Nothing about the war in Ukrain?

[Stefano1972]

Agreed, everyone has their own ideas and it is right that we should all respect honest different points of view.
I would ask you just one thing, just so I can have more enrichment, what doesn't convince you in Koffler's article?

Okay, since you asked: generally, I find the entire article full of vague rhetoric but lacking in detailed analysis or factually verifiable claims. A lot of it reads like Koffler just personally dislikes Biden. The key paragraphs seem to be this:

Putin's strategy, which he developed over the course of 20 years, sought to exploit U.S. vulnerabilities, studied by Russia for decades, in order to keep Washington from entering conflict on Russia's periphery. Moscow was determined to reestablish its strategic security perimeter lost in the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR. Those vulnerabilities included threats like blackout warfare—using cyberattacks, space weapons, electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) strikes, cutting undersea internet cables, and if all else fails, launching nuclear weapons.

There's no evidence presented about how the Biden administration has failed to deal with vulnerabilities, just as a basis of evaluating the administration's job. I guess the insinuation is that the Biden administration couldn't do these things and support Ukrainian resistance, but that's extremely silly. The U.S. has huge amounts of resources at its disposal to do all of the above and still support Ukraine and the author doesn't provide any evidence at all for her claims that the Biden administration has failed in addressing any or all of those vulnerabilities. She made the claim, it's her obligation to provide the evidence.

Closing these vulnerabilities or developing counter-measures would require serious intellectual firepower and significant funding. Instead, Biden chose to use the American people as the cash cow and Ukrainians as the flesh to throw in Putin's meat grinder. To cover up for its failures while sucking U.S. taxpayers dry, Washington deployed a propaganda narrative insisting that it was helping Ukraine fight for its democracy. Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe, is no more of a democracy than Russia is.

The hyperbole about U.S. spending is misleading at best. The total aide (including non-military humanitarian aide we've sent to Ukraine by end of 2023 is $75 billion. For comparison, the state of Virginia's budget is $81 billion. By share of GDP, our contribution to Ukraine's war effort is below Lithuania. It's simply immaterial to U.S. budgeting, which is an apparently pretty important piece of Koffler's argument, which is that we've overspent on this fight and can't do the real work to deter Russia that's needed.

Also, the assertion that Ukraine and Russia are both equally undemocratic has no measurable or quantifiable support. All systems that attempt to capture these things find Russia significantly more autocratic and less democratic than the (quite imperfect) government of Ukraine. Here's just one such system (which places Ukraine as the 92nd - mixed governance - most democratic country listed and Russia as 144th and an autocracy): https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking

There's also a bunch of assertions that Ukraine is losing the war, which is all evidence-free. The long term trends of the conflict are that the battle lines have gotten entrenched and neither side is making much progress. Koffler also omits all context for the delay in the next Ukraine funding package, which is that Republicans who support funding Ukraine want the funding tied with draconian anti-immigrant immigration policies. That's not a good thing!

And this is more just an opinion, I also think it's weird that she approvingly cites the Monroe Doctrine as the analogous policy that Russia is modeling its own "sphere of influence" policies on. But of course the Monroe Doctrine was quite evil! The left position, properly, was to support opposition to the U.S. when it was exercising that doctrine. Being anti-Monroe Doctrine was anti-imperialist! Now, Russia may be creating it's own Monroe Doctrine in East Europe but as leftists and anti-imperalists aren't we supposed to oppose such efforts? Similarly, the hypothetical of Mexico hosting Chinese or Russian weapons. if that happened, it would be a grotesque moral monstrosity for the United States to invade Mexico! And I'd look warily at any supposed leftists or anti-imperalists who claimed the real blame lay with Mexico or Russia/China and not the country doing the invading. I seriously can't belive that in a scenario where the United States decided to invade Mexico for not being subservient enough to its neighbor state, that the anti-imperalist position would be to justify U.S. actions.

I think overall I don't find the great power/sphere of influence stuff compelling because we should be opposing those power formulations!

Sorry, there may be more around Ukrainian self-determination which the author steamrolls over but the little guy just woke up from his nap so duty calls. You get the idea, anyways.

I was closing the connection when the notification of your reply arrived.
There are interesting elements in your answer. But now it's late, it's almost midnight here. We'll talk about it again tomorrow.
Anyway thanks.

[Stefano1972]

Agreed, everyone has their own ideas and it is right that we should all respect honest different points of view.
I would ask you just one thing, just so I can have more enrichment, what doesn't convince you in Koffler's article?

Okay, since you asked: generally, I find the entire article full of vague rhetoric but lacking in detailed analysis or factually verifiable claims. A lot of it reads like Koffler just personally dislikes Biden. The key paragraphs seem to be this:

Putin's strategy, which he developed over the course of 20 years, sought to exploit U.S. vulnerabilities, studied by Russia for decades, in order to keep Washington from entering conflict on Russia's periphery. Moscow was determined to reestablish its strategic security perimeter lost in the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR. Those vulnerabilities included threats like blackout warfare—using cyberattacks, space weapons, electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) strikes, cutting undersea internet cables, and if all else fails, launching nuclear weapons.

There's no evidence presented about how the Biden administration has failed to deal with vulnerabilities, just as a basis of evaluating the administration's job. I guess the insinuation is that the Biden administration couldn't do these things and support Ukrainian resistance, but that's extremely silly. The U.S. has huge amounts of resources at its disposal to do all of the above and still support Ukraine and the author doesn't provide any evidence at all for her claims that the Biden administration has failed in addressing any or all of those vulnerabilities. She made the claim, it's her obligation to provide the evidence.

