Ukraine War

[WhatTheBuck 28784]

32 minutes ago, Nivek said:

All my life I grew up with my brother being anti-Russian/Soviet/Commies.   My Dad as well.   This past weekend I started talking to them about the Ukraine war and how effective the equipment was and there was a bit of silence.   I later learn that my brother is on Team Russia.  Believing the Russian propaganda (Nazis, Russia's territory, etc.).   My father (who also bought the propaganda) was a bit more willing to believe that the Russians were mass murderers and committing genocide, torture, rape, kidnappings, theft, etc.  The Christian/Super-Christians in my family seem totally fine with that.    I cannot believe we are related.    

It’s literally the plot for Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Edited February 22, 2023 by WhatTheBuck

[Nivek 16943]

10 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It’s literally the plot for Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

4 hours ago, Nivek said:

All my life I grew up with my brother being anti-Russian/Soviet/Commies.   My Dad as well.   This past weekend I started talking to them about the Ukraine war and how effective the equipment was and there was a bit of silence.   I later learn that my brother is on Team Russia.  Believing the Russian propaganda (Nazis, Russia's territory, etc.).   My father (who also bought the propaganda) was a bit more willing to believe that the Russians were mass murderers and committing genocide, torture, rape, kidnappings, theft, etc.  The Christian/Super-Christians in my family seem totally fine with that.    I cannot believe we are related.    

Even if true, I would take Ukrainian Nazis over Russian nationalists in today's world. Preferably neither but if held to a choice I would rather the bad winners live in a relatively low power country.

[safe sex 11735]

Related to the most recent digression/discussion in the DT thread, are there actual tankies in Congress right now? Or is this another falsely equivalent comparison between D and R pols, and the respective tolerance of radicals by the party to whom they belong? And I don't use "falsely equivalent" in some sort of accusatory manner, more of a hypothesis that almost every comparison between the two are by default falsely equivalent at this point in time. @Bateshorn

[Willfully Horn 8019]

Never had heard the term “tankie” before today, nor met a left of center person who admires the governments of Russia or China. 
 

But, what I am curious about is the hacking of Moscow’s telephone network and the discovery of a “pem.” Anyone care to elaborate? What is that and what does its release portend?

[956 Worldwide 34715]

DJT is blaming the State Department and Victoria Nuland for Ukraine.

 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

14 hours ago, safe sex said:

Related to the most recent digression/discussion in the DT thread, are there actual tankies in Congress right now? Or is this another falsely equivalent comparison between D and R pols, and the respective tolerance of radicals by the party to whom they belong? And I don't use "falsely equivalent" in some sort of accusatory manner, more of a hypothesis that almost every comparison between the two are by default falsely equivalent at this point in time. @Bateshorn

There are none in Congress who have gone on the record after February 24.  The D majority is doing well at standing in line with the president. 

The Democratic Socialists of America absolutely came out with a statement blaming the U.S. and calling for no support for arms. It’s not a party, but it is a platform many reps and candidates affiliate with. And their antics left a lot of high profile people in an uncomfortable place. 
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/08/nyregion/dsa-nato-ukraine-russia.htmlAnd 

[wildcat09 29355]

The DSA is dumb as shit on foreign policy matters, but I don't think those affiliated with DSA and sympathetic to its foreign policy positions really qualify as tankies. They're typically strongly non-interventionist, but not revisionist about or supportive of past communist violence. Actual tankies openly support left authoritarianism and are a tiny online-only community with absolutely no political representation or influence and I'm not sure how seriously they take their tankie beliefs or if it's basically just trolling (not that the distinction matters much when you've been doing it for long enough).

[956 Worldwide 34715]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The DSA is dumb as shit on foreign policy matters, but I don't think those affiliated with DSA and sympathetic to its foreign policy positions really qualify as tankies. They're typically strongly non-interventionist, but not revisionist about or supportive of past communist violence. Actual tankies openly support left authoritarianism and are a tiny online-only community with absolutely no political representation or influence and I'm not sure how seriously they take their tankie beliefs or if it's basically just trolling (not that the distinction matters much when you've been doing it for long enough).

Depends on who you ask the term applies to. Originally “tankies” were hard-core defenders of Stalin and later the USSR who defended the 1956 intervention in Hungary and later the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia (hence, “tankie”). They were mostly student radicals in the UK.
 

In most of the modern online discourse around Ukraine, it’s a term NAFO and sympathizers apply to anyone who argues against military support or who repeats Kremlin talking points blaming NATO and “fascists” in Ukraine from the left. 

[cactusflinthead 27599]

@SL Xpress

Lindsey Graham said much the same thing, too. In extremely strong language. Not trying to get into Graham as a singular personality.

We talk about the Republicans being against the support for Ukraine, but much of that is the combination of American isolationism combined with being out of power.

Hold up right there. Do we need to go over Trump trying to get dirt? Do we no need to discuss what quid pro quo means? That's while they were in power. They were ready to give up Ukraine to get dirt on Hunter Biden. It had nothing to do with isolationism.

 

There's a wing of the Democrats that's made some of the same kind of noises, but were effectively shut down because they're the party in charge at the moment.

 

They got told to shut the hell up. The Democratic party can on occasions manage to keep their members pointing in the same direction. Again, being in charge of the House had no bearing on their statement. In less than 24 hours they were doing damage control and walking it back faster than a crawdad going for its hole

 

 

They wouldn't have been shut down if the Republicans had the presidency and the same kind of support was being given to Ukraine.

Let's see what they had to say when Trump was in charge and giving aid to Ukraine was on the table. Oh right that was all under the table because blackmail is shameful.

I'm not pointing fingers at either party.

I will and feel free to do the same. Name and shame.

 

Mostly I'm just grateful the people in power ARE supporting Ukraine, and pointing out it still very much has bipartisan support, as well as bipartisan reluctance. 

My feeling is it's a matter of time before we give the Ukrainians both ATACMS as well as F-16s. I'm seeing too many articles from too many sources, citing too many leaders from too many different countries to think it's not going to happen. I'm all for sooner over later. 

Damn right. And it's about goddamn time.

 

Paul Gosar, MTG, and anyone else in the Republican party that is hollering about money sent to Ukraine are not doing so in good faith. They had no problem sending billions to Iraq or Afghanistan. It has absolutely nothing to do with isolationism. Hell that shitkicker Toby Keith wrote a song about putting a boot in their ass. I'm old enough to remember when there wasn't any problem with equipping who turned out to be the Taliban.

What changed?

That fat orange bastard. He's talking up WW3 if we don't stop hitting his friends.

Which wing of the Rs is singing the same song? Why it's the ones most Trumpy.

The same people that had zero problems with Ollie North are now suddenly ready to rein in our global responsibilities?

Yeah, I ain't buying it.

 

And none of what I just said will pass muster in DT.

