Seems to me you ignore the violent US engineered coup in 2014 that installed a regime hostile to its own Russian speaking population and began making war on them for opposing the coup in support of the over-thrown elected government. It is a proxy war the US had planed for decades to weaken Russia's economic position. With the Ukraine government attacking the Donbass they declared their independence. Russia watched this escalate on its border for 8 years before deciding to intervene on their behalf. Russia is not an imperialist nation, they do not have 900 military bases around the world enforcing their empire's desires, the US does. And the US is notorious manipulating wars to profit its military industrial complex. I agree with point 1 & 2 of your plan but the rest needs to be negotiated between Ukraine and Russia and the US, which has undercut every peace effort so far in its insatiable greed for profits, needs to but out.
In short you would have to get the US to support the proposed armistice, and this the US will not do as long as it is under neocon influence. Indeed, the neocons are also trying to start a war with China; one war is not enough for them.
Agree with all comments. The writer won't be satisfied unless Russia returns to its Bolshevist roots. He is not so much opposed to Putin's regime as he is to fascism, as am I. He doesn't understand that this is a standoff between two equally fascistic rivals for control of the world and that the U.S. is the far more aggressive party in this rivalry, putting not only Russia but China on the defensive and using their authoritarianism as the excuse even as they (we) grow more authoritarian ourselves thanks in part to the elitist neoliberal (i.e. neocon) policies of the past several decades that have enriched those at the top and impoverished those at the bottom. We are also perfectly happy to be allies of regimes like the Saudis and Israel, overlooking THEIR authoritarianism and crimes and to sell THEM massive amounts of weaponry. It is the writer who is naive, not those of us who live in the U.S. and have been watching all this closely for decades, including our country's control of NATO expansion and its own clear corporate-driven policies that change regimes whose resources we want to control. In the case of Russia it's both fossil fuels AND its vast farmland, notably Siberia, which Cargill is eyeing as the new global breadbasket as the climate warms, which is why Cargill did NOT leave Russia, giving the excuse that "food should not be used as a weapon." Yeah? Since when? This IS a race to the bottom, but at this point it looks like our own country is accelerating it (also climate change) at a faster rate than the nations we demonize, including India and China.
"Equally" fascistic, by what definition of fascism exactly? Beyond "governments and corporations working together", which is a known issue that's (a) worse in both Russia and China, and (b) continues to have some not-obviously-wrong applications, like water utilities or schools*, what makes a government fascist?
*Personally in favor of vouchers, but if it were universally obvious we'd have already done it, and this isn't an American blog, so let's not digress too much into American issues.
By fascistic I mean just what you think I mean. We just disagree on the details. I am in favor of balance. I believe the public sector should level the playing field by, for instance, funding public schools (I wish property taxes didn't fund them because that creates imbalance—rich schools in rich 'hoods attended by rich kids vs.. . . well, you get it). I am social democrat, like Bernie. I miss the era when management respected labor (it had to because there as just the one labor force) even as it waged a constant battle against labor. Thanks to the New Deal, it was a fair fight then. Now unions are pretty much gone. Why is this sort of thing "fascistic?" Just as they did in Nazi Germany, today's corporations and government work hand in glove for similar objectives. Bayer built and ran Auschwitz. The Third Reich's steel cartels profited from the war too. We engage in "forever wars" that enrich all sorts of corporate giants. The Third Reich's ultimate goal was to control the world. So is ours. So this is not a parochial concern (an "American issue," as you put it). It has global implications. Why? Because the partnership between our government and its monopolistic ("fascistic") corporate partners (see Davos) is forcing a showdown between us and the "authoritarian" East" that is not, as advertised, about democratic values; it is about power. I honestly think Putin and Xi had hoped to be part of a global trade partnership, one that would ease military tensions. But then. . . who would be "the Decider?" As Bush 1, after learning that he'd just agreed to be friends with Russia and not expand NATO, is said to have said, "But wait, WE WON!" To those who favor fascism over checks and balances (the system the Founders hoped for), such a system is for pussies. It's a dog eat dog world. Predator prey. Like nature. Too bad they're wrong about that. Nature ain't nothin' like us.
