I used to listen to the War Nerd podcast because it wasn't a neocon geopolitics podcast. I stopped when the host (one of Taibbi's fellow travelers) basically started spouting thr Kremlin line. Unfortunately, I can't find any decent replacement. I'd be grateful for any suggestions for non-neocon and non-Kremlin geopolitical podcasts.
That said, I'm glad the left seems mostly on the right side here.
Also, even as anti-woke as I may be, I'm not going to side with a military expansionist to spite the idiots who think that hard work is white supremacist.
Though, reading the comments on the Taibbi post you linked, it seems his audience is still repeating the Kremlin line (e.g. Calling the Euromaidan an "Anglo-American coup", comparing the USA to Nazi Germany, saying that it's because NATO expanded etc.). So I don't think he has changed any minds and probably remains a Putin-Versteher.
A couple of points. First, the 1994 Budapest agreement not only committed Russia to protect Ukraine against aggressors, it committed all the nuclear power signatories to do so. This includes the US and the UK. France and China made mild assurances after the signing. If the US wanted to make a little stronger case for our intervention, this might be a good time to point out our obligation, as soft as it may be these days, under this agreement as a necessity to continue to discourage nuclear proliferation.
As for the right's "support" for Putin, I don't know how to respond to such blatant misrepresentation of what's being communicated. I don't watch War Room and am no fan of Bannon. But, I like to make sure I call out someone (or at least don't give them any quarter if faced with that choice) if they are doing or saying something stupid. So I had to go find that clip in its full context. As I suspected, what is being said is way more nuanced than the "Bannon supports Putin because he's not woke" nonsense. What we face today in our country is no different than Bush's "if you're not with us you're against us" speech. I'm not defending anything Bannon said. But the context was part of a 45 minute conversation about the history of NATO, Soviet/Russian collapse and whether and to what extent the US should be directly involved in this conflict. Additionally, that conversation took place on the 23rd, before Russia's full-scale invasion of the rest of Ukraine.
In the clip, Bannon is explaining why the left hates Putin. Not why we should SUPPORT him. His analysis is simplistic and childish but it in no way offers support, except in the most "Bushian" of terms. As for Tucker's comments, observing the tactical wisdom of one's opponents is far from offering "comfort and support" as so many on the left seem to believe these days. Even Patton admired and praised Rommel for his brilliance in battle. If we as a society can't begin to break down these areas of nuance (a disturbing problem on both sides of the spectrum) we will never be able to come together to stop the lies of the burgeoning Russia/China alliance.
The world is stunned, but no one as much as Ukraine itself, which was still trying to appease Putin until recently. Declaring a national mobilization now is a joke. It should have been declared weeks ago. Barricades should have been erected weeks ago. Armaments should have been dispersed weeks ago. Likewise, the illusion that providing Ukraine with non lethal defensive support would somehow suffice was a grave mistake as well. Ukraine should have been equipped with F-35's and long-range missiles and anti-aerial missiles. The West was caught with its pants down. Ukraine was caught with its pants down. This will change the world for decades to come.
The U.S. Right and Left media, politicians, and pundits hurling insults at each other over *how* to be mad at a geopolitical situation is peak American narcissism.
I don't think Ukraine actually gave up its nukes because of that agreement, it gave up its nukes because it didn't actually have the codes to be able to launch them, it would have been dangerous to try to hack them into something it could launch, and it couldn't have maintained them if it succeeded.
"That Long Peace was dealt a critical blow in 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq on flimsy pretenses. Unlike the Vietnam War (in which we intervened in a civil war) or the Afghanistan War (in which we retaliated for an attack on our soil), the Iraq War was undertaken with only the fig leaf of nonproliferation, supported by obviously flimsy intelligence, as an excuse."
This strikes me as a bit of rewriting history. The goal (in some cases overtly stated) was 'regime change' and the "fig leaf" was a pack of lies.
"But the U.S. didn’t conquer Iraq. Iraq is an independent country, more closely allied with the U.S.
’ main regional rival, Iran."
This is a bit more rewriting history. The US did indeed "conquer Iraq", and set up a puppet government. The fact that this did not work out in the long term is irrelevant to the original action.