Edited February 23, 2023 by cactusflinthead

[TwiceHorn 31489]

I think SLX point was not that it was "legitimate" isolationism, but that is a thing that runs among the body politic of the US and is something that can be reliably pandered to, especially after our adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's exactly what Trump is doing in that screed, appealing to that isolationist streak that's always around.

[atomheartbevo 89686]

7 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

DJT is blaming the State Department and Victoria Nuland for Ukraine.

Always amusing when people like Jack Posobiec say "shlit" because they are too chickenshit to say "shit" even though their orange god swears all the time, and they all swear in texts or on their podcasts, etc.  Like a Republican is going to be offended if he says "shit" instead of "schlit".

Edited February 24, 2023 by atomheartbevo

[SaucyJack 3488]

40 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think SLX point was not that it was "legitimate" isolationism, but that is a thing that runs among the body politic of the US and is something that can be reliably pandered to, especially after our adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's exactly what Trump is doing in that screed, appealing to that isolationist streak that's always around.

 

Laughing at 'tankies' from the the 60s.

 

2018      

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/6/17656996/trump-republican-party-russia-rather-democrat-ohio

 

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

On 2/22/2023 at 9:55 AM, Nivek said:

All my life I grew up with my brother being anti-Russian/Soviet/Commies.   My Dad as well.   This past weekend I started talking to them about the Ukraine war and how effective the equipment was and there was a bit of silence.   I later learn that my brother is on Team Russia.  Believing the Russian propaganda (Nazis, Russia's territory, etc.).   My father (who also bought the propaganda) was a bit more willing to believe that the Russians were mass murderers and committing genocide, torture, rape, kidnappings, theft, etc.  The Christian/Super-Christians in my family seem totally fine with that.    I cannot believe we are related.    

My dads is crazy into Fox News/Michael Savage/Rush etc. With the caveat that I haven’t seen him in person in a few months (live in different states)- killing Russians is something we both wholeheartedly endorse 

[Gatorubet 30246]

On 2/22/2023 at 2:04 AM, atomheartbevo said:

I wonder if it's an age thing as well.  Very fascinating to see so many Republicans siding with the fucking Russians.

They will say whatever Tucker and Hannity tell them to think. If Trump thinks they are going more pro-Russia, then he will go even pro-Russia times 10.  

if Tucker and Hannity say the First Lady wants to Socialism them by making them eat healthy, then by Gawd let’s supersize the fries and get the jumbo Coke with extra sugar please. Socialist Europeans are skinny atheists - and good ‘Murkins don’t mind a little diabetes in the cause of freedumb!

[SL Xpress 7516]

3 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

@SL Xpress

Lindsey Graham said much the same thing, too. In extremely strong language. Not trying to get into Graham as a singular personality.

We talk about the Republicans being against the support for Ukraine, but much of that is the combination of American isolationism combined with being out of power.

Hold up right there. Do we need to go over Trump trying to get dirt? Do we no need to discuss what quid pro quo means? That's while they were in power. They were ready to give up Ukraine to get dirt on Hunter Biden. It had nothing to do with isolationism.

 

There's a wing of the Democrats that's made some of the same kind of noises, but were effectively shut down because they're the party in charge at the moment.

 

They got told to shut the hell up. The Democratic party can on occasions manage to keep their members pointing in the same direction. Again, being in charge of the House had no bearing on their statement. In less than 24 hours they were doing damage control and walking it back faster than a crawdad going for its hole

 

 

They wouldn't have been shut down if the Republicans had the presidency and the same kind of support was being given to Ukraine.

Let's see what they had to say when Trump was in charge and giving aid to Ukraine was on the table. Oh right that was all under the table because blackmail is shameful.

I'm not pointing fingers at either party.

I will and feel free to do the same. Name and shame.

 

Mostly I'm just grateful the people in power ARE supporting Ukraine, and pointing out it still very much has bipartisan support, as well as bipartisan reluctance. 

My feeling is it's a matter of time before we give the Ukrainians both ATACMS as well as F-16s. I'm seeing too many articles from too many sources, citing too many leaders from too many different countries to think it's not going to happen. I'm all for sooner over later. 

Damn right. And it's about goddamn time.

 

Paul Gosar, MTG, and anyone else in the Republican party that is hollering about money sent to Ukraine are not doing so in good faith. They had no problem sending billions to Iraq or Afghanistan. It has absolutely nothing to do with isolationism. Hell that shitkicker Toby Keith wrote a song about putting a boot in their ass. I'm old enough to remember when there wasn't any problem with equipping who turned out to be the Taliban.

What changed?

That fat orange bastard. He's talking up WW3 if we don't stop hitting his friends.

Which wing of the Rs is singing the same song? Why it's the ones most Trumpy.

The same people that had zero problems with Ollie North are now suddenly ready to rein in our global responsibilities?

Yeah, I ain't buying it.

 

And none of what I just said will pass muster in DT.

 

Well, I try to be as evenhanded as I can in The Daily Texan thread, because the thread should be about the invasion of Ukraine. It just so happens that how countries choose to support Ukraine, and especially the United States, has a huge bearing on the war, both in the past and into the future. I'm not sure what kind of discussion you're looking for here, but I'm willing to engage in whatever way you'd like to. I cannot be a defender of Trump. I consider Trump to be a complete disaster on any number of levels.

I don't know if you're trying to suggest there's no such thing as an isolationist wing of the Republican Party, or there's no such thing in the Democratic Party. Since I firmly believe there's people in both parties who would prefer the US concentrate on responsibilities at home and quit spending so much resources in foreign countries, and that it's a reflection of the American people in general, I'd be glad to disagree with you on whatever you like if you feel like those are false statements. 

[TwiceHorn 31489]

In addition to just pure dee demagoguery, and the MAGATs going with whatever Fox tells them, the "Kremlin-curious" thing has a couple of threads to it that really work for them, and maybe for some non-MAGATs as well.

First, there's the isolationism, which is always a thing.  Sometimes it competes heavily with America, fuck yeah, but it's a pretty consistent thread.

Then there's the whole sOcIAliSm thing.  Russia was communist, now it's not, so they see Putin as some kind of anti-socialist.

I have come to believe that Russia is the problem, period.  Monarchist, Communist, Kleptocracy (it's always been a kleptocracy), fucking Russia is the common thread and the problem.  The only thing communism added to Russia was a) a political system that had at least some appeal to some people outside Russia and b) a core tenet of world revolution, so that made them a little extra obstreperous for a while there.  And there's some remnants of it remaining.

Russia just fucking sucks as a country. Ingobernable and with a nasty habit of causing problems for the rest of the world.

Edited February 24, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Satchel 6938]

How long before the attending janitor puts half of the broomstick through Putin’s heart and puts an end to this outrage? 