Perhaps the irony here is that this author speaks about this war as though it were of the nature of any of the US wars of choice since 1950. To this author the US has no history of interfering in the affairs of other nations. It does not and never has supported overthrows, nor has it armed dictators or invaded places on false pretenses. It's a straight up Cockooland/Bizarro World analysis that could earn the author and ongoing spot as guest on various American cable TV networks.
The author never addresses that the US caused this situation and given its druthers it would have Russia broken into numerous small entities by now, each able to be victimized by the rapacious American capitalist colonialism system. Sick thing is many Americans think that would be okay.
Ethical people who study history understand; the Russians are justified in what they're doing, ethical people should support the Russians in their struggle against American imperialism and hegemony. As a matter of fact as an American progressive liberal over 65 I believe that what Russia is doing is not only good for Russia, it's good for the United States. Americans barely reacted when Barack Obama pinned a presidential medal of freedom onto the chest of GW Bush after he blew 5 trillion dollars and turn this country upside down with his homeland security scheme. That's national insanity.
Vladimir Putin is going to go down in Russian history as the Russia equivalent of George Washington + FDR. I wish the author of this article good luck at CNN.
Don't know about "barely reacted", but I'd point out that neither American major political party has a great track record recently on the "not blowing trillions of dollars" front. I remember reading that it's empirically worse when one party's got control of House, Senate, *and* presidency, but I'd recommend checking for yourself; definitely possible to lie with statistics or stop at the conclusion you want to see here.
American interference, well, it certainly predates 1950. Predates 1900, too. The Civil War wouldn't have happened if "live and let live" were the only creed Americans lived by, after all. But the reasons for that interference have been tinged with altruism in a way that seems reduced or absent in other countries' political histories.
(Though China's at least been trying with the Belt and Road stuff)
As for "rapacious American capitalist colonialism system", there's tradeoffs in everything. I'll take it over "rapacious communist/dictatorial colonialism system", which seems to have been the alternative on offer. The canonical example, I believe, is South vs North Korea, even though the former had dictatorial elements for quite a while after the armistice.
Ok, you don't know. Great you wish to share that, and offer some whatboutism. I don't need a very lightweight history lesson either. I love interesting conversation, which you do not accomplish.
I mean, if you're going to claim yours as the only "ethical" position without pointing to what it is Russia's doing that's so good (is it the invasion, the ads for Donald Trump, using Wagner, using *up* Wagner...? Let's not play Texas Sharpshooter here, paint your bullseye *before* you shoot), there's not a whole lot of interesting conversation to be had: either I'm part of the choir you're preaching to, or I'm not.
Who gives a flying f--k for "Russia's security framework requirements....That's not our responsibility. Who on the left gives a flying f--k for the lives of innocent civilians being slaughtered remorselessly by one of the most imperialist and violent regimes in history: Russia, who killed 30 million of their own people under Stalin, colonized western Europe and western Asia, murders dissenters without a thought, is ruled by mad oligarchs robbing their country blind? Not one addled leftist has any moral scruples or principles except hating the USA and loving all its enemies that share its hate. No truth has ever been witnessed on the left. Ukraine fascist? Not lately, you jerk.
Or didnt you know that has a new leader and government sharing western democracy? The American left isnt anti imperialist. It just hates the USA and loves its enemies. Go peddle your
lies to your equally meretricious leftist friends. No one pays attention to the left, nor did they ever. And quite rightly.
Impossible. Absolutely asinine to think Ukraine's borders haven't changed and aren't going to stay exactly where Putin wants them. Look Russia's ready fuck some shit up if he has too. He's already shown that NATO can't hang militarily... What makes anyone think at this point Russia's going to roll over and hand something back? What is wrong with you people? You're dealing with a PEOPLE, not Putin...and you know nothing.
