Ukraine

[teamsaint]

I'm not saying that the proximity made it worse, but the intent. I frankly don't understand why the US invaded Iraq in 2003 - unless they actually believed their own rhetoric: that Saddam Hussein posed a threat - the fear of Iraq's WMD went back a few years and it had already been a trouble spot. If they didn't believe it was true, why did they invade? The difference for me is that I do understand what Putin is about. I do understand the propaganda and the lies. People who have analysed Putin explain that it's all down to his view of history and Russia's rightful place in the world which is not a reason to invade another country.

To be clear, I'm not defending the west's - or the US's - military interventions, but I'm not sure that the motivations are comparable.

(By the way, I've just checked the details of the Chilean business: Nixon was president, the worst American president of recent years bar Trump, though NIxon was more destructive).

My reference to invading a neighbour referred to Saddam invading Kuwait, not Putin invading Ukraine.

Well given that the US did invade Iraq, half a world away , and leaving an almighty mess and immense destruction, some people might wonder how the US might have reacted to a similar situation on its borders to that faced by Russia on its western border, with the mission creep of Nato over the last 30 years.

[Joseph K]

why did they invade?

The relevant chapters of Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine argue persuasively that, essentially, the reasons were economic, opening up the country for privatisation.

[french frank]

The relevant chapters of Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine argue persuasively that, essentially, the reasons were economic, opening up the country for privatisation.

I'm glad I'm not alone (I thought I was!) in being unsure about the motives, which seem to vary depending on who is theorising.

or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tcUogFo9yE

or https://www.e-ir.info/2015/03/09/one...asion-of-iraq/

Which one appeals?

[richardfinegold]

The Saudis are destroying Yemen to this day. Why is it we're arming the Saudis and not Yemen?

And why is invading a neighbour any worse than invading a country on the other side of the world? Do Ukrainian lives count more than Iraqi ones simply because of the provenance of the perpetrator?

If the Saudi’s, odious though they may be, don’t control the very pro Iranians Houthis in Yemen, then Iran controls the Straits of Hormuz and can choke off oil to Europe. This will not directly affect the US which is much less reliant on oil from this region as it will Europe, which for the purposes of this discussion includes the U.K.

[RichardB]

If the Saudi’s, odious though they may be, don’t control the very pro Iranians Houthis in Yemen, then Iran controls the Straits of Hormuz and can choke off oil to Europe.

That is certainly the Saudi line. But there are some really quite precise parallels with Russia/Ukraine in that Saudi Arabia attacked Yemen without provocation, committing numerous atrocities in the process, because its rulers felt that they might be threatened by something at some unspecified point in the future.

[french frank]

That is certainly the Saudi line. But there are some really quite precise parallels with Russia/Ukraine in that Saudi Arabia attacked Yemen without provocation, committing numerous atrocities in the process, because its rulers felt that they might be threatened by something at some unspecified point in the future.

I'd agree with that absolutely. But each case is different. What point is being made by saying the way the west treats the Saudis (in spite of the attack on Yemen) has a relevance to how one views the Russia-Ukraine war and the west's support for Ukraine? One can say this is double standards/hypocrisy, but having said/agreed that - what about the situation in Ukraine?

[Serial_Apologist]

I'd agree with that absolutely. But each case is different. What point is being made by saying the way the west treats the Saudis (in spite of the attack on Yemen) has a relevance to how one views the Russia-Ukraine war and the west's support for Ukraine? One can say this is double standards/hypocrisy, but having said/agreed that - what about the situation in Ukraine?

While hiding its long-term objectives behind the various rhetorical covers it has always used - "freedom", "democracy", "global security" and so on. - behind and underpinning every strategy of the US-dragged West is the perennial aim of securing the interests of big capital to its own advantage. The tactics involved, ranging from direct intervention to installing/propping up puppet régimes to threatening to withold "assistance" of any kind, vary in accordance with political advantage at home. At this juncture, "the West" has chosen to side with Ukraine, which may be for complex reasons not in the interests of Ukraine, though this is hard to judge or distil into an argument against which atrocities and suffering on a monumental scale are rightly seen as trumping all else. For as long as current tactics of external support to the Ukraininans are maintained I believe our position should be NATO-supportive, irrespective of the record, or else we possibly see success for Putin and even worse. Nobody - the "left" included" - have enough precedents in the capitalist age apart from Nazi Germany to guide us otherwise.

[RichardB]

I believe our position should be NATO-supportive

NATO-supportive in what sense?