Closing these vulnerabilities or developing counter-measures would require serious intellectual firepower and significant funding. Instead, Biden chose to use the American people as the cash cow and Ukrainians as the flesh to throw in Putin's meat grinder. To cover up for its failures while sucking U.S. taxpayers dry, Washington deployed a propaganda narrative insisting that it was helping Ukraine fight for its democracy. Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe, is no more of a democracy than Russia is.

The hyperbole about U.S. spending is misleading at best. The total aide (including non-military humanitarian aide we've sent to Ukraine by end of 2023 is $75 billion. For comparison, the state of Virginia's budget is $81 billion. By share of GDP, our contribution to Ukraine's war effort is below Lithuania. It's simply immaterial to U.S. budgeting, which is an apparently pretty important piece of Koffler's argument, which is that we've overspent on this fight and can't do the real work to deter Russia that's needed.

Also, the assertion that Ukraine and Russia are both equally undemocratic has no measurable or quantifiable support. All systems that attempt to capture these things find Russia significantly more autocratic and less democratic than the (quite imperfect) government of Ukraine. Here's just one such system (which places Ukraine as the 92nd - mixed governance - most democratic country listed and Russia as 144th and an autocracy): https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking

There's also a bunch of assertions that Ukraine is losing the war, which is all evidence-free. The long term trends of the conflict are that the battle lines have gotten entrenched and neither side is making much progress. Koffler also omits all context for the delay in the next Ukraine funding package, which is that Republicans who support funding Ukraine want the funding tied with draconian anti-immigrant immigration policies. That's not a good thing!

And this is more just an opinion, I also think it's weird that she approvingly cites the Monroe Doctrine as the analogous policy that Russia is modeling its own "sphere of influence" policies on. But of course the Monroe Doctrine was quite evil! The left position, properly, was to support opposition to the U.S. when it was exercising that doctrine. Being anti-Monroe Doctrine was anti-imperialist! Now, Russia may be creating it's own Monroe Doctrine in East Europe but as leftists and anti-imperalists aren't we supposed to oppose such efforts? Similarly, the hypothetical of Mexico hosting Chinese or Russian weapons. if that happened, it would be a grotesque moral monstrosity for the United States to invade Mexico! And I'd look warily at any supposed leftists or anti-imperalists who claimed the real blame lay with Mexico or Russia/China and not the country doing the invading. I seriously can't belive that in a scenario where the United States decided to invade Mexico for not being subservient enough to its neighbor state, that the anti-imperalist position would be to justify U.S. actions.

I think overall I don't find the great power/sphere of influence stuff compelling because we should be opposing those power formulations!

Sorry, there may be more around Ukrainian self-determination which the author steamrolls over but the little guy just woke up from his nap so duty calls. You get the idea, anyways.

I read your post, I understand your doubts, some I agree with, others I absolutely don't. Before going further it is necessary to understand what the events were that characterized the so-called "Maidan" which led to the defenestration of a president, certainly corrupt to the core but democratically elected in elections judged to be regular by all the observers present at the time.
Was it a revolution or a coup d'état directed by the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union? Personally, I believe more in the hypothesis of a foreign-directed coup d'état.
I could be wrong, none of us has the truth in our pockets, but several elements lead me to think so, starting from the presence in the square in Kiev with the demonstrators of various leading elements of the US political institutions (MCCain, Nuland, Pryatt) and , in tow, also from the European Union (Ashton, Pittella). From my point of view, it would be inconceivable for even a single leading element of Russian Federation politics to be present at an anti-government demonstration in the United States, Canada or Europe. Then, a further element that strengthens my hypothesis is the telephone conversation between the then "Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs" Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine Jeffrey Pryatt. Telephone conversation that went down in history for that "Fuck the EU" but not for the names that Nuland decided would form the new Ukrainian government. Anyone who hears that conversation might be hesitant to judge today's Ukraine as a truly sovereign state.
The names that Nuland and Pryatt decided would enter the new Ukrainian government, as if by magic, were the same ones who actually became ministers in the so-called "new Ukrainian democratic course".
That the United States has pushed for regime change in Ukraine is quite clear to me from the information I have had access to. But, I repeat once again, mine are only hypotheses, I don't have the truth in my pocket as none of us do and, given the unpleasant episodes of a few days ago, far be it from me to want to impose my point of sight over that of another.
Returning to the Newsweek article, although there are passages inside that I don't agree with, I however agree with the basic concept of the article and the enormous responsibilities of the United States in the Ukrainian affair. Especially from the Biden administration.
Trying to understand the causes of a tragedy and the unfortunate actions of the Russian government does not mean wanting to support them.
Anyway, i respect all different point of views from the mine but i wish have the same respect back.
p.s I suggest you immediately download the work to which I made a small contribution on the remastering of the show at the Lyceum on 3 January 1979 by XRCF!
I wish you all the best

[Flex]

Agreed, everyone has their own ideas and it is right that we should all respect honest different points of view.
I would ask you just one thing, just so I can have more enrichment, what doesn't convince you in Koffler's article?