"1. Stop fighting on both sides;" - at first glance, everything is correct. But: a) attention is not paid to the causal relationship and, consequently, to fair responsibility for aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity and humaneness (maybe somewhere I am legally wrong in the wording, but the essence of this does not change); b) also under item “4. On the territories left by the RF Armed Forces, the UN forces and its peacekeeping forces are temporarily introduced” it is unlikely that it will be possible to organize observations from the UN or the OSCE directly in the Russian Federation, since the revenge factor in such large territories is difficult to negate, and this is only in terms of ensuring life safety ; the very fact of working reparations does not return a non-renewable resource - a separate human life;
"...temporarily deploy UN peacekeeping forces from among the countries not directly or indirectly involved in the conflict" - the successful creative work of peacekeepers in the territories of Ukraine, left by the Russian Armed Forces within the borders of 1991, rather depends on the well-coordinated work of peacekeepers and, importantly, on their interest in ensuring security due to the understanding of the impact of the consequences of a military conflict, in particular, on themselves.
"...And therefore, you need to take responsibility, take the first step, and start a process that will lead to an end to the war, and the workers to victory in their struggle for power. So that the defeat of the insane adventurist plans of the government of the Russian Federation does not turn into a defeat for the people and the country." - the defeat of the people of the Russian Federation and the Russian Federation itself in fact took place long ago and not in one day or year; non-defeat was not declared.
****************
From the same "Plan of Peace: Without NATO and RF bayonets": “However, in general, the correct anti-imperialist position of rejecting the criminal war suffers greatly from “pacifism” in the worst sense of the word. That is, this point of view, by and large, comes down to only one thesis - the immediate cessation of the war. Without a specific plan, “deciphering” step by step, by what methods this will be achieved, by what means, under what conditions, at what borders, etc. ”, - step by step and by what methods, by what means and under what conditions, on what borders this is achieved the members of the UN decide, those countries (unfortunately, the Russian Federation has influence on the decisions of the UN), which, despite a certain imperialist nature of their life, could no longer bring it to bloodshed. It is precisely such a designated phenomenon as imperialism that concerns only the economic aspects of human life and is economically regulated as much as possible. And not reducing this phenomenon to the destruction of one's own kind of living beings, first of all, testifies to the institutions of democracy that have already taken place and are working in society.
Neocons and leftists on the same side equals lies. The spectrum of idiocy includes amorality, Hate America, phony pacifism and just plain ignorance; just read these comments and you will see all of this clearly illustrated. Who gives a weasel's ass about who did what in the past? An imperialist totalitarian country bombs innocent civilians and their towns out of existence and the neocons and left pretend they neither saw nor heard anything...a conspiracy of fools and tools.
What? The American anti imperial left has studied the roots of the conflict including recent history and we have been the ones calling for the US and NATO to do what was necessary for peace, namely to abide by 1) the Ukrainian constitution ca. 2013, 2) failing that abide by Minsk Accords, 3) abide by the promises not to move NATO one inch eastward, 4) failing all of that actually sit down and discuss Russia's security framework requirements.
Nobody among us on the real left pretend anything; we are the ones who have known the truth since 2008. It was Ukrainian fascism with NATO and US support and encouragement that culminated in the 2014 coup and led us to where we are.
Russia declined again and again to intervene and practically begged the guarantors of the Minsk agreements to reach an agreement for some type of Ukrainian federalization or simply the partial autonomy of Donbass. Crimea is off the table. The people there have spoken and it's obvious why our author specifically ignored that referendum because the results carry forth today and they have no collective desire to be returned to Ukrainian rule. IOW the there was no "sham" vote, and Russian desires to redo the ballot in Lugansk and Donetsk is to prove to the world what the people of Donbass want when given a choice among acceptable options even it is simple peaceful autonomy within a Ukrainian federation and not absorbed into the RF.
