advertisement


Ukraine V

Klassik said:
If it is Corbyn's opinion that the US is arming Ukraine and using the Ukrainians as a proxy US Army in a US-Russia war and that the US has no intentions of seeking a peace agreement for the sake of depleting Russian resources for the main benefit of the US's own interests and not the interests of Ukraine, then Corbyn is making a very good point. The Guardian does not expand on Corbyn's thoughts, but Klassik knows not if this is because Corbyn did not expand or because The Guardian simply isn't reporting the whole story.

As Klassik pointed out on the Wigwam on May 9th, one needs to pay close attention to comments made by the US government. An example of this are comments made by Adam Schiff, US Democratic House Representative from California and chair of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during Trump's impeachment hearings in 2020. The point of the comment is not about Trump, but rather how the US views foreign policy with Ukraine and Russia. Here is part of the comment from Rep. Schiff from a transcript of the hearing. It should be noted that Schiff is a top-ranking member in House foreign policy and also Schiff voted for the Bush-Blair Iraq war way back when:



https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2020-01-21/pdf/CREC-2020-01-21-senate.pdf

The part in bold shows that the US has military purposes for their support of Ukraine. Now, it might seem reasonable to support Ukraine in the context of controlling Russian aggression as it pertains to Ukraine's sovereignty. Few would probably argue against that point, but the question is if the US has additional reasons for their interest in arming Ukraine. Schiff's notion of Ukraine's fight somehow preventing the US mainland from being attacked by Russia seems almost daft. Where is there any realistic threat of Russia invading the mainland United States? Or any part of the US really?

It is surely not Ukraine's goal, and it certainly doesn't seem to be Zelenskyy's goal, to engage in a permanent war with Russia. Rather, it seems the goal is to obtain a peace. Surely Ukraine would prefer to not cede much in a peace agreement as one could understand, but surely the goal is to achieve peace. The question then is if the US has a peace agreement as a goal of if the purpose of arming the Ukrainians is so that the US can use Ukrainians fighting for their homeland as a proxy army for the US's own goals which deal with issues beyond Ukraine. Klassik has some doubt that Ukrainians have much interest in such things.

In other words, there is some question if the Ukrainians are being used the way the Afghans were in the Afghan-USSR war in the 1980s which was truly a brutal war...one which still has ramifications today. While the USSR was indeed depleted by the Afghan-USSR war, Afghanistan was also left in tatters and that came back to burn the US when Afghanistan was ripe ground for extremism which turned US arms and military training against the US.

The Tories and New Labour have unquestioning support of US foreign policy...foreign policy which has often been wrong and, quite frankly, rather brutal. Klassik believes Corbyn is quite right to offer some questioning of this stance. It's not necessarily a matter of supporting Ukraine, but rather a matter of ensuring that the outcome is peace as soon as possible and that might well come through serious attempts at diplomacy and not 'forever wars'. It's possible the best possible outcome is somewhere between the US's/Tory/New Labour stance and that of Corbyn's, but without Corbyn's stance, there would be nothing to advocate for anything but the US's stance completely.
Click to expand...

It is Ukraine that has agency to negotiate for peace, not the US. But it should be abundantly clear by now that Russia has no interest in peace, nor in any good faith negotiations.
 
kensalriser said:
It is Ukraine that has agency to negotiate for peace, not the US. But it should be abundantly clear by now that Russia has no interest in peace, nor in any good faith negotiations.
Click to expand...
I image Putin hopes the Taiwan situation blows into a direct US- China military confrontation. He is after all directing the world community to a new multipolar future.
 
If the goal is simply peace, can one not just surrender and have that immediately? I think not, because the term 'peace' includes the ability of the populace to lead normal lives in a benign community. It seems that surrendering to Russia would not lead to peace--they have laid out intentions to impose extreme and continuing oppression on the Ukrainian people. Basically, Russia began this criminal war, and there can be no peace until Russia agrees to leave the Ukraine alone.

What Poland experienced in the time of German occupation during WWII was not peace.
 
kensalriser said:
It is Ukraine that has agency to negotiate for peace, not the US.
Click to expand...

In theory. Realty may not be so simple. There is ample evidence to suggest Zelenskyy, Germany, France, and Italy have tried to engage in negotiations, but have certainly not been helped by the US and perhaps have been hampered by the US. The US is not one known to stay out of foreign policy matters and it certainly reasons they won't stay out of a matter they've been deeply involved in for years now.
 
