Ukraine

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, I don't believe we should be making any excuses whatever for Putin, regardless of justified accusations of hypocrisy vis-a-vis "our" governments' records on arms trade and more general support for dodgy regimes, along with the West in general's treatment of Russia post 1992 - which most of us on here have been or probably would have been against in any case.

[Joseph K]

Yes, I don't believe we should be making any excuses whatever for Putin.

I don't think anyone has done that?

[Bryn]

I don't think anyone has done that?

Regrettably, there are quite a few pseudo-leftist groupings effectively doing just that, persistently diverting just criticism of Putin and his fascist regime onto the Imperialist USA and its fellow bourgeois-democratic allies.

[Joseph K]

Regrettably, there are quite a few pseudo-leftist groupings effectively doing just that, persistently diverting just criticism of Putin and his fascist regime onto the Imperialist USA and its fellow bourgeois-democratic allies.

I know. But no one here is doing that.

[Bryn]

I know. But no one here is doing that.

Indeed not, but "I don't think anyone has done that?" without "here" needed clarification, I feel. Far too many claiming to be of the 'Left' appear to swallow what Putin is currently arguing in his annexation speech.

[french frank]

I know. But no one here is doing that.

I don't think anyone has done that?

This is true. But on a thread devoted to the situation in Ukraine, one can focus on the responsibility of Putin's Russia for this horrendous situation, or repeatedly turn back to the evils of the US and capitalism. Putin's undemocratic, unequal, oligarchic Russia, over which he has effectively ruled for 20 years, is solely responsible for this aggression, brutality and flouting of international law. Pace Chomsky, the US is not responsible.

[Joseph K]

This is true. But on a thread devoted to the situation in Ukraine, one can focus on the responsibility of Putin's Russia for this horrendous situation, or repeatedly turn back to the evils of the US and capitalism. Putin's undemocratic, unequal, oligarchic Russia, over which he has effectively ruled for 20 years, is solely responsible for this aggression, brutality and flouting of international law. Pace Chomsky, the US is not responsible.

I think Chomsky's point was that the US ought to do anything it can to hasten the end of the war, rather than what it is doing.

[french frank]

I think Chomsky's point was that the US ought to do anything it can to hasten the end of the war, rather than what it is doing.

Chomsky is entitled to his view.

[richardfinegold]

I don't think anyone has done that?

You seem to be.

[Serial_Apologist]

You seem to be.

My own view remains that those of us who hold to critical opinions regarding the west's tacit or otherwise support for US governments since the fall of Communism should have prioritised full recognition and support for Ukraine's right to defend its territory the moment this was threatened on first principle grounds of self-determination, in the same way we would have in 1938 the moment Hitler began invading neighbouring territories (for very similar excuses to Putin's claims on behalf of Russia). Surely other considerations take second place when we are dealing with the brutal treatment by one state of its neighbour. Dealing with the other matters must wait until the present situation has been resolved in Ukraine's favour.

[french frank]

My own view remains that those of us who hold to critical opinions regarding the west's tacit or otherwise support for US governments since the fall of Communism should have prioritised full recognition and support for Ukraine's right to defend its territory the moment this was threatened on first principle grounds of self-determination, in the same way we would have in 1938 the moment Hitler began invading neighbouring territories (for very similar excuses to Putin's claims on behalf of Russia). Surely other considerations take second place when we are dealing with the brutal treatment by one state of its neighbour. Dealing with the other matters must wait until the present situation has been resolved in Ukraine's favour.

Indeed, and Chomsky is surely wrong in saying "Most of the world, including a large majority of Germans and much of the rest of Europe, is calling for negotiations now". Macron has been severely criticised for even visiting Putin. Scholz tried talking. However, the US should engage with Putin and negotiate with him which bits of Ukraine he can keep.

I forgot to mention here yesterday that the Guardian were having a live Youtube discussion with two political analysts who have specialised in the area. I forgot to watch so only caught the last two listener questions. The first was, Who was responsible if anyone for the 'sabotaging' of the Nord Stream pipeline? Answer: the smart money's on Russia.

The second question was, Should Putin be given some sort of face-saving offer? Both analysts were adamant: too much had already been conceded to Putin without proper retaliation. Putin isn't looking to save face: he wants victory in Ukraine. What's to negotiate? Does Chomsky say, or is he just an ailing 93-year-old philosopher who doesn't adjust to a changing world?

[Joseph K]

You seem to be.

No - just wondering why the US chooses to defend Ukraine but not other countries such as Yemen - in fact, why they (and the UK) will supply Saudi Arabia with arms to wage that war. Why do you think that is? The US (and often the UK) has form for supporting authoritarian regimes across the globe and deposing democratic ones they don't like. That's obviously not the case in this instance, but one has to wonder why that might be, there may be strategic reasons that the US has for this because I for one do not buy the idea that US foreign policy is benignly motivated - just a coincidence in this instance. Pointing out these things does not make one a Putin-apologist.

[teamsaint]

No - just wondering why the US chooses to defend Ukraine but not other countries such as Yemen - in fact, why they (and the UK) will supply Saudi Arabia with arms to wage that war. Why do you think that is? The US (and often the UK) has form for supporting authoritarian regimes across the globe and deposing democratic ones they don't like. That's obviously not the case in this instance, but one has to wonder why that might be, there may be strategic reasons that the US has for this because I for one do not buy the idea that US foreign policy is benignly motivated - just a coincidence in this instance. Pointing out these things does not make one a Putin-apologist.

No, absolutely spot on JK.
The idea that this conflict is happening in a historical or geopolitical vacuum is nonsense.
Whatever the shortcomings of Russian and Soviet leaderships, ( manifold) ) the west and its media have always given very short shrift to Russian security ( not just military ) concerns, whilst protecting their own rigorously.

A cursory study of US history and politics will demonstrate very clearly that their foreign policy is all too often not benign.

[french frank]

Pointing out these things does not make one a Putin-apologist.

No, it doesn't: it provides a talking point. But it doesn't really focus on what is happening in Ukraine, and what should be done. There are those, for instance, who think that the US should not be supplying arms to Ukraine at all. Do you think so?

[Joseph K]

No, it doesn't: it provides a talking point. But it doesn't really focus on what is happening in Ukraine, and what should be done. There are those, for instance, who think that the US should not be supplying arms to Ukraine at all. Do you think so?

Well, I understand that Ukraine will want to defend itself by any means, in the here and now. But as teamsaint says, this didn't happen in an historical or geopolitical vacuum, and one has to be cognizant of that fact, as well as of any ulterior motives the US has for selectively defending Ukraine - these should interest people in knowing what should be done, don't you think?