Seems to me you ignore the violent US engineered coup in 2014 that installed a regime hostile to its own Russian speaking population and began making war on them for opposing the coup in support of the over-thrown elected government. It is a proxy war the US had planed for decades to weaken Russia's economic position. With the Ukraine government attacking the Donbass they declared their independence. Russia watched this escalate on its border for 8 years before deciding to intervene on their behalf. Russia is not an imperialist nation, they do not have 900 military bases around the world enforcing their empire's desires, the US does. And the US is notorious manipulating wars to profit its military industrial complex. I agree with point 1 & 2 of your plan but the rest needs to be negotiated between Ukraine and Russia and the US, which has undercut every peace effort so far in its insatiable greed for profits, needs to but out.
In short you would have to get the US to support the proposed armistice, and this the US will not do as long as it is under neocon influence. Indeed, the neocons are also trying to start a war with China; one war is not enough for them.
Seems to me the article ignores every important fact related to the war.
Agree with all comments. The writer won't be satisfied unless Russia returns to its Bolshevist roots. He is not so much opposed to Putin's regime as he is to fascism, as am I. He doesn't understand that this is a standoff between two equally fascistic rivals for control of the world and that the U.S. is the far more aggressive party in this rivalry, putting not only Russia but China on the defensive and using their authoritarianism as the excuse even as they (we) grow more authoritarian ourselves thanks in part to the elitist neoliberal (i.e. neocon) policies of the past several decades that have enriched those at the top and impoverished those at the bottom. We are also perfectly happy to be allies of regimes like the Saudis and Israel, overlooking THEIR authoritarianism and crimes and to sell THEM massive amounts of weaponry. It is the writer who is naive, not those of us who live in the U.S. and have been watching all this closely for decades, including our country's control of NATO expansion and its own clear corporate-driven policies that change regimes whose resources we want to control. In the case of Russia it's both fossil fuels AND its vast farmland, notably Siberia, which Cargill is eyeing as the new global breadbasket as the climate warms, which is why Cargill did NOT leave Russia, giving the excuse that "food should not be used as a weapon." Yeah? Since when? This IS a race to the bottom, but at this point it looks like our own country is accelerating it (also climate change) at a faster rate than the nations we demonize, including India and China.
"Equally" fascistic, by what definition of fascism exactly? Beyond "governments and corporations working together", which is a known issue that's (a) worse in both Russia and China, and (b) continues to have some not-obviously-wrong applications, like water utilities or schools*, what makes a government fascist?
*Personally in favor of vouchers, but if it were universally obvious we'd have already done it, and this isn't an American blog, so let's not digress too much into American issues.
By fascistic I mean just what you think I mean. We just disagree on the details. I am in favor of balance. I believe the public sector should level the playing field by, for instance, funding public schools (I wish property taxes didn't fund them because that creates imbalance—rich schools in rich 'hoods attended by rich kids vs.. . . well, you get it). I am social democrat, like Bernie. I miss the era when management respected labor (it had to because there as just the one labor force) even as it waged a constant battle against labor. Thanks to the New Deal, it was a fair fight then. Now unions are pretty much gone. Why is this sort of thing "fascistic?" Just as they did in Nazi Germany, today's corporations and government work hand in glove for similar objectives. Bayer built and ran Auschwitz. The Third Reich's steel cartels profited from the war too. We engage in "forever wars" that enrich all sorts of corporate giants. The Third Reich's ultimate goal was to control the world. So is ours. So this is not a parochial concern (an "American issue," as you put it). It has global implications. Why? Because the partnership between our government and its monopolistic ("fascistic") corporate partners (see Davos) is forcing a showdown between us and the "authoritarian" East" that is not, as advertised, about democratic values; it is about power. I honestly think Putin and Xi had hoped to be part of a global trade partnership, one that would ease military tensions. But then. . . who would be "the Decider?" As Bush 1, after learning that he'd just agreed to be friends with Russia and not expand NATO, is said to have said, "But wait, WE WON!" To those who favor fascism over checks and balances (the system the Founders hoped for), such a system is for pussies. It's a dog eat dog world. Predator prey. Like nature. Too bad they're wrong about that. Nature ain't nothin' like us.