Okay, since you asked: generally, I find the entire article full of vague rhetoric but lacking in detailed analysis or factually verifiable claims. A lot of it reads like Koffler just personally dislikes Biden. The key paragraphs seem to be this:

Putin's strategy, which he developed over the course of 20 years, sought to exploit U.S. vulnerabilities, studied by Russia for decades, in order to keep Washington from entering conflict on Russia's periphery. Moscow was determined to reestablish its strategic security perimeter lost in the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR. Those vulnerabilities included threats like blackout warfare—using cyberattacks, space weapons, electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) strikes, cutting undersea internet cables, and if all else fails, launching nuclear weapons.

There's no evidence presented about how the Biden administration has failed to deal with vulnerabilities, just as a basis of evaluating the administration's job. I guess the insinuation is that the Biden administration couldn't do these things and support Ukrainian resistance, but that's extremely silly. The U.S. has huge amounts of resources at its disposal to do all of the above and still support Ukraine and the author doesn't provide any evidence at all for her claims that the Biden administration has failed in addressing any or all of those vulnerabilities. She made the claim, it's her obligation to provide the evidence.

Closing these vulnerabilities or developing counter-measures would require serious intellectual firepower and significant funding. Instead, Biden chose to use the American people as the cash cow and Ukrainians as the flesh to throw in Putin's meat grinder. To cover up for its failures while sucking U.S. taxpayers dry, Washington deployed a propaganda narrative insisting that it was helping Ukraine fight for its democracy. Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe, is no more of a democracy than Russia is.

The hyperbole about U.S. spending is misleading at best. The total aide (including non-military humanitarian aide we've sent to Ukraine by end of 2023 is $75 billion. For comparison, the state of Virginia's budget is $81 billion. By share of GDP, our contribution to Ukraine's war effort is below Lithuania. It's simply immaterial to U.S. budgeting, which is an apparently pretty important piece of Koffler's argument, which is that we've overspent on this fight and can't do the real work to deter Russia that's needed.

Also, the assertion that Ukraine and Russia are both equally undemocratic has no measurable or quantifiable support. All systems that attempt to capture these things find Russia significantly more autocratic and less democratic than the (quite imperfect) government of Ukraine. Here's just one such system (which places Ukraine as the 92nd - mixed governance - most democratic country listed and Russia as 144th and an autocracy): https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking

There's also a bunch of assertions that Ukraine is losing the war, which is all evidence-free. The long term trends of the conflict are that the battle lines have gotten entrenched and neither side is making much progress. Koffler also omits all context for the delay in the next Ukraine funding package, which is that Republicans who support funding Ukraine want the funding tied with draconian anti-immigrant immigration policies. That's not a good thing!

And this is more just an opinion, I also think it's weird that she approvingly cites the Monroe Doctrine as the analogous policy that Russia is modeling its own "sphere of influence" policies on. But of course the Monroe Doctrine was quite evil! The left position, properly, was to support opposition to the U.S. when it was exercising that doctrine. Being anti-Monroe Doctrine was anti-imperialist! Now, Russia may be creating it's own Monroe Doctrine in East Europe but as leftists and anti-imperalists aren't we supposed to oppose such efforts? Similarly, the hypothetical of Mexico hosting Chinese or Russian weapons. if that happened, it would be a grotesque moral monstrosity for the United States to invade Mexico! And I'd look warily at any supposed leftists or anti-imperalists who claimed the real blame lay with Mexico or Russia/China and not the country doing the invading. I seriously can't belive that in a scenario where the United States decided to invade Mexico for not being subservient enough to its neighbor state, that the anti-imperalist position would be to justify U.S. actions.

I think overall I don't find the great power/sphere of influence stuff compelling because we should be opposing those power formulations!

Sorry, there may be more around Ukrainian self-determination which the author steamrolls over but the little guy just woke up from his nap so duty calls. You get the idea, anyways.

I read your post, I understand your doubts, some I agree with, others I absolutely don't. Before going further it is necessary to understand what the events were that characterized the so-called "Maidan" which led to the defenestration of a president, certainly corrupt to the core but democratically elected in elections judged to be regular by all the observers present at the time.
Was it a revolution or a coup d'état directed by the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union? Personally, I believe more in the hypothesis of a foreign-directed coup d'état.
I could be wrong, none of us has the truth in our pockets, but several elements lead me to think so, starting from the presence in the square in Kiev with the demonstrators of various leading elements of the US political institutions (MCCain, Nuland, Pryatt) and , in tow, also from the European Union (Ashton, Pittella). From my point of view, it would be inconceivable for even a single leading element of Russian Federation politics to be present at an anti-government demonstration in the United States, Canada or Europe. Then, a further element that strengthens my hypothesis is the telephone conversation between the then "Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs" Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine Jeffrey Pryatt. Telephone conversation that went down in history for that "Fuck the EU" but not for the names that Nuland decided would form the new Ukrainian government. Anyone who hears that conversation might be hesitant to judge today's Ukraine as a truly sovereign state.
The names that Nuland and Pryatt decided would enter the new Ukrainian government, as if by magic, were the same ones who actually became ministers in the so-called "new Ukrainian democratic course".
That the United States has pushed for regime change in Ukraine is quite clear to me from the information I have had access to. But, I repeat once again, mine are only hypotheses, I don't have the truth in my pocket as none of us do and, given the unpleasant episodes of a few days ago, far be it from me to want to impose my point of sight over that of another.
Returning to the Newsweek article, although there are passages inside that I don't agree with, I however agree with the basic concept of the article and the enormous responsibilities of the United States in the Ukrainian affair. Especially from the Biden administration.
Trying to understand the causes of a tragedy and the unfortunate actions of the Russian government does not mean wanting to support them.
Anyway, i respect all different point of views from the mine but i wish have the same respect back.
p.s I suggest you immediately download the work to which I made a small contribution on the remastering of the show at the Lyceum on 3 January 1979 by XRCF!
I wish you all the best

Thanks for the response. I think weve inched a little closer to understanding in our discussion, which is always good. I'm familiar with most of the history you cite but don't come to some of the same conclusions - as you're right to remind us in these conversations, there's a lot of hypothesizing that we have to do. Definitely something I can work to be mindful of. I think that's a good way to leave it for now, thanks for the dialogue. And the work on Lyceum!