[atomheartbevo 89686]

2 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

Since I firmly believe there's people in both parties who would prefer the US concentrate on responsibilities at home and quit spending so much resources in foreign countries, and that it's a reflection of the American people in general

First, we are more than capable of handling responsibilities here at home as well as overseas at the same time, just fine.  We have plenty of resources for both (and the reason why we have those resources will be mentioned later in this TLDR), even though we waste a lot of resources on stupid shit, particularly at home, that would be better spent, and I'm not going to spend time on that (there's plenty of threads covering it here in CR).

Second, those people who would prefer the US crawl back inside its shell and ignore things happening overseas are wrong. Sure, that wrongness is largely a result of ignorance, with a small dash of angst over Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. and a large dash of neglect by government leadership since LBJ that has been unwilling to explain to the American public why we can't be isolationists, but they are still wrong.  Ironically, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush both understood why we can't be isolationists, and both even made cases publicly why we have to be who we are on the world stage and both pushed the US to be that country, but it's been lost in the shuffle since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Way too many people believed that the Cold War was the reason why we had to be willing to invest in ventures overseas, why we had to take a starring role on the world's stage, and the Cold War was just one reason (a symptom) why that was the case.

And the current American government and United States Congress both understand why we cannot be isolationists, why we can't ignore events around the world, and why it's even more important here in 2023 that we have a leadership role in world events.  How do I know this?  Because here in 2023, and ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, none of the sitting Congresses have said "okay, we need to cut our Navy back to say 60 or 70 ships, and a bunch of nuclear submarines, and we'll cut our Air Force down to a few hundred fighters and cargo aircraft, and we'll spend the money saved on more nuclear bombers and nuclear missile silos" and then gutted the defense budget.  None of them have acted to end the Marine Corps and end most of the active-duty Army and move those troops and equipment into National Guard units.  In other words, Congress has not moved to turn our military into purely a defensive military, even though we all know that nobody is going to invade this country, and that if somebody were to try and get together an invading force, we would have plenty of warning, our subs and various missile systems and aircraft, etc. could quickly end any threat from the sea or land.  But nobody is capable of assembling an actual airborne or seaborne assault force that could take even one state in the US, and it damn sure wouldn't be China or Russia, who would be worried we'd let fly with nukes.  But Congress still makes sure we have a big-ass military.

So why can't we be isolationists?  It's simple:  Money.  It makes the world go round.  It makes our economy function, it means we get cheap shit from Walmart that rich people decades ago would be envious of, it means many homes have a flatscreen TV, it means we have cheap food, it means we have a shitload of resources for the government (whether it be city, county, state, or federal) to waste on stupid shit, it means our kids have cheap toys, our companies, schools (and ourselves) have cheap computers,  it means we have cheap entertainment whether it be video games or movies or whatever, and it keeps many Americans employed.

How can that be?

1. If we withdrew into our shell, we would leave a power and economic vacuum that would be filled militarily by other countries (China and Russia) and many overseas companies (many of which will be Chinese).  Larger American companies rely on export with overseas markets, rely on labor here and overseas, and so on.  If we became isolationists, those companies are at the mercy of other countries, whose own companies would make sure American companies were cut out of markets, and yes, our companies would even be at the mercy of Somali pirates if they tried to sail through that region.  We have a Big Fucking Navy for a reason, to keep the world's sea lanes open, to make sure our cheap rubber dog shit from Hong Kong makes it a port in Mexico or California, to  make sure that other countries don't fuck with our companies and markets.  World War II was a wake-up call for why we needed a Big Fucking Navy, why we needed to make sure that American was not caught napping again, and why we needed to make sure American companies could ply their trades around the world.
2. Food Security.  Using Ukraine as an example, if we let Russian run rampant over them, Russia then controls 20-30% of the world's wheat, 20-30% of the world's corn, 60% of the world's sunflower oil, etc.  If Russia has that kind of power over the world's food markets, Russia can wield that power in a lot of ways, both economic, but also in a geopolitical manner.  For example, If Russia gets pissed at us, with 20-30% of the wheat and corn markets, they could fuck with the pricing and create food shortages in Central and South America, which will then cause huge waves of tens of millions of illegal immigrants to come knocking at the American border, looking for food.  Think OPEC, except for food, and controlled by one country that hates us.  We already see waves of illegal immigrants when shit goes down in this or that country south of us.  Now imagine if Russia had the power to make that happen whenever they desired.
3. Supply Chains.  For better or for worse, we rely on the rest of the world for a lot of raw materials as well as finished products, just as they rely on us for a lot of raw materials and finished products.  If we start collapsing those supply chains into and out of the US because Suzy Q. Isolationist doesn't want us everywhere, her hubby's factory shuts down for a lack of parts, or raw materials, or maybe overseas customers, which means they are out of work and relying on the the government to clothe and feed them (some of that yummy socialism the Republicans hate).  Again, we have a Big Fucking Navy (and Air Force) for a reason, and we try to help keep large parts of the world on an even keel so that Suzy's husband stays employed, and our kids have computers in school, and we have iPhones and cheap shit at Walmart.
4. Finally, if we play isolationists, then Russia's invasion of Ukraine or Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (and then Saudi Arabia) will become the norm, borders will be changed and erased, and nuclear escalation will occur as countries around the world rush to develop nukes to prevent invasion from larger neighbors, which makes the world so much less safe that it's hard to comprehend.  The Middle East, Central and South America, and Africa would be shitshows the likes that none of us could really imagine (even if you think they are just a collection of shithole countries, what would actually happen if countries decided they could erase borders on a whim without being challenged would be staggering).  And as an American, disruptions in Central and South America would drive additional waves of immigrants to our borders, making our border even less secure than whatever you currently think of it.

The Spanish-American War was our last chance at remaining isolationists.  All of the sudden, we found ourselves beating out a fading empire and coming into possession of countries/colonies/territories across the Pacific, and everybody took note of that, and we found ourselves having to decide that we were going to defend those territories (especially in WWII).  But we were already on the path to ditching isolationism decades earlier, even before the American Civil War, which was a small blip on our path to being a major player on the world's stage.  It wasn't that we subconsciously decided we needed to be a major player, it's that we were expanding like crazy economically even before the Civil War, and we kept taking in immigrants from Europe and elsewhere and using them to drive our economic gains, and we kept driving ever westward, and we kept innovating in technology (equipment, electricity, etc.) and manufacturing.  Once we linked the Pacific and Atlantic parts of the US by rail in the 1860s, our fate was sealed.  We were just too much of an economic powerhouse to keep it contained and constrained to the US.  Henry Ford was going to have to eventually ship those cars to overseas markets, and so on, and WWI and WWII made it clear that we don't get to sit out the games we don't like, and that we better have a deep bench.