This is standard American neohawk propaganda.
Perhaps the irony here is that this author speaks about this war as though it were of the nature of any of the US wars of choice since 1950. To this author the US has no history of interfering in the affairs of other nations. It does not and never has supported overthrows, nor has it armed dictators or invaded places on false pretenses. It's a straight up Cockooland/Bizarro World analysis that could earn the author and ongoing spot as guest on various American cable TV networks.
The author never addresses that the US caused this situation and given its druthers it would have Russia broken into numerous small entities by now, each able to be victimized by the rapacious American capitalist colonialism system. Sick thing is many Americans think that would be okay.
Ethical people who study history understand; the Russians are justified in what they're doing, ethical people should support the Russians in their struggle against American imperialism and hegemony. As a matter of fact as an American progressive liberal over 65 I believe that what Russia is doing is not only good for Russia, it's good for the United States. Americans barely reacted when Barack Obama pinned a presidential medal of freedom onto the chest of GW Bush after he blew 5 trillion dollars and turn this country upside down with his homeland security scheme. That's national insanity.
Vladimir Putin is going to go down in Russian history as the Russia equivalent of George Washington + FDR. I wish the author of this article good luck at CNN.
Don't know about "barely reacted", but I'd point out that neither American major political party has a great track record recently on the "not blowing trillions of dollars" front. I remember reading that it's empirically worse when one party's got control of House, Senate, *and* presidency, but I'd recommend checking for yourself; definitely possible to lie with statistics or stop at the conclusion you want to see here.
American interference, well, it certainly predates 1950. Predates 1900, too. The Civil War wouldn't have happened if "live and let live" were the only creed Americans lived by, after all. But the reasons for that interference have been tinged with altruism in a way that seems reduced or absent in other countries' political histories.
(Though China's at least been trying with the Belt and Road stuff)
As for "rapacious American capitalist colonialism system", there's tradeoffs in everything. I'll take it over "rapacious communist/dictatorial colonialism system", which seems to have been the alternative on offer. The canonical example, I believe, is South vs North Korea, even though the former had dictatorial elements for quite a while after the armistice.
Ok, you don't know. Great you wish to share that, and offer some whatboutism. I don't need a very lightweight history lesson either. I love interesting conversation, which you do not accomplish.
I mean, if you're going to claim yours as the only "ethical" position without pointing to what it is Russia's doing that's so good (is it the invasion, the ads for Donald Trump, using Wagner, using *up* Wagner...? Let's not play Texas Sharpshooter here, paint your bullseye *before* you shoot), there's not a whole lot of interesting conversation to be had: either I'm part of the choir you're preaching to, or I'm not.
Who gives a flying f--k for "Russia's security framework requirements....That's not our responsibility. Who on the left gives a flying f--k for the lives of innocent civilians being slaughtered remorselessly by one of the most imperialist and violent regimes in history: Russia, who killed 30 million of their own people under Stalin, colonized western Europe and western Asia, murders dissenters without a thought, is ruled by mad oligarchs robbing their country blind? Not one addled leftist has any moral scruples or principles except hating the USA and loving all its enemies that share its hate. No truth has ever been witnessed on the left. Ukraine fascist? Not lately, you jerk.
Or didnt you know that has a new leader and government sharing western democracy? The American left isnt anti imperialist. It just hates the USA and loves its enemies. Go peddle your
lies to your equally meretricious leftist friends. No one pays attention to the left, nor did they ever. And quite rightly.
Impossible. Absolutely asinine to think Ukraine's borders haven't changed and aren't going to stay exactly where Putin wants them. Look Russia's ready fuck some shit up if he has too. He's already shown that NATO can't hang militarily... What makes anyone think at this point Russia's going to roll over and hand something back? What is wrong with you people? You're dealing with a PEOPLE, not Putin...and you know nothing.