[APACHES67]

Agreed, everyone has their own ideas and it is right that we should all respect honest different points of view.
I would ask you just one thing, just so I can have more enrichment, what doesn't convince you in Koffler's article?

Okay, since you asked: generally, I find the entire article full of vague rhetoric but lacking in detailed analysis or factually verifiable claims. A lot of it reads like Koffler just personally dislikes Biden. The key paragraphs seem to be this:

Putin's strategy, which he developed over the course of 20 years, sought to exploit U.S. vulnerabilities, studied by Russia for decades, in order to keep Washington from entering conflict on Russia's periphery. Moscow was determined to reestablish its strategic security perimeter lost in the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR. Those vulnerabilities included threats like blackout warfare—using cyberattacks, space weapons, electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) strikes, cutting undersea internet cables, and if all else fails, launching nuclear weapons.

There's no evidence presented about how the Biden administration has failed to deal with vulnerabilities, just as a basis of evaluating the administration's job. I guess the insinuation is that the Biden administration couldn't do these things and support Ukrainian resistance, but that's extremely silly. The U.S. has huge amounts of resources at its disposal to do all of the above and still support Ukraine and the author doesn't provide any evidence at all for her claims that the Biden administration has failed in addressing any or all of those vulnerabilities. She made the claim, it's her obligation to provide the evidence.

Closing these vulnerabilities or developing counter-measures would require serious intellectual firepower and significant funding. Instead, Biden chose to use the American people as the cash cow and Ukrainians as the flesh to throw in Putin's meat grinder. To cover up for its failures while sucking U.S. taxpayers dry, Washington deployed a propaganda narrative insisting that it was helping Ukraine fight for its democracy. Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe, is no more of a democracy than Russia is.

The hyperbole about U.S. spending is misleading at best. The total aide (including non-military humanitarian aide we've sent to Ukraine by end of 2023 is $75 billion. For comparison, the state of Virginia's budget is $81 billion. By share of GDP, our contribution to Ukraine's war effort is below Lithuania. It's simply immaterial to U.S. budgeting, which is an apparently pretty important piece of Koffler's argument, which is that we've overspent on this fight and can't do the real work to deter Russia that's needed.

Also, the assertion that Ukraine and Russia are both equally undemocratic has no measurable or quantifiable support. All systems that attempt to capture these things find Russia significantly more autocratic and less democratic than the (quite imperfect) government of Ukraine. Here's just one such system (which places Ukraine as the 92nd - mixed governance - most democratic country listed and Russia as 144th and an autocracy): https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking

There's also a bunch of assertions that Ukraine is losing the war, which is all evidence-free. The long term trends of the conflict are that the battle lines have gotten entrenched and neither side is making much progress. Koffler also omits all context for the delay in the next Ukraine funding package, which is that Republicans who support funding Ukraine want the funding tied with draconian anti-immigrant immigration policies. That's not a good thing!

And this is more just an opinion, I also think it's weird that she approvingly cites the Monroe Doctrine as the analogous policy that Russia is modeling its own "sphere of influence" policies on. But of course the Monroe Doctrine was quite evil! The left position, properly, was to support opposition to the U.S. when it was exercising that doctrine. Being anti-Monroe Doctrine was anti-imperialist! Now, Russia may be creating it's own Monroe Doctrine in East Europe but as leftists and anti-imperalists aren't we supposed to oppose such efforts? Similarly, the hypothetical of Mexico hosting Chinese or Russian weapons. if that happened, it would be a grotesque moral monstrosity for the United States to invade Mexico! And I'd look warily at any supposed leftists or anti-imperalists who claimed the real blame lay with Mexico or Russia/China and not the country doing the invading. I seriously can't belive that in a scenario where the United States decided to invade Mexico for not being subservient enough to its neighbor state, that the anti-imperalist position would be to justify U.S. actions.

I think overall I don't find the great power/sphere of influence stuff compelling because we should be opposing those power formulations!

Sorry, there may be more around Ukrainian self-determination which the author steamrolls over but the little guy just woke up from his nap so duty calls. You get the idea, anyways.