It took me a long time to reach the realization that we can never be isolationists.  Even though I was a Republican in the 90s and up until about 2002/2003 (Iraq), I wasn't an isolationist, and I bought into the notion that we needed the military that we did because we were the leading democracy, the fabled Shining City on the Hill or whatever you want to call it.  It was years later when working on some supply chain stuff for a small company that had an amazing amount of connections around the world,  that I realized we needed the military that we do, and we need to engage in the actions that we do, because it keeps our economy going. 

TLDR:  Go watch a Zeihan video where he tells you that we have to be involved overseas for economic reasons.  He's right, you know.

[atomheartbevo 89686]

TLDR 2.0: Our entire economy would collapse if we went full-on isolationism.

[SL Xpress 7516]

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

First, we are more than capable of handling responsibilities here at home as well as overseas at the same time, just fine.  We have plenty of resources for both (and the reason why we have those resources will be mentioned later in this TLDR), even though we waste a lot of resources on stupid shit, particularly at home, that would be better spent, and I'm not going to spend time on that (there's plenty of threads covering it here in CR).

Second, those people who would prefer the US crawl back inside its shell and ignore things happening overseas are wrong. Sure, that wrongness is largely a result of ignorance, with a small dash of angst over Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. and a large dash of neglect by government leadership since LBJ that has been unwilling to explain to the American public why we can't be isolationists, but they are still wrong.  Ironically, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush both understood why we can't be isolationists, and both even made cases publicly why we have to be who we are on the world stage and both pushed the US to be that country, but it's been lost in the shuffle since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Way too many people believed that the Cold War was the reason why we had to be willing to invest in ventures overseas, why we had to take a starring role on the world's stage, and the Cold War was just one reason (a symptom) why that was the case.

And the current American government and United States Congress both understand why we cannot be isolationists, why we can't ignore events around the world, and why it's even more important here in 2023 that we have a leadership role in world events.  How do I know this?  Because here in 2023, and ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, none of the sitting Congresses have said "okay, we need to cut our Navy back to say 60 or 70 ships, and a bunch of nuclear submarines, and we'll cut our Air Force down to a few hundred fighters and cargo aircraft, and we'll spend the money saved on more nuclear bombers and nuclear missile silos" and then gutted the defense budget.  None of them have acted to end the Marine Corps and end most of the active-duty Army and move those troops and equipment into National Guard units.  In other words, Congress has not moved to turn our military into purely a defensive military, even though we all know that nobody is going to invade this country, and that if somebody were to try and get together an invading force, we would have plenty of warning, our subs and various missile systems and aircraft, etc. could quickly end any threat from the sea or land.  But nobody is capable of assembling an actual airborne or seaborne assault force that could take even one state in the US, and it damn sure wouldn't be China or Russia, who would be worried we'd let fly with nukes.  But Congress still makes sure we have a big-ass military.

So why can't we be isolationists?  It's simple:  Money.  It makes the world go round.  It makes our economy function, it means we get cheap shit from Walmart that rich people decades ago would be envious of, it means many homes have a flatscreen TV, it means we have cheap food, it means we have a shitload of resources for the government (whether it be city, county, state, or federal) to waste on stupid shit, it means our kids have cheap toys, our companies, schools (and ourselves) have cheap computers,  it means we have cheap entertainment whether it be video games or movies or whatever, and it keeps many Americans employed.

How can that be?

1. If we withdrew into our shell, we would leave a power and economic vacuum that would be filled militarily by other countries (China and Russia) and many overseas companies (many of which will be Chinese).  Larger American companies rely on export with overseas markets, rely on labor here and overseas, and so on.  If we became isolationists, those companies are at the mercy of other countries, whose own companies would make sure American companies were cut out of markets, and yes, our companies would even be at the mercy of Somali pirates if they tried to sail through that region.  We have a Big Fucking Navy for a reason, to keep the world's sea lanes open, to make sure our cheap rubber dog shit from Hong Kong makes it a port in Mexico or California, to  make sure that other countries don't fuck with our companies and markets.  World War II was a wake-up call for why we needed a Big Fucking Navy, why we needed to make sure that American was not caught napping again, and why we needed to make sure American companies could ply their trades around the world.
2. Food Security.  Using Ukraine as an example, if we let Russian run rampant over them, Russia then controls 20-30% of the world's wheat, 20-30% of the world's corn, 60% of the world's sunflower oil, etc.  If Russia has that kind of power over the world's food markets, Russia can wield that power in a lot of ways, both economic, but also in a geopolitical manner.  For example, If Russia gets pissed at us, with 20-30% of the wheat and corn markets, they could fuck with the pricing and create food shortages in Central and South America, which will then cause huge waves of tens of millions of illegal immigrants to come knocking at the American border, looking for food.  Think OPEC, except for food, and controlled by one country that hates us.  We already see waves of illegal immigrants when shit goes down in this or that country south of us.  Now imagine if Russia had the power to make that happen whenever they desired.
3. Supply Chains.  For better or for worse, we rely on the rest of the world for a lot of raw materials as well as finished products, just as they rely on us for a lot of raw materials and finished products.  If we start collapsing those supply chains into and out of the US because Suzy Q. Isolationist doesn't want us everywhere, her hubby's factory shuts down for a lack of parts, or raw materials, or maybe overseas customers, which means they are out of work and relying on the the government to clothe and feed them (some of that yummy socialism the Republicans hate).  Again, we have a Big Fucking Navy (and Air Force) for a reason, and we try to help keep large parts of the world on an even keel so that Suzy's husband stays employed, and our kids have computers in school, and we have iPhones and cheap shit at Walmart.
4. Finally, if we play isolationists, then Russia's invasion of Ukraine or Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (and then Saudi Arabia) will become the norm, borders will be changed and erased, and nuclear escalation will occur as countries around the world rush to develop nukes to prevent invasion from larger neighbors, which makes the world so much less safe that it's hard to comprehend.  The Middle East, Central and South America, and Africa would be shitshows the likes that none of us could really imagine (even if you think they are just a collection of shithole countries, what would actually happen if countries decided they could erase borders on a whim without being challenged would be staggering).  And as an American, disruptions in Central and South America would drive additional waves of immigrants to our borders, making our border even less secure than whatever you currently think of it.

The Spanish-American War was our last chance at remaining isolationists.  All of the sudden, we found ourselves beating out a fading empire and coming into possession of countries/colonies/territories across the Pacific, and everybody took note of that, and we found ourselves having to decide that we were going to defend those territories (especially in WWII).  But we were already on the path to ditching isolationism decades earlier, even before the American Civil War, which was a small blip on our path to being a major player on the world's stage.  It wasn't that we subconsciously decided we needed to be a major player, it's that we were expanding like crazy economically even before the Civil War, and we kept taking in immigrants from Europe and elsewhere and using them to drive our economic gains, and we kept driving ever westward, and we kept innovating in technology (equipment, electricity, etc.) and manufacturing.  Once we linked the Pacific and Atlantic parts of the US by rail in the 1860s, our fate was sealed.  We were just too much of an economic powerhouse to keep it contained and constrained to the US.  Henry Ford was going to have to eventually ship those cars to overseas markets, and so on, and WWI and WWII made it clear that we don't get to sit out the games we don't like, and that we better have a deep bench.

