It is a “proxy war” - and what’s the problem? If we get directly involved (which might eventually happen) that is de facto WWIII. If you don’t like the idea of Ukraine fighting and dying so we don’t have to - then go and help.
Yes. Biden stumbled into war with a nuclear power and spends his time focusing on CO2 and trans-sexuals, who are real people but very rare. His protection against impeachment is Kamala Harris, who cannot be either President or VP with Gavin Newsome.
Cornell West is an acolyte of the big flip—from a nation of heroes to a nation of apologists. Technical innovation and cultural values and patterns of organization flow outward from areas of concentration to those of less density. Vibrant cultures expand to fill available niches, and in turn defend beachheads established against the forces of entropy or those of competing systems. Peace is dynamic balance and as such relative rather than absolute. West is of idealist stripe: war, like poverty, is not nice so we won’t have it. Removed from reality’s necessity, we may imagine a perfect world. One may live in that bubble, but there is a question of its sustainability.
Putting the USA involvement to the side: the Russian people have no right to the country's that the communist regime had overran at the end of World War II.
Them wanting to have a say over how those people determine their own future's is just plain wrong.
Again, putting aside anything at all to do with the United States.
Isn't it Russia's militaristic attitude that remains, from NATO's original reason for being, it's reason for being?
Our choice, as a nation, is do we help our neighbors when their neighbors attack them. I'm not claiming to have an answer for all morality, but that is the question.
Of course it is a proxy war. The question is why is there a war? what role did we play in starting it? Which side should we support and why? What type of support should we offer? I haven’t seen a lot of light on those issues, though plenty of heat.
I find it hard to get past the irony of people who on the one had are so critical of American power in the world, taking a view of Russia’s actions that essentially says it’s for America to ‘make promises’ on behalf of other states and that this ultimately must be about America, a so called ‘proxy war’. That seems both arrogant and narcissistic.
This argument almost entirely erases the agency not only of Ukrainians, but in the sense of considering the history, the agency of people in former Soviet states and the other Eastern European countries that suffered under Soviet influence.
If after the fall of the Soviet Union these states who moved towards open, market based societies, broadly democratic, broadly free were to say that they had genuine fears based on history and the likely nature of post Soviet Russia and wanted part of security club of western democratic nations, it was for the US to say no, to deny them that request, that the US gets to decide based on ‘promises’?
There is every reason to believe that were these nations not NATO members Russia would have made attempts to control them in some way, to deny them the ability to shape their own futures. Politicians from these countries have been open and clear about this and what’s happening in Ukraine would seem to very much validate those fears.
The analogy to the US and Mexico is ridiculous as the modern US doesn’t have designs and isn’t trying to turn Mexico into a client state.
The Baltic states and others NATO membership is a direct result of those countries very real fears and it insults them to try and argue its really just about American power, empire and a supposed ‘proxy war’ with Russia.
The only thing I have against it, is that it cost so much treasure that the Europeans should be putting up. However, we all know that they are spineless, so what did we really expect?
Ok - just 60 seconds in and the wonderful and esteemed Dr West exposes himself as the authoritarian apologist that he is and that serves his irrelevant presidential campaign. Sometimes egos just take over for intelligence and am sorry to see, but not all surprised to see his capitulation to the easy way out. It’s possible his best days are behind him.
You should talk to Stephen Kotkin on this issue
It is a “proxy war” - and what’s the problem? If we get directly involved (which might eventually happen) that is de facto WWIII. If you don’t like the idea of Ukraine fighting and dying so we don’t have to - then go and help.
Yes. Biden stumbled into war with a nuclear power and spends his time focusing on CO2 and trans-sexuals, who are real people but very rare. His protection against impeachment is Kamala Harris, who cannot be either President or VP with Gavin Newsome.
Cornell West is an acolyte of the big flip—from a nation of heroes to a nation of apologists. Technical innovation and cultural values and patterns of organization flow outward from areas of concentration to those of less density. Vibrant cultures expand to fill available niches, and in turn defend beachheads established against the forces of entropy or those of competing systems. Peace is dynamic balance and as such relative rather than absolute. West is of idealist stripe: war, like poverty, is not nice so we won’t have it. Removed from reality’s necessity, we may imagine a perfect world. One may live in that bubble, but there is a question of its sustainability.
Putting the USA involvement to the side: the Russian people have no right to the country's that the communist regime had overran at the end of World War II.
Them wanting to have a say over how those people determine their own future's is just plain wrong.
Again, putting aside anything at all to do with the United States.
Isn't it Russia's militaristic attitude that remains, from NATO's original reason for being, it's reason for being?
Our choice, as a nation, is do we help our neighbors when their neighbors attack them. I'm not claiming to have an answer for all morality, but that is the question.
Of course it is a proxy war. The question is why is there a war? what role did we play in starting it? Which side should we support and why? What type of support should we offer? I haven’t seen a lot of light on those issues, though plenty of heat.
I find it hard to get past the irony of people who on the one had are so critical of American power in the world, taking a view of Russia’s actions that essentially says it’s for America to ‘make promises’ on behalf of other states and that this ultimately must be about America, a so called ‘proxy war’. That seems both arrogant and narcissistic.
This argument almost entirely erases the agency not only of Ukrainians, but in the sense of considering the history, the agency of people in former Soviet states and the other Eastern European countries that suffered under Soviet influence.
If after the fall of the Soviet Union these states who moved towards open, market based societies, broadly democratic, broadly free were to say that they had genuine fears based on history and the likely nature of post Soviet Russia and wanted part of security club of western democratic nations, it was for the US to say no, to deny them that request, that the US gets to decide based on ‘promises’?
There is every reason to believe that were these nations not NATO members Russia would have made attempts to control them in some way, to deny them the ability to shape their own futures. Politicians from these countries have been open and clear about this and what’s happening in Ukraine would seem to very much validate those fears.
The analogy to the US and Mexico is ridiculous as the modern US doesn’t have designs and isn’t trying to turn Mexico into a client state.
The Baltic states and others NATO membership is a direct result of those countries very real fears and it insults them to try and argue its really just about American power, empire and a supposed ‘proxy war’ with Russia.
BREAKING NEWS: Biden is sending [cluster munitions] to Ukraine which has been banned in 100 countries.
The U.S. military industrial complex is the true winner. Defense stocks might be a good buy now.
Of course we are.
The only thing I have against it, is that it cost so much treasure that the Europeans should be putting up. However, we all know that they are spineless, so what did we really expect?
Brother West has ever spoken better sense. What in heck are we Doing with our army and why? Who benefits?.
Ok - just 60 seconds in and the wonderful and esteemed Dr West exposes himself as the authoritarian apologist that he is and that serves his irrelevant presidential campaign. Sometimes egos just take over for intelligence and am sorry to see, but not all surprised to see his capitulation to the easy way out. It’s possible his best days are behind him.