I read your post, I understand your doubts, some I agree with, others I absolutely don't. Before going further it is necessary to understand what the events were that characterized the so-called "Maidan" which led to the defenestration of a president, certainly corrupt to the core but democratically elected in elections judged to be regular by all the observers present at the time.
Was it a revolution or a coup d'état directed by the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union? Personally, I believe more in the hypothesis of a foreign-directed coup d'état.
I could be wrong, none of us has the truth in our pockets, but several elements lead me to think so, starting from the presence in the square in Kiev with the demonstrators of various leading elements of the US political institutions (MCCain, Nuland, Pryatt) and , in tow, also from the European Union (Ashton, Pittella). From my point of view, it would be inconceivable for even a single leading element of Russian Federation politics to be present at an anti-government demonstration in the United States, Canada or Europe. Then, a further element that strengthens my hypothesis is the telephone conversation between the then "Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs" Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine Jeffrey Pryatt. Telephone conversation that went down in history for that "Fuck the EU" but not for the names that Nuland decided would form the new Ukrainian government. Anyone who hears that conversation might be hesitant to judge today's Ukraine as a truly sovereign state.
The names that Nuland and Pryatt decided would enter the new Ukrainian government, as if by magic, were the same ones who actually became ministers in the so-called "new Ukrainian democratic course".
That the United States has pushed for regime change in Ukraine is quite clear to me from the information I have had access to. But, I repeat once again, mine are only hypotheses, I don't have the truth in my pocket as none of us do and, given the unpleasant episodes of a few days ago, far be it from me to want to impose my point of sight over that of another.
Returning to the Newsweek article, although there are passages inside that I don't agree with, I however agree with the basic concept of the article and the enormous responsibilities of the United States in the Ukrainian affair. Especially from the Biden administration.
Trying to understand the causes of a tragedy and the unfortunate actions of the Russian government does not mean wanting to support them.
Anyway, i respect all different point of views from the mine but i wish have the same respect back.
p.s I suggest you immediately download the work to which I made a small contribution on the remastering of the show at the Lyceum on 3 January 1979 by XRCF!
I wish you all the best

I agree with Stefano "that the U.S.A. has pushed for regime change in Ukraine is quite clear"...and i can add that the motherfucker U.S.A. government wants this conflict in Ukraine for 2 principal aims: 1) destroy the economic and political relationships between Europe and Russia 2) war is business.
I know Putin is a criminal dictator, but the U.S.A. are the motherfucker number 1 . Does anyone here has read "What Uncle Sam really wants"(1992) by Noam Chomsky ? I well know the U.S.A. trust me

[Stefano1972]

Agreed, everyone has their own ideas and it is right that we should all respect honest different points of view.
I would ask you just one thing, just so I can have more enrichment, what doesn't convince you in Koffler's article?

Okay, since you asked: generally, I find the entire article full of vague rhetoric but lacking in detailed analysis or factually verifiable claims. A lot of it reads like Koffler just personally dislikes Biden. The key paragraphs seem to be this:

Putin's strategy, which he developed over the course of 20 years, sought to exploit U.S. vulnerabilities, studied by Russia for decades, in order to keep Washington from entering conflict on Russia's periphery. Moscow was determined to reestablish its strategic security perimeter lost in the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR. Those vulnerabilities included threats like blackout warfare—using cyberattacks, space weapons, electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) strikes, cutting undersea internet cables, and if all else fails, launching nuclear weapons.

There's no evidence presented about how the Biden administration has failed to deal with vulnerabilities, just as a basis of evaluating the administration's job. I guess the insinuation is that the Biden administration couldn't do these things and support Ukrainian resistance, but that's extremely silly. The U.S. has huge amounts of resources at its disposal to do all of the above and still support Ukraine and the author doesn't provide any evidence at all for her claims that the Biden administration has failed in addressing any or all of those vulnerabilities. She made the claim, it's her obligation to provide the evidence.

Closing these vulnerabilities or developing counter-measures would require serious intellectual firepower and significant funding. Instead, Biden chose to use the American people as the cash cow and Ukrainians as the flesh to throw in Putin's meat grinder. To cover up for its failures while sucking U.S. taxpayers dry, Washington deployed a propaganda narrative insisting that it was helping Ukraine fight for its democracy. Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe, is no more of a democracy than Russia is.

The hyperbole about U.S. spending is misleading at best. The total aide (including non-military humanitarian aide we've sent to Ukraine by end of 2023 is $75 billion. For comparison, the state of Virginia's budget is $81 billion. By share of GDP, our contribution to Ukraine's war effort is below Lithuania. It's simply immaterial to U.S. budgeting, which is an apparently pretty important piece of Koffler's argument, which is that we've overspent on this fight and can't do the real work to deter Russia that's needed.

Also, the assertion that Ukraine and Russia are both equally undemocratic has no measurable or quantifiable support. All systems that attempt to capture these things find Russia significantly more autocratic and less democratic than the (quite imperfect) government of Ukraine. Here's just one such system (which places Ukraine as the 92nd - mixed governance - most democratic country listed and Russia as 144th and an autocracy): https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking

There's also a bunch of assertions that Ukraine is losing the war, which is all evidence-free. The long term trends of the conflict are that the battle lines have gotten entrenched and neither side is making much progress. Koffler also omits all context for the delay in the next Ukraine funding package, which is that Republicans who support funding Ukraine want the funding tied with draconian anti-immigrant immigration policies. That's not a good thing!

And this is more just an opinion, I also think it's weird that she approvingly cites the Monroe Doctrine as the analogous policy that Russia is modeling its own "sphere of influence" policies on. But of course the Monroe Doctrine was quite evil! The left position, properly, was to support opposition to the U.S. when it was exercising that doctrine. Being anti-Monroe Doctrine was anti-imperialist! Now, Russia may be creating it's own Monroe Doctrine in East Europe but as leftists and anti-imperalists aren't we supposed to oppose such efforts? Similarly, the hypothetical of Mexico hosting Chinese or Russian weapons. if that happened, it would be a grotesque moral monstrosity for the United States to invade Mexico! And I'd look warily at any supposed leftists or anti-imperalists who claimed the real blame lay with Mexico or Russia/China and not the country doing the invading. I seriously can't belive that in a scenario where the United States decided to invade Mexico for not being subservient enough to its neighbor state, that the anti-imperalist position would be to justify U.S. actions.