Klassik said:
In theory. Realty may not be so simple. There is ample evidence to suggest Zelenskyy, Germany, France, and Italy have tried to engage in negotiations, but have certainly not been helped by the US and perhaps have been hampered by the US. The US is not one known to stay out of foreign policy matters and it certainly reasons they won't stay out of a matter they've been deeply involved in for years now.
Click to expand...
Your point is weak. What critics consider the US "known for" is hardly evidence. At least you said "perhaps."
 
ks.234 said:
Are you denying the US has a history of intervening in other countries?
Click to expand...
Nope. I'm suggesting that such history is only a reason for suspicion. It is not evidence in any particular case. 'They are guilty because, after all, they are America' does not fly.
 
Klassik said:
If it is Corbyn's opinion that the US is arming Ukraine and using the Ukrainians as a proxy US Army in a US-Russia war and that the US has no intentions of seeking a peace agreement for the sake of depleting Russian resources for the main benefit of the US's own interests and not the interests of Ukraine, then Corbyn is making a very good point. The Guardian does not expand on Corbyn's thoughts, but Klassik knows not if this is because Corbyn did not expand or because The Guardian simply isn't reporting the whole story.

As Klassik pointed out on the Wigwam on May 9th, one needs to pay close attention to comments made by the US government. An example of this are comments made by Adam Schiff, US Democratic House Representative from California and chair of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during Trump's impeachment hearings in 2020. The point of the comment is not about Trump, but rather how the US views foreign policy with Ukraine and Russia. Here is part of the comment from Rep. Schiff from a transcript of the hearing. It should be noted that Schiff is a top-ranking member in House foreign policy and also Schiff voted for the Bush-Blair Iraq war way back when:



https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2020-01-21/pdf/CREC-2020-01-21-senate.pdf

The part in bold shows that the US has military purposes for their support of Ukraine. Now, it might seem reasonable to support Ukraine in the context of controlling Russian aggression as it pertains to Ukraine's sovereignty. Few would probably argue against that point, but the question is if the US has additional reasons for their interest in arming Ukraine. Schiff's notion of Ukraine's fight somehow preventing the US mainland from being attacked by Russia seems almost daft. Where is there any realistic threat of Russia invading the mainland United States? Or any part of the US really?

It is surely not Ukraine's goal, and it certainly doesn't seem to be Zelenskyy's goal, to engage in a permanent war with Russia. Rather, it seems the goal is to obtain a peace. Surely Ukraine would prefer to not cede much in a peace agreement as one could understand, but surely the goal is to achieve peace. The question then is if the US has a peace agreement as a goal of if the purpose of arming the Ukrainians is so that the US can use Ukrainians fighting for their homeland as a proxy army for the US's own goals which deal with issues beyond Ukraine. Klassik has some doubt that Ukrainians have much interest in such things.

In other words, there is some question if the Ukrainians are being used the way the Afghans were in the Afghan-USSR war in the 1980s which was truly a brutal war...one which still has ramifications today. While the USSR was indeed depleted by the Afghan-USSR war, Afghanistan was also left in tatters and that came back to burn the US when Afghanistan was ripe ground for extremism which turned US arms and military training against the US.

The Tories and New Labour have unquestioning support of US foreign policy...foreign policy which has often been wrong and, quite frankly, rather brutal. Klassik believes Corbyn is quite right to offer some questioning of this stance. It's not necessarily a matter of supporting Ukraine, but rather a matter of ensuring that the outcome is peace as soon as possible and that might well come through serious attempts at diplomacy and not 'forever wars'. It's possible the best possible outcome is somewhere between the US's/Tory/New Labour stance and that of Corbyn's, but without Corbyn's stance, there would be nothing to advocate for anything but the US's stance completely.
Click to expand...
This message is purposefully made unclear, with multiple undefined terms and strawmen and a sea of "ifs" and "buts." This has become a small industry in the "peace at all costs(tm)" circles.

What is "peace" in the context of a victim of a crime? Is the sight of a man defending himself too disturbing to the passerbys, so they beg the victim to please give his wallet and car to the criminal to stop this unsightly happening in their wealthy neighborhood?

