[flagged]
Sticking to this line is basically resigning yourself to the status quo while claimimg yourself morally above it.
Just for one thing: geriatrics control most policymaking in America, and they won't be fighting anything.
It's not just rhetoric. The underlying truth is that there have been wars in history that were worth fighting, and for which people did head to their nearest Army office and sign up to fight. And if a war doesn't reach that standard, then it begs the question why it's worth fighting at all.
You're free to challenge the premises of the conflict by showing me a Russian city destroyed to grounds by Ukrainians, like Mariupol or Bakhmut.
The poor innocent Ukrainian government did pass a bill to prohibit official use of minority languages on the eastern part of the country (dominated by Russian-speaking population) on a Sunday morning of February 23, 2014. It happened a day after their president had to flee the country. It was clearly a period of political crisis and no one was supposed to work and enact any legislation on that weekend day in the first place. No one was supposed to pass a bill of that significance without extended debates and a referendum specifically. But the coup leaders decided to move forward with it nonetheless. Russian troops legally stationed in Crimea took over the peninsula 4 days after that punitive act of the Ukraine government against its own russian-speaking population of the eastern part of the country. The reinforcement from Russia were only sent 6 days after the event, as the Kiyv regime decided to escalate.
> Ukrainian government did pass a bill to prohibit official use of minority languages on the eastern part of the country
So what? Passing some bills justify full scale military invasion? Maybe we need to invade Russia, since they pass freedom stripping bills every week.
It wasn't full scale at first, and there was leeway for a diplomatic resolution of the political crisis, which Kiyv regime decided to ignore and to escalate instead.
> Maybe we need to invade Russia, since they pass freedom stripping bills every week.
Who's "we"?
No, they did the same for all languages. Romanians have lived in Northern Bucovina for centuries, yet you don't see us invading Ukraine. But what you're saying is fair because they should only have prohibited Russian since they are the people who genocided Ukrainians so they have no right to occupy Ukraine.
are you negating "prohibited official use of minority languages" with "they did the same for all languages" as a means to show that the bill was even-headed?
> But what you're saying is fair because they should only have prohibited Russian since they are the people who genocided Ukrainians so they have no right to occupy Ukraine.
Right, the Russian language had to be prohibited because Russia would react to Ukraine's prohibiting the use of the Russian language for russian-speaking Ukrainians, presumably as a punitive measure for their alignment with Russia due to their geographical & cultural proximity and generational ties. And that's because Romanians living in Northern Bucovina couldn't care less about it..... My take is that you deserve a Nobel prize for being the most consistent person on Earth. Thanks for showing your stance clearly in the open.
You're welcome to read a Black American socialist, Glen Ford, and his brief account of where things were headed as far back as 2014, though:
https://redsails.org/ford-on-ukraine/
I think that President Obama’s attempt to destabilize Russia will be seen by history as disastrous as George Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003. Like the Iraq war, the de facto declaration of “war by other means” against Russia will accelerate the very dynamic that it intends to halt: the steady weakening of U.S. imperialism’s grip on the world. It will increase the resolve of a host of nations to disengage themselves from American madness and to strengthen collaboration and cooperation among many countries, and not just Russia and China.
The result will be the exact opposite of Washington’s intention. The attempt to isolate and destabilize Russia, the other nuclear superpower, may appear to some to be an act of brashness, a flexing of American muscle, an act of imperial overconfidence and recklessness. People thought the same thing when Bush went into Iraq. They were shocked and more than a little bit awed. [1] In fact, sometimes I think that Americans are more shocked and awed by the American military than anybody else. But the Iraq invasion, and the brazen offensive against Russia, as well as the so-called “Pivot Against China” and the octopus-like U.S. military entrenchment in Africa — these are really symptoms of weakness and desperation.
U.S. imperialism is losing its grip on the world and responds to its weakening condition with massive campaigns of destabilization. Destabilization characterizes U.S. foreign policy today more than any other word. The purpose is to reverse the general dynamic of global affairs today in which U.S. influence and power shrinks in relative terms as the rest of the world develops. U.S. and European hegemony — and that is the ability to dictate the terms of economic and political life on the planet — has daily diminished in myriad objective ways, ways that we can measure by the numbers. China’s soon-to-be status as the world’s biggest economy is just one aspect of that decline.
The process is inexorable and it’s gaining momentum. The trajectory of imperial decline has been firmly set ever since the Western capitalists decided to move the production of things — that, is the industrial base — to the South and the rest of the planet. Inevitably power and influence follow and imperial hegemony diminishes. This is of course unacceptable to the rulers of the United States who now find themselves in objective opposition to all manifestations of collaboration and mutual development under terms that are not dictated by Washington. They are in objective opposition to all manifestations of independence by countries in the world. This applies not just to China, not just to China and Russia, but to the rest of the BRICS and to other developing nations. And it even applies to America’s closest allies.
That is because hegemons don’t really have allies. All they have are subordinates, and so the U.S. is quite prepared to do serious harm to European economic interests by pressuring them to break long established economic ties to Russia. They will ultimately do the same thing in the pacific region with China and cause great destabilization there. They do so not because of strength but because of growing relative weakness. Their desperation compels them to risk war because their only clear superiority is in weapons.