I think overall I don't find the great power/sphere of influence stuff compelling because we should be opposing those power formulations!

Sorry, there may be more around Ukrainian self-determination which the author steamrolls over but the little guy just woke up from his nap so duty calls. You get the idea, anyways.

I read your post, I understand your doubts, some I agree with, others I absolutely don't. Before going further it is necessary to understand what the events were that characterized the so-called "Maidan" which led to the defenestration of a president, certainly corrupt to the core but democratically elected in elections judged to be regular by all the observers present at the time.
Was it a revolution or a coup d'état directed by the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union? Personally, I believe more in the hypothesis of a foreign-directed coup d'état.
I could be wrong, none of us has the truth in our pockets, but several elements lead me to think so, starting from the presence in the square in Kiev with the demonstrators of various leading elements of the US political institutions (MCCain, Nuland, Pryatt) and , in tow, also from the European Union (Ashton, Pittella). From my point of view, it would be inconceivable for even a single leading element of Russian Federation politics to be present at an anti-government demonstration in the United States, Canada or Europe. Then, a further element that strengthens my hypothesis is the telephone conversation between the then "Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs" Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine Jeffrey Pryatt. Telephone conversation that went down in history for that "Fuck the EU" but not for the names that Nuland decided would form the new Ukrainian government. Anyone who hears that conversation might be hesitant to judge today's Ukraine as a truly sovereign state.
The names that Nuland and Pryatt decided would enter the new Ukrainian government, as if by magic, were the same ones who actually became ministers in the so-called "new Ukrainian democratic course".
That the United States has pushed for regime change in Ukraine is quite clear to me from the information I have had access to. But, I repeat once again, mine are only hypotheses, I don't have the truth in my pocket as none of us do and, given the unpleasant episodes of a few days ago, far be it from me to want to impose my point of sight over that of another.
Returning to the Newsweek article, although there are passages inside that I don't agree with, I however agree with the basic concept of the article and the enormous responsibilities of the United States in the Ukrainian affair. Especially from the Biden administration.
Trying to understand the causes of a tragedy and the unfortunate actions of the Russian government does not mean wanting to support them.
Anyway, i respect all different point of views from the mine but i wish have the same respect back.
p.s I suggest you immediately download the work to which I made a small contribution on the remastering of the show at the Lyceum on 3 January 1979 by XRCF!
I wish you all the best

I agree with Stefano "that the U.S.A. has pushed for regime change in Ukraine is quite clear"...and i can add that the motherfucker U.S.A. government wants this conflict in Ukraine for 2 principal aims: 1) destroy the economic and political relationships between Europe and Russia 2) war is business.
I know Putin is a criminal dictator, but the U.S.A. are the motherfucker number 1 . Does anyone here has read "What Uncle Sam really wants"(1992) by Noam Chomsky ? I well know the U.S.A. trust me

Thanks for the advice to read Chomsky's text that you suggest. In past I've read from him "Manufacturing Consent" and On Palestine" written with Ilan Pappè.
​

[Stefano1972]

hard times for the young Ukrainian “democracy” supported by the so-called democratic West…

[Flex]

hard times for the young Ukrainian “democracy” supported by the so-called democratic West…

Can you explain what the implication is here? Is it the naming or something? The Soviets named it that in 1944 and it's the old Jewish quarter and was renovated in 2021. Makes sense the chief rabbi of the city (if that's accurate) would be involved in a rededication. Looks like it won an award for the renovation work: https://landezine-award.com/reconstruct ... e-in-lviv/

Addendum: I think half of the post you shared was cut off, so that might be part of what I'm not understanding. Any additional context is appreciated, thanks!

Addendum II: and I'd be skeptical of anything Eduard Dolinsky says, since he's already been caught spreading misinformation about Ukraine purportedly honoring Nazis: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/7485

[Flex]

For anyone concerned about NATO expansion, Russia's invasion of Ukraine continues to be an unmitigated disaster as Sweden officially joins the alliance: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/worl ... ngary.html

That's Finland and Sweden in, in exchange for Russia invading a country that would always lack the basic criteria for joining nato as long as Russia held crimea (i.e. countries joining can't have any ongoing border disputes/disputed territory). It's such a blindly stupid tradeoff that was so incredibly predictable from the outset that one may almost question whether concerns over nato expansion was truly one of the primary aggravating factors leading to Putin's invasion.

[Dr. Medulla]

For anyone concerned about NATO expansion, Russia's invasion of Ukraine continues to be an unmitigated disaster as Sweden officially joins the alliance: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/worl ... ngary.html

That's Finland and Sweden in, in exchange for Russia invading a country that would always lack the basic criteria for joining nato as long as Russia held crimea (i.e. countries joining can't have any ongoing border disputes/disputed territory). It's such a blindly stupid tradeoff that was so incredibly predictable from the outset that one may almost question whether concerns over nato expansion was truly one of the primary aggravating factors leading to Putin's invasion.