Note, also, that the Russians are also looking for 'regime change'. There is no evidence that they want to make Ukraine part of Russia, nor engage in a permanent occupation (a thing that would be doomed to failure). What they want (or say they want, which makes sense) is a demilitarized, neutral Ukraine that is not a potential threat to Russia.
It is also interesting that what is referred to is "the norm that kept the peace since World War 2 — the idea that great powers are guarantors of the inviolability of weaker countries’ borders". Note
that this way of stating the norm has nothing much to say about preventing "great powers from having their way with weaker countries within their spheres of influence". In this formulation, great powers are free to "have their way" with weaker countries - so long as they don't change borders. (Note that this phrasing cannot mean that great powers will not violate the borders of weaker states via military means - as that "norm" was gone even before 2003.
As others suggest, the "moment of clarity" should have been 2003. Since (at least) 1990, the USA (or at least its government and foreign policy and military establishments) has seen itself as THE superpower, able to act more or less at will with little regard for the views of others. The moment of hubris came in 2003 (if not earlier), when the USA invaded a sovereign state and overthrew its government while raining down destruction on its population - because they could, and no other state was able to oppose them.
2022 is not the breaking of international norms, but the - arguably foreseeable - result of what was broken twenty years earlier.
I don't understand why there's so much stigma about nuclear as a source of energy. Here's a crazy idea: perhaps if we changed the word to "clean weak-interaction energy" people wouldn't be so scared of it.
It might sound silly to change the nomenclature but it's already been done in computer science in an attempt to cleans tech jargon from references to slavery ("slave" devices have been renamed to "peripheral", and "master" is being replaced by "controller" for serial communication or "main" in GitHub repository branches)
Perhaps if we renamed "nuclear power plants" to "clean weak-energy plants" people would put less pressure on their governments to dismantle them.
In order to sink the russian economy, Saudia Arabia should open the oil spigots and bring the price of oil down to $50/barrel. That is what a global parternship can do. If Saudia Arabia was an ally - remember 9/11 when we let the Saudis fly back home -
I used to listen to the War Nerd podcast because it wasn't a neocon geopolitics podcast. I stopped when the host (one of Taibbi's fellow travelers) basically started spouting thr Kremlin line. Unfortunately, I can't find any decent replacement. I'd be grateful for any suggestions for non-neocon and non-Kremlin geopolitical podcasts.
That said, I'm glad the left seems mostly on the right side here.
Also, even as anti-woke as I may be, I'm not going to side with a military expansionist to spite the idiots who think that hard work is white supremacist.
“The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity…
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”- WBY, 1919
Though, reading the comments on the Taibbi post you linked, it seems his audience is still repeating the Kremlin line (e.g. Calling the Euromaidan an "Anglo-American coup", comparing the USA to Nazi Germany, saying that it's because NATO expanded etc.). So I don't think he has changed any minds and probably remains a Putin-Versteher.
Elite post. Much needed
A couple of points. First, the 1994 Budapest agreement not only committed Russia to protect Ukraine against aggressors, it committed all the nuclear power signatories to do so. This includes the US and the UK. France and China made mild assurances after the signing. If the US wanted to make a little stronger case for our intervention, this might be a good time to point out our obligation, as soft as it may be these days, under this agreement as a necessity to continue to discourage nuclear proliferation.
As for the right's "support" for Putin, I don't know how to respond to such blatant misrepresentation of what's being communicated. I don't watch War Room and am no fan of Bannon. But, I like to make sure I call out someone (or at least don't give them any quarter if faced with that choice) if they are doing or saying something stupid. So I had to go find that clip in its full context. As I suspected, what is being said is way more nuanced than the "Bannon supports Putin because he's not woke" nonsense. What we face today in our country is no different than Bush's "if you're not with us you're against us" speech. I'm not defending anything Bannon said. But the context was part of a 45 minute conversation about the history of NATO, Soviet/Russian collapse and whether and to what extent the US should be directly involved in this conflict. Additionally, that conversation took place on the 23rd, before Russia's full-scale invasion of the rest of Ukraine.
In the clip, Bannon is explaining why the left hates Putin. Not why we should SUPPORT him. His analysis is simplistic and childish but it in no way offers support, except in the most "Bushian" of terms. As for Tucker's comments, observing the tactical wisdom of one's opponents is far from offering "comfort and support" as so many on the left seem to believe these days. Even Patton admired and praised Rommel for his brilliance in battle. If we as a society can't begin to break down these areas of nuance (a disturbing problem on both sides of the spectrum) we will never be able to come together to stop the lies of the burgeoning Russia/China alliance.
