap on.


I DO! I've called out tankies here and elsewhere. I've done posts calling this Putin's Iraq. Yes, Russia is imperialist. I don't get why tankies don't see that. I don't get why anyone thinks that I don't see that. I have seen that and said that. None of my analysis is inconsistent with that. You can be critical of NATO's intentions and still see Russia as the greater evil.


Err... nah.

Research GDP (a crap metric but useful rough guide) and compare it to other countries. It has a similar sized economy to Italy despite having three times the population. People see it as a great power because during the cold war, the USSR actually was a strong second to the US. Its nowhere near that now. There was the argument that its military punched above the weight of its economy but that has been pretty much debunked by this conflict. They can't even beat Ukraine. There is a reason why they are bringing back old tanks and weapons: its because their military used to be much better than it is now.


Dude, nbobody can be diplomatically trusted! The US famously told Gorbochev (a well intentioned fool) that they didn't intend to expand easward. They did. No Russian leader, from the Tzars, to the Soviets, to a well intentioned hypothetical liberal socialist would be happy with a NATO Ukraine with nuclear weapons. Like Bernie Sanders would be forced to take issue with Chinese nukes in Mexico. Its that sovereign nation's choice, right?

@Burnley123 I know! This wasn't meant to be a personal attack, I've put that "I know you aren't" part in the parentheses precisely because I didn't mean to direct it at you, but just to say it in a general sense. Heck, the whole point of the main post we're commenting under is trying to paint non-tankie leftists as inconsistent for.. literally having the same position against Russia now that they used to have against America then?

I'm aware, but Russia isn't alone in the UN or even in the UNSC, China's GDP is/was comparable with that of the US, and China would've most likely backed Russia if anything was brought to the discussion table.

I agree that economically and militarily they're pretty thinned down compared to their past, but it wasn't really the point I was trying to make. I meant they're a big player when it comes to having a voice in the UN assembly, especially with the support of the other BRICS. Iraq in comparison had a much weaker position.

You've a point here.. but then why is it a problem that Zelensky seemingly didn't stick to Minsk II? I can't think of a single politician, historic or contemporary, that would stick 1:1 with their electoral promises. It's Russia that had invaded Crimea and that should be blamed for not de-escalating, not the other way around, imo.

@Elessar A lot of this is talking past each other or vigorous agreement but my point is (and the issue we disagree on) is NATO's culpability. We agree on Russian culpability.

I think you are uncritical of NATO and Western intentions. An enemies enemy is not a friend indeed. It's late though and I can't be arsed. Read over my comments again and think about it. Please criticise the parts of my analysis that you think are wrong and I will come back. I've just started a new job and I'm f***ed

#failed laptop warrior.

@Burnley123 I don't think there's something inherently wrong; my point is that whatever's NATO/US/Europe/west fault on this specific issue, if there's any, it was ultimately nullified by Russia's conduct: it's the country-scale equivalent of the guy who, suspecting that his wife betrayed him and that claims to have evidence of it, randomly and brutally kills the wife in the street at midday under everyone's astonished eyes. At the end of the day, the court will only care about the murderer (okay countries don't go to court, but you get what I'm trying to say).

To use the same analogy, the UN would've been the divorce court: he may have argued that such courts tend to advantage women, but if the evidence of the cheating was sound it would've worked in his favour. However, once you're trialed for murder, whether you did or didn't have the grounds for winning a divorce case becomes absolutely irrelevant. And we're here.

Ultimately the only point we've disagreed on is on Crimea's annexation, but even there we've agreed that right now it's impossible to determine what's the will of the Crimeans on the matter, especially post-2022.

@SumKindaMunster Sorry bud, hadn't noticed that you did reply.

The fighting is by Russia's admission going to involve the entirety of Ukraine, and potentially expanding to other former-soviet countries; it's stalling there merely because they don't have the capacity to go further west, capacity that they'll regain if military aids are cut.

if we stop the fighting right now

The problem is: how? Russia has abundantly demonstrated that they don't intend to negotiate and that if they do it's only to take time until they'll launch a new offensive. This is the second time they pull this shìt.

nobody is going to accept them being swallowed up by Russia

(X) Doubt, many are (not so covertly) advocating exactly for that

@Elessar You didn't notice my reply?

Hm, that's weird, cuz you quoted me in one of your replies to Burnley.

@SumKindaMunster I had noticed (and replied to) that one, just not the very last one!