The fear of NATO thing may have been in there—certainly more so than concern about Nazis running Ukraine —but Putin has never hidden his desire to recover territory lost by the end of the Soviet Union. Throw in centuries of domination by Russia and it reads as pigheaded desire for restoration and hoping that the West had neither the stomach or unity to supply Ukrainian resistance.

I'm going to guess that the pro-Putin side is going to now argue that this was always a NATO plot to rope in Finland and Sweden because we all know that Putin and Russia are blameless in all this.

[Flex]

The fear of NATO thing may have been in there—certainly more so than concern about Nazis running Ukraine —but Putin has never hidden his desire to recover territory lost by the end of the Soviet Union. Throw in centuries of domination by Russia and it reads as pigheaded desire for restoration and hoping that the West had neither the stomach or unity to supply Ukrainian resistance.

I'm going to guess that the pro-Putin side is going to now argue that this was always a NATO plot to rope in Finland and Sweden because we all know that Putin and Russia are blameless in all this.

Right. There's an error in the way concerns over NATO expansion get discussed - one I've made many times in these threads, and may have just made now, as it happens - that emphasizes the Xs and Os strategic or material concerns of NATO expansion. From that standpoint, it's completely batty to use as a justification for Putin's invasion. I mean, even accepting the security dilemma, it's simply a fact that Ukraine can't join NATO so the whole case has to be built around some very plainly empty promises from Washington to Ukraine over the years.* I, for one, committed an error in terms of my own understanding of the conflict by listening to guys like Robert Wright who - for understandable, but misguided, reasons - were committed to viewing the NATO concerns through the lens of a history of diplomatic wrangling between NATO and Russia and trying to find genuinely plausible ways that Ukraine's interest in NATO admission could pose a material threat to Russian security. But that's understanding NATO anxiety the wrong way.

Instead, if we understand concerns over "NATO expansion" as really meaning concerns over countries that Putin has long regarded as rightfully Russian developing more cultural, economic and political ties to The West - of which NATO is an avatar - then it makes total sense. It's why he doesn't really care about actual NATO expansion on his border - he may gripe about Finland and Sweden but he plainly didn't do anything about it and now it's too late - and "Ukraine as NATO proxy" ideologically coheres to his own conception of reconstitution of a "restored" Russia that regains lost territory and expands its own imperial domination over surrounding proxy states. "NATO is a Vibe, and the Vibe must be stopped" (my characterization) makes complete sense. To continue the pop terminology, Ukraine was in the middle of a major Vibe Shift towards the West, and it had to be ended.

*These promises are even more toothless if one believes that the United States is a waning diplomatic power, as I've seen asserted here and elsewhere. I mean, if China's stock has risen to be the premiere superpower of the globe, and you're allies with said premiere superpower, who cares what promises the U.S. may have made to a minor state that can't possibly materialize for like at least half a century anyways?

[Dr. Medulla]

When the invasion happened and our discussion here started, I made reference to George Kennan's "Long Telegram" that encouraged Truman et al to think about Soviet foreign policy as rooted in Russian history. Which is to say, don't be overly seduced by "world revolution" dogma, the Russian worldview has been dominated by a fear of invasion, and so it seeks to have buffer states around it. Whether that threat of invasion is legit or not is somewhat irrelevant, it's a conventional and traditional Russian perspective. If you're looking at a historical parallel—tho parallel is too strong a word—think of the US and the Monroe Doctrine. A fear and hostility to European imperial powers led successive administrations to treat Central America and the Caribbean as buffers of sorts, tho America's official rejection of colonialism kept it from going full out and occupying those nations (a la Russia vis a vis Ukraine). It's not to deny examples of aggressive acquisitiveness in American and Russian history (fully acknowledging my limitations with Russian history), but to appreciate a tradition of aggressive defensiveness. Which, again, is not a defence—either of Russia invading Ukraine or the US' many, many invasions and manipulations of its southern neighbours—only an interpretation of motivation.

[Stefano1972]

Well, I don't agree with what has been said so far. It is an objective fact that, starting from the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO has maintained an aggressive and not defensive attitude. This is demonstrated by the numerous illegal military interventions carried out by this military organization. Illegal because they were carried out without any UN authorization and therefore illegal according to International Law. Exactly as the Russians do today in Ukraine, NATO, or even just some of its members, broke the rules of the international community in 1999 against Serbia, in 2001 against Afghanistan, in 2003 against Iraq, in 2011 against Libya...
For a reading of today's events in Ukraine that is as intellectually honest as possible, I believe we cannot fail to take into consideration the data I have just cited, in addition to the incomprehensible unilateral withdrawals of the United States from the most important military treaties signed at the time with the Soviet Union: I am referring in particular to the ABM treaty of 1972.
History is not an a la carte menu in a restaurant where I choose only what best suits my taste. History is made up of a succession of events and we must make an effort to read them in their entirety.
If you want to try to understand why Putin exists in power in Russia today, you need to study what happened in the 90s in Russia.
If we want to try to understand the origins of the conflict in Ukraine, we need to start again at least from the 2007 Munich Security Conference and the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest.
Of course, then there is always the reading given by the means of consensus production, proposed by the intelligence agencies that report to the United States military apparatus, which says that Putin has gone mad, is seriously ill, is dying, is dead and that what we see is only a double.