However, the net end result, if we survive these flirtations with all-out war, can only be further isolation of the United States and the further weakening of imperialism. I think there is on what passes for the left in the United States a tendency to describe U.S. aggressions like the Iraq war, like the current offensive against Russia, as mistakes and miscalculations: “They didn’t mean to do that.”
In reality the U.S. goes to the brink and beyond the brink of war because it perceives itself as having no other choice. Its soft power is fading. It has few other means beyond the military to strategically influence events. It recruits or buys allies where it can get them, be it jihadists or Nazis. As imperialism’s sway in the world shrinks, so do its options.
U.S. policymakers surveyed the world in 2002 and in 2003 and they concluded that the dynamic in Asia was going against them. They knew that most of the world would be horrified with a war against Iraq, but they rolled the dice anyway and invaded. The net result was the opposite of what they intended. The U.S. was humiliated and the U.S. was humiliated so badly that the rulers of the United States chose to put a dramatically different face on U.S. power — a Black face, Barack Obama.
Iraq was supposed to be a forward U.S. base in Asia to disrupt China’s growing ties in the region. Instead the Iraq war exposed U.S. imperialism’s weaknesses. In the days before that invasion, we wrote in Black Commentator that the U.S. had reached too far and succeeded only in accelerating the process of its own decline. Today Barack Obama is rolling the dice just like George Bush did. To sever Russia’s ties to Europe, Washington has surveyed the global scene and concluded that it has no other choice. The result will be a strengthening of ties between Russia and China, a great anxiety and rethinking among Europeans about their ties to the United States which is about to harm their economy, and an acceleration of imperialism’s death spiral.
Power to the people!
——
As usual HN disabling my ability to reply to people. Re the amusing soft power post:
Nothing says "consolidated American soft power" like Iran and Saudi Arabia cutting peace deals, the rise of K-Pop, and America desperately trying to ban TikTok.
You seriously think I’m going to read the garbage?
Then, why do object to the premise?
The article opens up with false claim, why should I read further?
The fact is US citizens, resident aliens, and allies benefit from US government hegemony. The alternative is going to be unpalatable to most of those folks mentioned afore.
This is false. American soft power has consolidated post-Ukraine. (See: NATO and the Quad.)
> Iraq was supposed to be a forward U.S. base in Asia to disrupt China’s growing ties in the regio
No it wasn’t. China wasn’t a strategic rival when we invaded Iraq. There is no evidence it was a motivation for the invasion.
Disagree. For example USD's status as the world reserve currency is slowly starting to come into question after we used our financial system as a weapon against Russia. Other countries are starting to trade with Russia in their currency. Arab countries are starting to trade oil in non-USD. Countries like China are looking to take advantage and establish their currency as USD's replacement.
The U.S. dollar has always had people looking for a replacement. (There is a solid economic argument for America de-internationalising the dollar for domestic purposes.) It was weaker in the wake of 2008 than it is today.
> Other countries are starting to trade with Russia in their currency. Arab countries are starting to trade oil in non-USD
The petrodollar hypothesis is a debunked explanation for American hegemony, even dollar hegemony. I traded oil in pounds sterling and euros years ago--much of the world settles own way.
Also, this limited definition of soft power ignores American military supremacy, both on its own and with its alliances, which are strengthening, as well as American economic heft, which in even the most pessimistic estimates is a commanding strength through at least the 2050s, a timeline even the stupidest heads of state can see. It's this soft power that keeps the Russian hard power frontline a few miles off its border and the Chinese' a few miles off its shore.
(People also tend to overstate the real economic effects of the dollar losing reserve status, equating it with Britain post-Suez.)
Chess is played 5 moves ahead
The Iraq war strikes you as 5D chessmanship?
As a concerned observer of US foreign policy, I must say that I have serious reservations about the direction it has taken in recent years. Despite the many resources and capabilities that the United States possesses, it seems that our government has been unable to use them in a way that promotes peace and stability around the world.
One of the biggest criticisms I have of US foreign policy is the tendency towards unilateralism and military intervention. It seems that the default response to any international crisis or conflict is to send in troops or launch airstrikes, regardless of the consequences. This approach has been costly in terms of both lives and resources, and has often ended up exacerbating the very problems it was meant to solve.
Another issue I have with US foreign policy is the lack of attention given to diplomacy and multilateralism. Instead of working with other nations to find collaborative solutions to global problems, the US often seems more interested in asserting its dominance and pursuing its own interests. This has led to a breakdown of trust and cooperation with our allies, and has made it more difficult to address shared challenges like climate change, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation.
Furthermore, the US has a troubling track record of supporting oppressive regimes and engaging in human rights abuses in the name of advancing its geopolitical goals. This has led to the alienation of many people around the world who see the US as hypocritical and morally bankrupt.
Overall, I believe that US foreign policy needs to fundamentally shift its focus towards diplomacy, cooperation, and respect for human rights. We need to recognize that we are part of a global community and that our actions have consequences beyond our borders. By working with others and promoting peaceful, inclusive solutions, we can help to build a more just and stable world for all.
I'm not a coward so I will challenge you. It wasn't Russia, it was Putin and a group of people around him who decided to attack Ukraine to extend their influence. Ukraine is a victim in this conflict. There is nothing that they did they would justify invading, murdering and raping innocent people.
"It was just like, a tiny clique of villains with almost no support!"
To feel good about a wrong theory of a particular war you put forth an even more wrong theory of statecraft.