It took me a long time to reach the realization that we can never be isolationists.  Even though I was a Republican in the 90s and up until about 2002/2003 (Iraq), I wasn't an isolationist, and I bought into the notion that we needed the military that we did because we were the leading democracy, the fabled Shining City on the Hill or whatever you want to call it.  It was years later when working on some supply chain stuff for a small company that had an amazing amount of connections around the world,  that I realized we needed the military that we do, and we need to engage in the actions that we do, because it keeps our economy going. 

TLDR:  Go watch a Zeihan video where he tells you that we have to be involved overseas for economic reasons.  He's right, you know.

You made this as a quote to me. Are you trying to convince me? Do you believe I disagree with any of this?

Regardless of whether we should or shouldn't have an isolationist mindset, there is a significant portion of our population - in my opinion, a substantial majority - who do think this way. 

Becoming isolationist would mean the end of our standard of living. Full stop. But no hegemony lasts forever. At some point the United States will not be top dog any more. Whether that happens through external pressures or internal pressures is immaterial. Mostly likely it would be a combination of the two. The timing is uncertain as well. 

You talk about it like the US has to be globally engaged at a certain level. No, not really. The US can pull back from its international responsibilities through misguided policies based on a populist political platform and suffer the consequences. I'd argue we got a taste of it under Trump. 

I'm not making a prediction. I'm giving a warning. It's the same warning the elites in this country have been quite aware of since post WWII, and whether we agree with how it's been manifested, overall the US has not shied away from those responsibilities since. But we're in a new age politically. It's no longer Congress having one party rule for 60 years. There's no longer a segment of one party that votes with the other on a consistent basis. There's no longer a sense of collaboration, consensus building, or compromise. Through gerrymandering we've managed to make the centrist more and more a rare species, because for so many seats the toughest fight is in the primary. The base has become the end all be all, with the general voters secondary. Through the advent of social media we've created incredibly effective echo chambers that elevate our nuttiest aspects to normalcy, and make us believe our most incorrect assumptions are supported universally by anyone with working brain cells. 

This isn't staying on topic, but eventually the US has to answer its systemic issues with massive current account deficits. People talk about the national debt, but the national debt wouldn't be an issue if we simply sold as much stuff to other people as we purchased. Since we don't - and in 2022 it was to the tune of an annualized rate of a $1 trillion deficit - that money has to be made up from somewhere. That's a combination of factors - the dollar held as a reserve, debt issued by US entities, both public and private, and the purchase of assets, whether land, infrastructure, companies, or a combination thereof. A $1 trillion annual current account deficit is not sustainable. It's like anything traded on the open market. It holds a certain value until the day it doesn't. At some point people who hold dollars are going to have a hard time finding value in US debt and assets at a rate of return they find acceptable, at which point the value of that debt and assets drops precipitously. There are any number of factors which can lead to that reckoning. It's not like the US won't be able to sell its debt, but the interest rate at which it's priced will become more and more untenable. We've seen market mechanisms in action already, whether it was the junk bond market in the 80s, the dot com crash in the early 2000s, the housing market collapse in 2008. The 2008 collapse in particular was impacted by foreign held dollars seeking a safe return for their money that beat the US Treasury bill. The same thing is occurring right now to some degree, with huge amounts of foreign held dollars going into real estate investment trusts and other financing mechanisms. Got any calls/texts asking if you want to sell your house lately?

Our engagement in the world, our ability to project military might, our perceived position as the safest haven for assets anywhere in the world, is what keeps this pseudo Ponzi scheme going. The day we decide we don't want to engage any more, is the day our economy collapses along a multitude of vectors. '

But if a compelling leader is able to communicate to the American public in an effective way that we need to focus more at home, and let others take up the mantle of defending themselves rather than relying on the US to do it for them, whether that's the wisest move or not may not make a difference. 

[bernorange 8362]

5 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

... But no hegemony lasts forever. At some point the United States will not be top dog any more. Whether that happens through external pressures or internal pressures is immaterial. ...

Tangent express goes this way:  https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/topic/28807-competing-currencies/?do=findComment&comment=5065231

 

[TwiceHorn 31489]

And, on the cynical pro-Ukraine side, there are lots and lots of legislators on #bothsides that are beholden to the defense industry, either  directly or just as a jobs program in their district/state.  And, any way you slice it, this is a boon for the defense industry.

This is, however, a fairly unique opportunity to "defend freedom and democracy" without a whole lot of the other baggage associated with our attempts at military adventurism of the last 75 years or so.

Edited February 24, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[WhatTheBuck 28784]

9 hours ago, Satchel said:

How long before the attending janitor puts half of the broomstick through Putin’s heart and puts an end to this outrage? 

Somebody should do that before the U.S. commits F-16s to Ukraine because at that point it’s really going to become embarrassing for the Russkies, isn’t it? Somebody definitely needs to do it before Putin can launch tactical nukes. Or cause a leak at a Ukrainian nuclear reactor. 

[Bateshorn 9928]

21 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Depends on who you ask the term applies to. Originally “tankies” were hard-core defenders of Stalin and later the USSR who defended the 1956 intervention in Hungary and later the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia (hence, “tankie”). They were mostly student radicals in the UK.
 

In most of the modern online discourse around Ukraine, it’s a term NAFO and sympathizers apply to anyone who argues against military support or who repeats Kremlin talking points blaming NATO and “fascists” in Ukraine from the left. 

Yeah, modern Tankies are not classic Tankies.  I suspect that if say, Nikki Haley won the presidency, and continued support for Ukraine, you’d see some left wing MOC, like Jayapal or Ro Khanna suddenly start talking about the need to negotiate. 

[bernorange 8362]

I was looking for some authoritative reference with a breakdown of US aid for Ukraine and found this:

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

h/t:  https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts

The German site has a chart showing ~58% of US aid to Ukraine has been military equipment/service (versus humanitarian or financial). 

[atomheartbevo 89686]

7 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

You made this as a quote to me. Are you trying to convince me? Do you believe I disagree with any of this?

Sorry, I meant for it to be more directed at the folks you are talking about. I think most people posting on Surly understand our place in the world (insert joke about "what starts here changes the world") just because of our demographics/education/etc.

7 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

Regardless of whether we should or shouldn't have an isolationist mindset, there is a significant portion of our population - in my opinion, a substantial majority - who do think this way. 

Becoming isolationist would mean the end of our standard of living.

