I was disappointed in the discussion for several reasons. Because I am currently reading Ferguson's <i>War of the World,</i> recent events in E.Europe are discussed from all quarters in a dangerous, a-historical manner. Many periods of mass murder and internecine ethnic crimes predate this tragedy. Additionally, contemporary sources complete ignore US issues that provided comparable angst. I have yet to hear any journalist discuss the problematic arms-to-Ukraine with our history of debate about the Neutrality Acts, or with the rationale for not joining the League of Nations. Everyone dodges the question of NATO's Article 5 -- the axiomatic link to war if some one attacks a NATO member, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Albania or Latvia. After the start of WWI, there is, of course, no reason to think some small NATO member would start a False Flag war for narrow reasons. :)
For me, it is easy to project how we might be drawn into an unnecessary war. For others, many of whom thoughtlessly endorse a no-fly zone, less so!
For many citizens, it is axiomatic that the US should support independence for Ukraine. Russia's claim to re-gain control over a wayward state lacks standing. I wonder. How would Lincoln, for example, counsel Putin today? Upon what principles is statecraft based? Has Putin used the example of the Union's war on the Confederate States to bolster his claim? We should remember that General Sherman did not spread joy on this march through Georgia or his burning of Columbia, SC.
And, I was shocked none of the participants reflected on the problematic nature of Ukraine's location --- nukes there threaten Russia just as missiles in Cuba or a Chinese military base in Haiti would threaten us. The legacy of WWII for Russia and Ukraine is much more meaningful for contemporaries on both sides whose relatives died in the war. For us Americans, WWII in this area is but an "academic" subject for a few history profs. For them, the 100-1 WWII death ratio of Russians/US soldiers has yet to receive the sensitivity our foreign policy toward Putin and E. Europe deserves.
Yes, a single voice from the audience, but I remain "unimpressed" by the dialogue.
I agree with many of your comments. Not much discussion of the events leading up to WWI and WWII. There are a lot of corollaries between 1939-1941 and today. John's frame of reference seems to be the last 25 years. In any event it was better than listening to Glenn and John discussing the pros and cons of affirmative action for another hour.
I'll check out Ferguson's book. After the past 5 years or so of strictly non-fiction I recently took a break and switched to fiction. I read "The Winds of War" by Herman Wouk almost 50 years ago and am just about through with rereading it (audible book this time). It's scary to think how history may be repeating itself.
Thought I've spent years studying issues related to the origins and history of the Cold War, I confess my ignorance about many of the specifics about fascist actions since WWII and how they affect overarching Ukrainian/Russian relations. I also appreciate that there are a host of cultural/political issues that arise from ethnic identities and ethnic conflicts in E. Europe since WWII. In the US, we have problems understanding the history of cultural conflict between racial groups and between Tribal identities. Thus who can claim confidence about understanding conflicts between ethnic/language groups in E.Europe and Ukraine?
Just as Europeans would have difficulty understanding conflicts between various "black" groups -- and between various Indian tribes, I think it is a stretch to assume we can easily understand cultural/religious/intellectual conflicts among tribes in the US, let alone severe political factions in both our major political parties. Seems it is NOT unreasonable to assume we face a similar problem trying to understand the complexities of the contemporary conflict. Before WWI, most had simple but 'valid' views about the 'enemy' --simple views about the forces of light and darkness. Four years later--and for decades since, simple views fail to impress or satisfy. JMHO.
I was disappointed in the discussion for several reasons. Because I am currently reading Ferguson's <i>War of the World,</i> recent events in E.Europe are discussed from all quarters in a dangerous, a-historical manner. Many periods of mass murder and internecine ethnic crimes predate this tragedy. Additionally, contemporary sources complete ignore US issues that provided comparable angst. I have yet to hear any journalist discuss the problematic arms-to-Ukraine with our history of debate about the Neutrality Acts, or with the rationale for not joining the League of Nations. Everyone dodges the question of NATO's Article 5 -- the axiomatic link to war if some one attacks a NATO member, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Albania or Latvia. After the start of WWI, there is, of course, no reason to think some small NATO member would start a False Flag war for narrow reasons. :)
For me, it is easy to project how we might be drawn into an unnecessary war. For others, many of whom thoughtlessly endorse a no-fly zone, less so!
For many citizens, it is axiomatic that the US should support independence for Ukraine. Russia's claim to re-gain control over a wayward state lacks standing. I wonder. How would Lincoln, for example, counsel Putin today? Upon what principles is statecraft based? Has Putin used the example of the Union's war on the Confederate States to bolster his claim? We should remember that General Sherman did not spread joy on this march through Georgia or his burning of Columbia, SC.
And, I was shocked none of the participants reflected on the problematic nature of Ukraine's location --- nukes there threaten Russia just as missiles in Cuba or a Chinese military base in Haiti would threaten us. The legacy of WWII for Russia and Ukraine is much more meaningful for contemporaries on both sides whose relatives died in the war. For us Americans, WWII in this area is but an "academic" subject for a few history profs. For them, the 100-1 WWII death ratio of Russians/US soldiers has yet to receive the sensitivity our foreign policy toward Putin and E. Europe deserves.
Yes, a single voice from the audience, but I remain "unimpressed" by the dialogue.
I agree with many of your comments. Not much discussion of the events leading up to WWI and WWII. There are a lot of corollaries between 1939-1941 and today. John's frame of reference seems to be the last 25 years. In any event it was better than listening to Glenn and John discussing the pros and cons of affirmative action for another hour.
I'll check out Ferguson's book. After the past 5 years or so of strictly non-fiction I recently took a break and switched to fiction. I read "The Winds of War" by Herman Wouk almost 50 years ago and am just about through with rereading it (audible book this time). It's scary to think how history may be repeating itself.
Thought I've spent years studying issues related to the origins and history of the Cold War, I confess my ignorance about many of the specifics about fascist actions since WWII and how they affect overarching Ukrainian/Russian relations. I also appreciate that there are a host of cultural/political issues that arise from ethnic identities and ethnic conflicts in E. Europe since WWII. In the US, we have problems understanding the history of cultural conflict between racial groups and between Tribal identities. Thus who can claim confidence about understanding conflicts between ethnic/language groups in E.Europe and Ukraine?
Just as Europeans would have difficulty understanding conflicts between various "black" groups -- and between various Indian tribes, I think it is a stretch to assume we can easily understand cultural/religious/intellectual conflicts among tribes in the US, let alone severe political factions in both our major political parties. Seems it is NOT unreasonable to assume we face a similar problem trying to understand the complexities of the contemporary conflict. Before WWI, most had simple but 'valid' views about the 'enemy' --simple views about the forces of light and darkness. Four years later--and for decades since, simple views fail to impress or satisfy. JMHO.
Thanks for the well-informed and challenging comment
Big fan of Matt tiabbi. Can’t wait to read and watch.