[Serial_Apologist]

NATO-supportive in what sense?

In the sense that NATO countries would appear to be the only available source of the weaponry necessary for dealing with Putin's invaders.

[Bryn]

In the sense that NATO countries would appear to be the only available source of the weaponry necessary for dealing with Putin's invaders.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" seems to be employed by both sides of the argument on the 'Left', whether it be those who seek to place the blame on USA's connection with the Orange Revolution or those who want to see Ukraine supported with weaponry.

[Serial_Apologist]

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" seems to be employed by both sides of the argument on the 'Left', whether it be those who seek to place the blame on USA's connection with the Orange Revolution or those who want to see Ukraine supported with weaponry.

Tactically a cleft stick situation. I think Lenin's dictum about transforming an imperialist war into a revolutionary one, turning weapons against one's own oppressors, still holds true as regards what needs to be done, except following decades of common experience in bourgeois democracy one would think it through differently, and not merely I think from the comfort of a Western perspective. Russian soldiers fighting on the eastern front during WW1, dealing in circumstances similar to those of today's conscript invaders with inadequate means and basic provisions, deserted en masse and would prove invaluable to the revolutionary cause in 1917. This could happen in Russia today, except that the circumstances would be very different - a revolutionary working class galvanized by more than a decade of militancy and collective self-organisation set against an weak emergent parliamentary democracy under Kerensky, as against 30 years of political disenchantment and mass disengagement in the wake of "communism".

[RichardB]

In the sense that NATO countries would appear to be the only available source of the weaponry necessary for dealing with Putin's invaders.

So what is meant here by "dealing with"? The supply of arms from NATO has predictably stopped short of the kind of levels that would be decisive - because, as has been said before, NATO's principal objective here seems to be to weaken Russia by getting it bogged down in a long term conflict, whatever destruction that might cause in Ukraine. And this is worth supporting, you reckon?

[Frances_iom]

...The supply of arms from NATO has predictably stopped short of the kind of levels that would be decisive ...

do you have a reference or example - the only one I can think of is the supply of old Soviet supplied aircraft that the US wanted Poland to supply - the main problem I can see is the level of training + infrastructure needed to use NATO standard weapons when Ukraine (and Moldova who will almost certainly have the same requirement in the short term future) are not NATO members.
Maybe you can begin to realise just why all the old Soviet empire countries once given the opportunity to escape rapidly joined NATO - there are however still some countries eg Hungary that have for various reasons put them back under the Russian yoke - Turkey's dictator is playing a dangerous doble game.

[Dave2002]

So what is meant here by "dealing with"? The supply of arms from NATO has predictably stopped short of the kind of levels that would be decisive - because, as has been said before, NATO's principal objective here seems to be to weaken Russia by getting it bogged down in a long term conflict, whatever destruction that might cause in Ukraine. And this is worth supporting, you reckon?

That is an interesting view. What are the options?

1. NATO and "the West" give up - Russia/Putin "wins".
2. Just enough support to give a sort of stalemate - possibly long term weakening of Russia.
3. Give more suppport to try for a decisive victory by Ukraine and its allies - not certain and perhaps risky.

None of the outcomes is guaranteed as things will change over time anyway. There is already very substantial damage and destruction in Ukraine.
There could be more, but NATO and other countries don't want the destruction to extend further afield.

What do you suggest?

[french frank]

as has been said before, NATO's principal objective here seems to be to weaken Russia by getting it bogged down in a long term conflict, whatever destruction that might cause in Ukraine. And this is worth supporting, you reckon?

'As has been said before', this is only "seems" (to whom?) to be Nato's "principal" objective. That gives a sense of being an emotive, anti-west way of depicting the situation: in order to destroy a major enemy, Nato is prepared to sacrifice Ukrainian lives, infrastructure, econonomy and so on … But this is Russia's fourth/fifth miltary aggression in the past 30 years, most of them under Putin. Putting a stop to further invasions by weakening Russia, as another equally important objective, would - arguably - save lives in the long run.

And this is worth supporting, you reckon?

The question should be "This would be worth supporting (if it were the case)?" But 'some people' have said it 'seems' to be the principal objective. No one knows that that is true, and only 'some people' see the situation in that light.

So what is meant here by "dealing with"? The supply of arms from NATO has predictably stopped short of the kind of levels that would be decisive

Yet a third objective might be the avoidance of an all-out Russia-Nato war. But what exactly was predictable? Is it a good thing or a bad thing?