I know there are people that have that mindset.  I've argued with them, hell I argued with a relative in Oklahoma over Christmas about it - they seemed to think that because they bought John Deere and they sold their wheat and soybeans to other Americans, that it wouldn't affect them, that we should retreat back into our shell.  I pointed out that their John Deeres are relying on parts and maybe even some raw materials from China, Taiwan, or elsewhere, and that if there wasn't a large amount of American wheat and soybeans being shipped overseas (either raw or in food products), that that wheat and soybeans would be on the market here in the US, driving prices way down and putting even more farmers out of work.

7 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

Full stop. But no hegemony lasts forever. At some point the United States will not be top dog any more. Whether that happens through external pressures or internal pressures is immaterial. 

Probably not going to be in our lifetimes.  Russia is clearly stuck in the mud (literally and figuratively) and is on the decline (they are now trending down in terms of demographics).  China is going to start its population decline sometime soon, which brings with it a host of problems that I don't think they can deal with, and their Silk Road/Belt initiative thing has some growing pains.  India or the EU might be the natural successors to the US if China falters, but both rely heavily on outside supplies/markets, and the EU doesn't have as much of a presence in Asia as the US does (and some of its members have their own demographics issues), and India doesn't have the European presence it needs, and it can't feed and fuel itself.  We are unique in that we touch both oceans, can truly feed ourselves and our neighbors, can fuel ourselves, and as long as we can keep immigration up, we won't have the demographic problems that are going to cause a lot of problems for others.

7 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

You talk about it like the US has to be globally engaged at a certain level. No, not really. The US can pull back from its international responsibilities through misguided policies based on a populist political platform and suffer the consequences. I'd argue we got a taste of it under Trump. 

Just a taste though, and whether some things were slow-rolled by people under him, or they were quickly reversed by the Biden administration, the damage was somewhat minimized - another 4 years of Trump would have probably caused an extreme amount of damage.  Russia was still going to go into Ukraine proper regardless of who was in office (in hindsight, Putin was telling the world for many years what he intended to do), and hell Trump might have let Xi take Taiwan.  Both of those situations would cause harm to our economy.

7 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

Our engagement in the world, our ability to project military might, our perceived position as the safest haven for assets anywhere in the world, is what keeps this pseudo Ponzi scheme going. The day we decide we don't want to engage any more, is the day our economy collapses along a multitude of vectors. '

In terms of the other stuff, that's for somebody better educated on financial issues than me.  Agreed that we are one of the most stable nations in the world thanks to our geography (no nation is capable of invading us), our natural resources (food/fuel/mineral/etc.), etc. and people want to park their money here, and want to work with us.  If we stop engaging the world, our economy will definitely collapse.

7 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

But if a compelling leader is able to communicate to the American public in an effective way that we need to focus more at home, and let others take up the mantle of defending themselves rather than relying on the US to do it for them, whether that's the wisest move or not may not make a difference. 

Yeah, and Trump gave us a glimpse of that - he was willing to pull us out of being engaged with large parts of the world, because his mindset is all about being transactional - if we keep the seas safe or overseas markets open, what's in it for Trump?  Nothing, because he's not selling manufactured goods or food or fuel overseas, so he gives no shits if American companies start being shut out of overseas markets - his product is literally his name and some real estate here and there, and that doesn't require the kind of engagement that the rest of America needs.

[Tuco 5076]

In addition to just pure dee demagoguery, and the MAGATs going with whatever Fox tells them, the "Kremlin-curious" thing has a couple of threads to it that really work for them, and maybe for some non-MAGATs as well.
First, there's the isolationism, which is always a thing.  Sometimes it competes heavily with America, fuck yeah, but it's a pretty consistent thread.
Then there's the whole sOcIAliSm thing.  Russia was communist, now it's not, so they see Putin as some kind of anti-socialist.
I have come to believe that Russia is the problem, period.  Monarchist, Communist, Kleptocracy (it's always been a kleptocracy), fucking Russia is the common thread and the problem.  The only thing communism added to Russia was a) a political system that had at least some appeal to some people outside Russia and b) a core tenet of world revolution, so that made them a little extra obstreperous for a while there.  And there's some remnants of it remaining.
Russia just fucking sucks as a country. Ingobernable and with a nasty habit of causing problems for the rest of the world.

I would say a huge part of it is because Russia is about 50 years behind the US on social issues. They are proudly homophobic. The two conservative organizations the Butina courted were the the NRA and the National Prayer Breakfast. Putin frequently uses “anti-woke” rhetoric that is directly quoted by US Christian outlets. The Wagner Group uses Crusader iconography and rhetoric.

There are many right wingers who believe that the US has lost its Christian culture and look to Russia as the last bastion Christian power.

Fucking Christians.

[Brisketexan 105153]

Just now, Tuco said:

There are many right wingers who believe that the US has lost its Christian culture and look to Russia as the last bastion Christian power.

Many....most....let's not quibble.  Because you aren't wrong.

Russia is a socially conservative fascist autocracy which places 100% value on control, and 0% value on actual human life.  It's the fucking American right's DREAM STATE.  It's not just a state we should be aligned with, it's the exact kind of state they want to US to be.  Many American "conservatives" are not even shy about saying so, in roundabout terms.

[Nivek 16943]

13 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

Since I firmly believe there's people in both parties who would prefer the US concentrate on responsibilities at home and quit spending so much resources in foreign countries, and that it's a reflection of the American people in general,

I think this section reads like a conflating of issues.  In general, both parties were fine with interventions and expanding our sphere of influence on the world stage.  There are elements across the political spectrum that would prefer to limit the interventions.  Some even more minor elements would prefer no interventionistic activities.   But not all activities are equal.  The US involvement with Ukraine is centered around developing a regional ally in addition to the greater humanitarian goal of preventing genocide while also preventing Russia from gaining a massive control of critical food supplies.    This is quite different from the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions that started in the early 2000s.   

 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33872]

12 hours ago, Satchel said:

How long before the attending janitor puts half of the broomstick through Putin’s heart and puts an end to this outrage? 

I can fap to this. Keep going.

[Nivek 16943]

9 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

People talk about the national debt, but the national debt wouldn't be an issue if we simply sold as much stuff to other people as we purchased. Since we don't - and in 2022 it was to the tune of an annualized rate of a $1 trillion deficit - that money has to be made up from somewhere.

The trade deficit is not the same thing as the national debt nor are they directly related.  Our issues are largely due to a tax problem and a spending problem.  Too many loopholes and exemptions have created a new gilded age within the United States and the wealth gap is growing significantly.  The rise in health care, housing, education, and food has moved money from the masses to the owners of those industries to the point where the top 0.25% could entirely fund the country at both the Federal and State level without cutting back for more than 5 years.   Manufacturing widgets in the United States is not going to reverse this.  Heck from what I have read, the real inflation which is directly attributed to the excess money printing is about 8% and yet groceries have gone up around 23% and some companies are recording record profits.  More gilded age stuff.   

But this is tangential to the actual discussion on this thread.  