Aren't there international laws governing extra-national conflict? Surely, each nation has a well-recognized right to defense of its citizens and its territory from being annexed by it's neighbors? There is a whole body of international law forbidding countries from expanding their territory by force.

Is a speech by an American politician made during a presidential impeachment over Ukraine military aid proof of a long plot to "trigger Russia" into a war? It seems laughable on its face, but we see all kinds of essentially pro-Russia selective historical digging to generate "truthy factoids" that are then used to exonerate Russia so we think of this war as "everyone's fault."

My sense is that the Left is so entirely consumed with virulent hatred of the US (not the people of course, but our very political presence in this world), that it's physically incapable of recognizing danger from any other country.

Separate question - why do you refer to yourself in third person? It's weird.
 
DonQuixote99 said:
Nope. I'm suggesting that such history is only a reason for suspicion. It is not evidence in any particular case. 'They are guilty because, after all, they are America' does not fly.
Click to expand...
In analysis of these things we always go by what has occurred though. And when it has occurred many times and has been shown to be deliberate foreign policy methodology, it's hardly just 'suspicion'.
 
DimitryZ said:
This message is purposefully made unclear, with multiple undefined terms and strawmen and a sea of "ifs" and "buts."
Click to expand...

DimitryZ said:
What is "peace" in the context of a victim of a crime? Is the sight of a man defending himself too disturbing to the passerbys, so they beg the victim to please give his wallet and car to the criminal to stop this unsightly happening in their wealthy neighborhood?
Click to expand...

Interesting juxtaposition.
 
DonQuixote99 said:
Nope. I'm suggesting that such history is only a reason for suspicion. It is not evidence in any particular case. ‘They are guilty because, after all, they are America' does not fly.
Click to expand...
Blimey! You believe there is no evidence of any particular case of US military and economic interference in other countries? Really?
 
Le Baron said:
Interesting juxtaposition.
Click to expand...
It is and it's key to our disagreement.

I define "peace" as a state of affairs where Ukraine consolidates its' internationally recognized borders, Russia leaves all occupied territory and isn't able to attack Ukraine again, at least in the near term. Ukraine is free to choose its alliances and partners, as is the right of all sovereign nations, even ones bordering Russia.

Western Left (and Russia) defines "peace" entirely differently. To them peace is the ceasefire that freezes current battle lines, allowing Russia to conduct fake referenda in the occupied lands, annexing them to Russia. Ukraine, having lost its' most valuable territory, should remain as a rump, impoverished nation, while Russia reconstitutes it's military, bribes more Western politicians and gets ready for further expansion into western Ukraine and Moldova.

These are two very different peaches.
 
ks.234 said:
Blimey! You believe there is no evidence of any particular case of US military and economic interference in other countries? Really?
Click to expand...
Believe it or not countries can do both bad and good things.

Don't fog up the thread.

Corbyn sez we should not give weapons to Ukraine so it looses the war faster and agrees to Russian terms. It's a very common position on the Left.

What sez you? Weapons or no weapons?
 
DimitryZ said:
It is and it's key to our disagreement.

I define "peace" as a state of affairs where Ukraine consolidates its' internationally recognized borders, Russia leaves all occupied territory and isn't able to attack Ukraine again, at least in the near term. Ukraine is free to choose its alliances and partners, as is the right of all sovereign nations, even ones bordering Russia.

Western Left (and Russia) defines "peace" entirely differently. To them peace is the ceasefire that freezes current battle lines, allowing Russia to conduct fake referenda in the occupied lands, annexing them to Russia. Ukraine, having lost its' most valuable territory, should remain as a rump, impoverished nation, while Russia reconstitutes it's military, bribes more Western politicians and gets ready for further expansion into western Ukraine and Moldova.

These are two very different peaches.
Click to expand...
Fairly interesting your position. Listing strings of Russia's misdeeds, but when the U.S. enormous list of ongoing misdeeds, including toppling leaders, arming right-wing (and left-wing) militias, bombing nations on false evidence ('back to the stone age' in some cases), torture, false imprisonment... all of that is 'left-wing' hatred? All those things you list have been overseen by successive U.S. governments with UK/EU support in many cases.

Why is Ukraine so important, where Syria wasn't? Or Yemen, or Palestine...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top