"1. Stop fighting on both sides;" - at first glance, everything is correct. But: a) attention is not paid to the causal relationship and, consequently, to fair responsibility for aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity and humaneness (maybe somewhere I am legally wrong in the wording, but the essence of this does not change); b) also under item “4. On the territories left by the RF Armed Forces, the UN forces and its peacekeeping forces are temporarily introduced” it is unlikely that it will be possible to organize observations from the UN or the OSCE directly in the Russian Federation, since the revenge factor in such large territories is difficult to negate, and this is only in terms of ensuring life safety ; the very fact of working reparations does not return a non-renewable resource - a separate human life;
"...temporarily deploy UN peacekeeping forces from among the countries not directly or indirectly involved in the conflict" - the successful creative work of peacekeepers in the territories of Ukraine, left by the Russian Armed Forces within the borders of 1991, rather depends on the well-coordinated work of peacekeepers and, importantly, on their interest in ensuring security due to the understanding of the impact of the consequences of a military conflict, in particular, on themselves.
"...And therefore, you need to take responsibility, take the first step, and start a process that will lead to an end to the war, and the workers to victory in their struggle for power. So that the defeat of the insane adventurist plans of the government of the Russian Federation does not turn into a defeat for the people and the country." - the defeat of the people of the Russian Federation and the Russian Federation itself in fact took place long ago and not in one day or year; non-defeat was not declared.
****************
From the same "Plan of Peace: Without NATO and RF bayonets": “However, in general, the correct anti-imperialist position of rejecting the criminal war suffers greatly from “pacifism” in the worst sense of the word. That is, this point of view, by and large, comes down to only one thesis - the immediate cessation of the war. Without a specific plan, “deciphering” step by step, by what methods this will be achieved, by what means, under what conditions, at what borders, etc. ”, - step by step and by what methods, by what means and under what conditions, on what borders this is achieved the members of the UN decide, those countries (unfortunately, the Russian Federation has influence on the decisions of the UN), which, despite a certain imperialist nature of their life, could no longer bring it to bloodshed. It is precisely such a designated phenomenon as imperialism that concerns only the economic aspects of human life and is economically regulated as much as possible. And not reducing this phenomenon to the destruction of one's own kind of living beings, first of all, testifies to the institutions of democracy that have already taken place and are working in society.
Unsubscribed..... fed up with pro neocon rhetoric
Neocons and leftists on the same side equals lies. The spectrum of idiocy includes amorality, Hate America, phony pacifism and just plain ignorance; just read these comments and you will see all of this clearly illustrated. Who gives a weasel's ass about who did what in the past? An imperialist totalitarian country bombs innocent civilians and their towns out of existence and the neocons and left pretend they neither saw nor heard anything...a conspiracy of fools and tools.
What? The American anti imperial left has studied the roots of the conflict including recent history and we have been the ones calling for the US and NATO to do what was necessary for peace, namely to abide by 1) the Ukrainian constitution ca. 2013, 2) failing that abide by Minsk Accords, 3) abide by the promises not to move NATO one inch eastward, 4) failing all of that actually sit down and discuss Russia's security framework requirements.
Nobody among us on the real left pretend anything; we are the ones who have known the truth since 2008. It was Ukrainian fascism with NATO and US support and encouragement that culminated in the 2014 coup and led us to where we are.
Russia declined again and again to intervene and practically begged the guarantors of the Minsk agreements to reach an agreement for some type of Ukrainian federalization or simply the partial autonomy of Donbass. Crimea is off the table. The people there have spoken and it's obvious why our author specifically ignored that referendum because the results carry forth today and they have no collective desire to be returned to Ukrainian rule. IOW the there was no "sham" vote, and Russian desires to redo the ballot in Lugansk and Donetsk is to prove to the world what the people of Donbass want when given a choice among acceptable options even it is simple peaceful autonomy within a Ukrainian federation and not absorbed into the RF.