Edited February 24, 2023 by Nivek

[TwiceHorn 31489]

5 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Manufacturing widgets in the United States is not going to reverse this.

It wouldn't reverse it, probably, but it would help.  Business/corporations do serve a beneficial purpose in providing jobs and wages, but only if those jobs are domestic and pay living or otherwise reasonable wages.  

One of the reasons trickle-down didn't work, was the trickle was to China and elsewhere, not the US, and any benefit to lax tax policies accrued to the shareholder class and not to labor.  If those jobs that got offshored didn't get offshored, trickle-down might have worked a little bit.

[Nivek 16943]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

It wouldn't reverse it, probably, but it would help.  Business/corporations do serve a beneficial purpose in providing jobs and wages, but only if those jobs are domestic and pay living or otherwise reasonable wages.  

One of the reasons trickle-down didn't work, was the trickle was to China and elsewhere, not the US, and any benefit to lax tax policies accrued to the shareholder class and not to labor.  If those jobs that got offshored didn't get offshored, trickle-down might have worked a little bit.

I think trickle-down economics fails because the fundamental economics of this idea is faulty.  Jobs are created out of necessity, not simply because someone is flush with cash.   We might shift from hamburgers to steak as we increase wealth, but we never shift to eating 5 steaks for dinner.    Outsourcing is unrelated because the fundamentals of trickle-down are flawed at best or uncritical fantasy in my opinion more akin to the flat earth cult than anything serious and flawed like the efficient market hypothesis.  

[SL Xpress 7516]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

I think this section reads like a conflating of issues.  In general, both parties were fine with interventions and expanding our sphere of influence on the world stage.  There are elements across the political spectrum that would prefer to limit the interventions.  Some even more minor elements would prefer no interventionistic activities.   But not all activities are equal.  The US involvement with Ukraine is centered around developing a regional ally in addition to the greater humanitarian goal of preventing genocide while also preventing Russia from gaining a massive control of critical food supplies.    This is quite different from the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions that started in the early 2000s.   

 

 

In general, both parties have changed drastically since the end of WWII. Obviously. Talking about what both parties want as if it's been a constant doesn't make sense to me. 

Interventions in Korea and Vietnam were blatantly anti communist. Again, obviously. Which is what the entire country's rhetoric and foreign policy was based around prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Virtually every single foreign policy interaction was defined as limiting communism. Even normalizing relations with China had a main goal of further isolating the Soviet Union. The one exception in many ways is Israel, but that deserves its own post. Securing oil reserves would be another, but was also inextricably intertwined with limiting communism, especially in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Post 1991, there were major interventions in Somalia, Kuwait/Iraq, the Balkans, prior to 9/11. All of those were sufficiently bipartisan. It's questionable how much the US was trying to expand sphere of influence in launching activities in Somalia. That's the one intervention I actually had personal experience with on site. Although the objectives changed in the change of administration from Bush I to Clinton. Honestly, IMO both Somalia and the Balkans were mostly about the atrocities occurring spurring a sense "we should do something about this!" more so than cynical expansion of sphere of influence, although I wouldn't argue they transformed into that, especially in Somalia, to ill effect, IMO. 

Following 9/11 it's a huge mistake to conflate Afghanistan and Iraq together. Afghanistan was a justified invasion precipitated by the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. The second Gulf War was a boondoggle on so many levels it's difficult to write them all down. The reason there was bipartisan support is because of the misleading of elected representatives that Hussein was developing WMDs and had to be stopped. 

I do not see Ukraine all that special in relation to the other interventions. They all had significant justifications - IMO, as justifiable as Ukraine in many ways - other than Iraq II. Now, I'm more emotionally invested in the successful outcome of the Ukrainian war, in ways I wasn't necessarily in other interventions, even in Somalia, where I was present. 

But when I talk about isolationism, I'm not merely talking about interventions. I'd argue interventions are practically inevitable if you maintain the network of international military bases and the projection of force capabilities the US does. If you keep a potent tool around eventually someone somewhere who gains access to it is going to figure out a reason to use it. I'm talking about the desire to disengage from having forward deployed military assets, and the questioning of the need for so many aircraft carrier battle groups. Even now the battle groups we have are sent out with skeleton crews compared to decades past. They're out there for much longer. Their shore visits are more limited. All in a mission to drive down costs and yet continue to fulfill the mission 100% even when the level of assets deployed has decreased. In many ways, that's evidence of isolationism at work. 

In any case, isolationism will manifest itself first not in terms of the lack of interventions, but in the lessening of the capacity to conduct interventions in the first place. The post Vietnam era is a good example of this, with the disastrous Delta Force operation regarding Iran as a great example. If not for Reagan's massive defense buildup, the arguments we're having regarding the US place in the world vis a vis military interventions would have a much different tenor.  

As far as Ukraine, the difference in rhetoric is mostly felt because we have a leader of one of the major political parties with a heavy populist bent. It's my opinion that if Bernie Sanders had instead won the Democratic nomination and then the presidency, we would have a similar rhetoric in some ways regarding US military capabilities and the need for force projection. The historical "we need to be investing those resources in our own country" message. Which has a universal appeal, but particularly in the US where the population has no real understanding of the benefits the US has accrued by being the world's police force in many ways. It's only seen in terms of sacrifices. 

I want to reiterate how grateful I am that those messages are not the ones held by the people in power right now, regardless of party. I do believe Russia represents a great evil, above and beyond the usual, and what they're doing in Ukraine should be stopped - should've been stopped in 2014 - or the world will pay a heavy price in all kinds of ways. I'm grateful the US continues to have the capability to have a dramatic impact on such conflicts. I hope that holds true long after I've shuffled off this mortal coil.

[atomheartbevo 89686]

6 hours ago, Tuco said:

There are many right wingers who believe that the US has lost its Christian culture and look to Russia as the last bastion Christian power.

Fucking Christians.

I know a few who have literally said things to the effect that Putin is the only world leader standing up for Christians.

And they have also pushed a lot of Qanon stuff in the past, and have mental health issues, so the Venn Diagram...

[hookemATL 11740]

14 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I know a few who have literally said things to the effect that Putin is the only world leader standing up for Christians.

And they have also pushed a lot of Qanon stuff in the past, and have mental health issues, so the Venn Diagram...

When you have no actual moral underpinnings (despite loud/sanctimonious protestations otherwise), you can contort any evil into a righteous cause. Traitorous, evangelizing, scum. 

[SL Xpress 7516]

I don't think Christians are as monolithic in their belief structure as some of you seem to characterize them as. 

There is certainly a populist element that represents a significant portion of political activity by Christians, particularly in the South, and they tend to be the most visible. But most Christians I talk to don't really even think about Putin all that much on a day to day basis. 