The world is stunned, but no one as much as Ukraine itself, which was still trying to appease Putin until recently. Declaring a national mobilization now is a joke. It should have been declared weeks ago. Barricades should have been erected weeks ago. Armaments should have been dispersed weeks ago. Likewise, the illusion that providing Ukraine with non lethal defensive support would somehow suffice was a grave mistake as well. Ukraine should have been equipped with F-35's and long-range missiles and anti-aerial missiles. The West was caught with its pants down. Ukraine was caught with its pants down. This will change the world for decades to come.
The U.S. Right and Left media, politicians, and pundits hurling insults at each other over *how* to be mad at a geopolitical situation is peak American narcissism.
I don't think Ukraine actually gave up its nukes because of that agreement, it gave up its nukes because it didn't actually have the codes to be able to launch them, it would have been dangerous to try to hack them into something it could launch, and it couldn't have maintained them if it succeeded.
https://youtu.be/e_mOQzmOSck
"That Long Peace was dealt a critical blow in 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq on flimsy pretenses. Unlike the Vietnam War (in which we intervened in a civil war) or the Afghanistan War (in which we retaliated for an attack on our soil), the Iraq War was undertaken with only the fig leaf of nonproliferation, supported by obviously flimsy intelligence, as an excuse."
This strikes me as a bit of rewriting history. The goal (in some cases overtly stated) was 'regime change' and the "fig leaf" was a pack of lies.
"But the U.S. didn’t conquer Iraq. Iraq is an independent country, more closely allied with the U.S.
’ main regional rival, Iran."
This is a bit more rewriting history. The US did indeed "conquer Iraq", and set up a puppet government. The fact that this did not work out in the long term is irrelevant to the original action.
Note, also, that the Russians are also looking for 'regime change'. There is no evidence that they want to make Ukraine part of Russia, nor engage in a permanent occupation (a thing that would be doomed to failure). What they want (or say they want, which makes sense) is a demilitarized, neutral Ukraine that is not a potential threat to Russia.
It is also interesting that what is referred to is "the norm that kept the peace since World War 2 — the idea that great powers are guarantors of the inviolability of weaker countries’ borders". Note
that this way of stating the norm has nothing much to say about preventing "great powers from having their way with weaker countries within their spheres of influence". In this formulation, great powers are free to "have their way" with weaker countries - so long as they don't change borders. (Note that this phrasing cannot mean that great powers will not violate the borders of weaker states via military means - as that "norm" was gone even before 2003.
As others suggest, the "moment of clarity" should have been 2003. Since (at least) 1990, the USA (or at least its government and foreign policy and military establishments) has seen itself as THE superpower, able to act more or less at will with little regard for the views of others. The moment of hubris came in 2003 (if not earlier), when the USA invaded a sovereign state and overthrew its government while raining down destruction on its population - because they could, and no other state was able to oppose them.
2022 is not the breaking of international norms, but the - arguably foreseeable - result of what was broken twenty years earlier.
Can't agree more with the Tamerlane principle.
fantastic article, can I retweet on twitter or is this subscriber only?
> Iraq an independent country
Typo
I don't understand why there's so much stigma about nuclear as a source of energy. Here's a crazy idea: perhaps if we changed the word to "clean weak-interaction energy" people wouldn't be so scared of it.
It might sound silly to change the nomenclature but it's already been done in computer science in an attempt to cleans tech jargon from references to slavery ("slave" devices have been renamed to "peripheral", and "master" is being replaced by "controller" for serial communication or "main" in GitHub repository branches)
Perhaps if we renamed "nuclear power plants" to "clean weak-energy plants" people would put less pressure on their governments to dismantle them.
In order to sink the russian economy, Saudia Arabia should open the oil spigots and bring the price of oil down to $50/barrel. That is what a global parternship can do. If Saudia Arabia was an ally - remember 9/11 when we let the Saudis fly back home -
Noah, it looks like the latest polling shows that your central thesis is 100% incorrect.
38% of Democrats think that Russia was justified in invading Ukraine. 47% of the 18-34 crowd.
https://twitter.com/USA_Polling/status/1497475813222014979
I look at that number and despair.