[Flex]

Well, I don't agree with what has been said so far. It is an objective fact that, starting from the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO has maintained an aggressive and not defensive attitude. This is demonstrated by the numerous illegal military interventions carried out by this military organization. Illegal because they were carried out without any UN authorization and therefore illegal according to International Law. Exactly as the Russians do today in Ukraine, NATO, or even just some of its members, broke the rules of the international community in 1999 against Serbia, in 2001 against Afghanistan, in 2003 against Iraq, in 2011 against Libya...
For a reading of today's events in Ukraine that is as intellectually honest as possible, I believe we cannot fail to take into consideration the data I have just cited, in addition to the incomprehensible unilateral withdrawals of the United States from the most important military treaties signed at the time with the Soviet Union: I am referring in particular to the ABM treaty of 1972.
History is not an a la carte menu in a restaurant where I choose only what best suits my taste. History is made up of a succession of events and we must make an effort to read them in their entirety.
If you want to try to understand why Putin exists in power in Russia today, you need to study what happened in the 90s in Russia.
If we want to try to understand the origins of the conflict in Ukraine, we need to start again at least from the 2007 Munich Security Conference and the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest.
Of course, then there is always the reading given by the means of consensus production, proposed by the intelligence agencies that report to the United States military apparatus, which says that Putin has gone mad, is seriously ill, is dying, is dead and that what we see is only a double.

Ukraine can't/couldnt join NATO.

ETA: sorry, I hate coy one line responses to things I wrote, especially when I put in a lot of effort. So I won't do the same to you. What I mean is, without disputing anything in particular about your post, if Putin was animated primarily by concern about NATO, why did he invade a country that can't join NATO?

[Stefano1972]

Well, I don't agree with what has been said so far. It is an objective fact that, starting from the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO has maintained an aggressive and not defensive attitude. This is demonstrated by the numerous illegal military interventions carried out by this military organization. Illegal because they were carried out without any UN authorization and therefore illegal according to International Law. Exactly as the Russians do today in Ukraine, NATO, or even just some of its members, broke the rules of the international community in 1999 against Serbia, in 2001 against Afghanistan, in 2003 against Iraq, in 2011 against Libya...
For a reading of today's events in Ukraine that is as intellectually honest as possible, I believe we cannot fail to take into consideration the data I have just cited, in addition to the incomprehensible unilateral withdrawals of the United States from the most important military treaties signed at the time with the Soviet Union: I am referring in particular to the ABM treaty of 1972.
History is not an a la carte menu in a restaurant where I choose only what best suits my taste. History is made up of a succession of events and we must make an effort to read them in their entirety.
If you want to try to understand why Putin exists in power in Russia today, you need to study what happened in the 90s in Russia.
If we want to try to understand the origins of the conflict in Ukraine, we need to start again at least from the 2007 Munich Security Conference and the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest.
Of course, then there is always the reading given by the means of consensus production, proposed by the intelligence agencies that report to the United States military apparatus, which says that Putin has gone mad, is seriously ill, is dying, is dead and that what we see is only a double.

Ukraine can't/couldnt join NATO.

ETA: sorry, I hate coy one line responses to things I wrote, especially when I put in a lot of effort. So I won't do the same to you. What I mean is, without disputing anything in particular about your post, if Putin was animated primarily by concern about NATO, why did he invade a country that can't join NATO?

I’m Sorry but i think it’s too simplistic reading. If NATO has repeatedly failed to respect the UN Statute and International Law, I believe it does not have much problem changing one of its internal rules.

[Flex]

Well, I don't agree with what has been said so far. It is an objective fact that, starting from the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO has maintained an aggressive and not defensive attitude. This is demonstrated by the numerous illegal military interventions carried out by this military organization. Illegal because they were carried out without any UN authorization and therefore illegal according to International Law. Exactly as the Russians do today in Ukraine, NATO, or even just some of its members, broke the rules of the international community in 1999 against Serbia, in 2001 against Afghanistan, in 2003 against Iraq, in 2011 against Libya...
For a reading of today's events in Ukraine that is as intellectually honest as possible, I believe we cannot fail to take into consideration the data I have just cited, in addition to the incomprehensible unilateral withdrawals of the United States from the most important military treaties signed at the time with the Soviet Union: I am referring in particular to the ABM treaty of 1972.
History is not an a la carte menu in a restaurant where I choose only what best suits my taste. History is made up of a succession of events and we must make an effort to read them in their entirety.
If you want to try to understand why Putin exists in power in Russia today, you need to study what happened in the 90s in Russia.
If we want to try to understand the origins of the conflict in Ukraine, we need to start again at least from the 2007 Munich Security Conference and the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest.
Of course, then there is always the reading given by the means of consensus production, proposed by the intelligence agencies that report to the United States military apparatus, which says that Putin has gone mad, is seriously ill, is dying, is dead and that what we see is only a double.

Ukraine can't/couldnt join NATO.

ETA: sorry, I hate coy one line responses to things I wrote, especially when I put in a lot of effort. So I won't do the same to you. What I mean is, without disputing anything in particular about your post, if Putin was animated primarily by concern about NATO, why did he invade a country that can't join NATO?

I’m Sorry but i think it’s too simplistic reading. If NATO has repeatedly failed to respect the UN Statute and International Law, I believe it does not have much problem changing one of its internal rules.

Okay, NATO has extremely self-interested reasons that seem self evident (you don't typically let in countries that can't secure their own borders into mutual security pacts, among other reasons) to not allow in countries with unresolved border disputes that any individual member would seek to preserve.

If NATO is/was willing to change their rules to allow Ukraine into the treaty in order to attack Russia, why didn't they just do that two years ago?