I feel like most of what I see regarding support for Putin is better characterized by tribalism based on race, anti LGBTQ+, and a reaction to the perception traditional patriarchal values are under attack. And yes, some of that ends up being rooted in Christianity, but it's my opinion if a Christian community is inclusive - and many are - it doesn't look like that at all. I feel like Putin and Russian propaganda are at their most effective when they're able to appeal to white people who feel like they're under attack in culture wars of some sort. Not just in the US. In European countries as well. 

[atomheartbevo 89686]

10 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

I feel like most of what I see regarding support for Putin is better characterized by tribalism based on race, anti LGBTQ+, and a reaction to the perception traditional patriarchal values are under attack.

The anti-LGBTQ stuff is a huge part of it, I think - the ones I've seen pushing the idea that he's standing up for Christianity are also very much anti-LGBTQ.

[Tuco 5076]

I don't think Christians are as monolithic in their belief structure as some of you seem to characterize them as. 

Well, sure. But I think there is a large percentage of Pro-Putin Americans who justify that support in their version of Christianity. I’d be curious in what the correlation is between having a favorable opinion of Russia and identifying yourself as Christian or Evangelical Christian. I would guess over 90% for Christian.

[SL Xpress 7516]

9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The anti-LGBTQ stuff is a huge part of it, I think - the ones I've seen pushing the idea that he's standing up for Christianity are also very much anti-LGBTQ.

I will say historically black Christian churches are vehemently anti LGBTQ+. A significant part of the African American community is, regardless of religious affiliation. But I don't see much support for Putin in those circles. 

Now in Africa, on the other hand, there's the whole legacy of Russia not being an African colonizer, and the history of support from the Soviet Union for independence movements across the continent. Most particularly the African National Congress in South Africa, but for sure not exclusively. 

[SL Xpress 7516]

3 minutes ago, Tuco said:

 

Well, sure. But I think there is a large percentage of Pro-Putin Americans who justify that support in their version of Christianity. I’d be curious in what the correlation is between having a favorable opinion of Russia and identifying yourself as Christian or Evangelical Christian. I would guess over 90% for Christian.

 

I'd be shocked if it was anywhere near that high. I don't know how to find those numbers, though. IMO this has way more to do with white tribalism - of which evangelical Christianity can certainly be a part. When I talk to the strongest Trump supporters I wouldn't say they're anywhere close to 90% Christian - but there's a huge level of sympathy for Putin and Russia. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

21 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

 

Well, I try to be as evenhanded as I can in The Daily Texan thread, because the thread should be about the invasion of Ukraine. It just so happens that how countries choose to support Ukraine, and especially the United States, has a huge bearing on the war, both in the past and into the future. I'm not sure what kind of discussion you're looking for here, but I'm willing to engage in whatever way you'd like to. I cannot be a defender of Trump. I consider Trump to be a complete disaster on any number of levels.

I don't know if you're trying to suggest there's no such thing as an isolationist wing of the Republican Party, or there's no such thing in the Democratic Party. Since I firmly believe there's people in both parties who would prefer the US concentrate on responsibilities at home and quit spending so much resources in foreign countries, and that it's a reflection of the American people in general, I'd be glad to disagree with you on whatever you like if you feel like those are false statements. 

Are these the peeps? 

https://www.newsweek.com/meet-democrat-siding-putin-ukraine-war-1736517

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

It's a Marjorie and this other guy no one has heard of in a battle to win GOP-Dem You Boofed Russia-tacular!!!!!!!!!

[atomheartbevo 89686]

Seth Harp is still pushing his bullshit.

I'd say that Biden's national security team has done a pretty decent job with Ukraine, but you know, it's still day 365 of the 3-day special military operation.

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

Marjorie Taylor Greene is a fascist who wants to destroy America 

[Mileslong 4727]

Everyone should watch this report from Vice News. On the ground in Ukraine living amongst the troops and citizens will give you a perspective the likes of you’ve never seen before.

I would then like to hear the pro Russian sect in our government explain away what they’ve seen. The courage of these Ukrainian children is astounding. The last story features the bravest little girl I’ve ever seen.

[Neonmoon 38129]

13 minutes ago, Mileslong said:

I would then like to hear the pro Russian sect in our government explain away what they’ve seen

Stop trying to use reason or shame. That is the trap. They will not be swayed by reason or shame. They are pieces of shit dressed up as politicians. They don’t care if kids are killed. They don’t care if there is genocide. They only care about power. Engaging in normal political discussion is the trap. It masks the inevitable. Putin does the same thing. He pretends to a be a politician, and then does whatever the fuck he wants. 

[SL Xpress 7516]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Stop trying to use reason or shame. That is the trap. They will not be swayed by reason or shame. They are pieces of shit dressed up as politicians. They don’t care if kids are killed. They don’t care if there is genocide. They only care about power. Engaging in normal political discussion is the trap. It masks the inevitable. Putin does the same thing. He pretends to a be a politician, and then does whatever the fuck he wants. 

I will say it's my personal belief that one of the dangers of being a populist and appealing to the lowest common denominator is that there's always a danger that at some point you start believing your own bullshit. It's part of what makes the best cons/salespeople. There's a whole "what's good for America is good for General Motors, and vice versa" type of mindset. The country is better off with me in power and therefore the things I say and do are perfectly justified, and there's some truth in there anyway, so it's not like I'm completely lying or fabricating it (even though they are). 

I do notice there's a lot of railing about the far right on here, but extremes on both sides are capable of some of the same kinds of mindsets. And unfortunately, conversations are naturally driven by the people who take the most extreme positions among us. 

The real issue as far as I'm concerned is the use of computer technology and fine tuning datasets to establish more and more effective gerrymandering. When the system itself rewards extreme mindsets by requiring candidates to appeal to the most motivated members of their tribe in primaries, without having to significantly concern themselves with general elections, there's going to be a natural pull to the extreme. People are as motivated at the issue of facing a well backed opponent in the primary as they are at losing the race. So they'll tend to shift towards the extreme simply to avoid that outcome. Which can be just as destructive for the kind of representative process I'd like to see as electing a Marjorie Taylor Greene. 

[WhatTheBuck 28784]

15 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

The anti-LGBTQ stuff is a huge part of it, I think - the ones I've seen pushing the idea that he's standing up for Christianity are also very much anti-LGBTQ.

Putin is also a racist who had no respect for our black President. There’s probably some overlap there, too.

Believers are so good at believing what they want to believe. Maybe remind them that Putin spent his career as an KGB intelligence officer serving the godless communists of the Soviet Union. That’s his fundamental creed. Ask them to find an account of his conversion. Is he born again? Explain why so many of his critics wind up dead. Karl Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses. That’s how Putin sees it but he decided he could use it as a tool to manipulate the people, something the ruling class has done throughout history. Anyone who thinks that the murderous dictator Vladimir Putin is a Christian or cares about Christianity other than as a means to maintain his power has a seriously perverted interpretation of Christianity.