-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is the US interest in Ukraine?
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, here it is . The world is complex and only you can understand it. I am in total awe that you can reduce it down to one word.
I'm not saying that only the USA matters in the world. That wasn't my point, in the context of the part I was responding to.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Don't be awed. I just said one word - I didn't reduce the whole shebang to one word.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I am not a Trump supporter and I don't watch Tucker Carlson or Fox News commentary.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, I try to hold other humans as just as important as me. So it is not just about many words.
I don't see how one has anything to do with the other. If someone advocates that their own country take a more peaceful, non-aggressive approach to geopolitics, how does that translate to "defending" hostility or abuse of other countries?
I've asked others here to connect the dots between the two positions and explain the logic underlying their conclusion that they amount to the same thing. All I've seen in response is deflection and counter-punching, but no real answers.
I recall similar arguments raised during the Vietnam War, except it was the right-wing chiding and condemning the left for aiding and abetting atrocities, aggression, and abuses. The same arguments and the same rhetorical tactics. It's because of this kind of rhetoric that the American masses are emotionally manipulated and more likely to support the kinds of American foreign policies which you and many others have expressed profound distaste for.
The thing is, those who might be saying that the US should stay out of it, that we have no business involving ourselves in other nations' wars or advocating favoritism among foreign nations, they're also taking a position which sides with the U.S. That's a strictly "pro-American" position, whether the interventionist warmongers wish to admit it or not.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Whataboutism - Wikipedia
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Then what would the basis for such a thoughtless and uninformed stance?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
If true, then my pov should be easy enough to refute. I'm waiting.
How would you have handled US policy re: Ukraine differently since the invasion? Provide no military aid to Ukraine and pretend the conflict isn't happening? You understand that means Ukraine would've swiftly lost, and best case scenario Russia annexes Eastern Ukraine and installs a puppet pro-Putin government in the West. Is that...a preferable outcome, to you?
See post #253. You can also check out my response in post #267 in which I address many of the same positions as you're espousing here.
I don't think everyone who opposes American aid to Ukraine is a Putin apologist. I see two kinds of opposition to said aid: one based in support for Putin or justification of his motives and another based in isolationism or a hands-off approach to foreign conflicts insofar as not providing aid to any party in a foreign conflict. Would it be correct to say that your position is in the latter category?
I'm not an isolationist, and I don't always oppose aiding one side in a foreign conflict. I think the economy and travel are especially global today for isolationism to be defensible, for one thing, and that's before taking into account the major ethical issues it raises. I suppose one could argue that withholding aid from Ukraine is not isolationist as long as the US still condemns the war, but mere condemnation changes little to nothing in the grand scheme of things. Without military and financial aid, Ukraine could be annexed, and Poland, Moldova, and others may well be next in line. I think allowing an imperialist aggressor free rein to do that would severely worsen the international political and economic climate. It could also embolden other imperialist plans in the future.
My problem with American foreign policy isn't the very notion of interventionism per se; it's the fact that the vast majority of American interventionism has historically been abusive, unnecessarily disruptive, and focused on American geopolitical interests even if they directly conflict with the interests and self-determination of local populations. You'll notice that I rarely bring up Libya as an example of abusive foreign policy by the US or the West in general. This is because, while the execution of the NATO strikes on Gaddafi's forces could have been handled in a better way, the idea itself would have helped to remove a murderous tyrant from power per Libyans' own will and put an end to his crimes. It was a far cry from something like the Bay of Pigs invasion or the American intervention in Chile to install a puppet dictatorship.
Regarding Vietnam, this is also a different situation, from what I see, because the US is not invading as it did back then. I remember when the US and UK tried to authorize military action in Syria following Assad's chemical attack. They both couldn't gain the authorization, and public surveys showed that most people were against direct military action. On paper, someone might argue that people were letting a dictator carry out crimes against humanity while they were watching from the sidelines, but this would be a superficial argument because it would ignore the historical context of military actions with similar official reasons such as in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many people understandably no longer trusted the American and British governments with authorization of military force even though many of those same people recognized Assad's crimes and saw him as a murderer. A lot of people knew there was a problem and wanted to help, but they disagreed that direct military action was wise.
This is another reason I'm in favor of the aid to Ukraine. It's the best way to approach the war without a full-scale invasion that would trigger a third world war, possibly a nuclear one, and further harm Ukrainians (and everyone else) or a full hands-off approach that would write Putin a blank check to fulfill his imperialist ambitions. If my own country got invaded by a hostile imperialist regime, I would hope its allies would provide aid to help it fend off the invasion. There's a fine line between heavy-handed interventionism and necessary aid, and it's far from an easy balance to strike.
Letting Putin have his way wouldn't be peaceful; it would just kick the can down the road.
As I clarified above, I don't think interventionism is always bad, although most American interventionism has historically been the hostile and immorally self-serving kind, like its Soviet counterpart was. I have no problem expressing favoritism toward a nation fending off an imperialist invasion where the invading forces have committed war crimes and mass murder of civilians. I also express the same support for fellow developing and third-world countries against Western imperialism and believe my country should stand by our allies against such. This doesn't have to entail sending military forces elsewhere, which should always be an absolute last resort. It just means I wouldn't be against providing aid to other countries against such aggression when possible.
taykair
Active Member
I see no honor in opposing a large, corrupt, authoritarian regime by supporting a smaller, yet equally corrupt, authoritarian regime.
The US hasn't had a very good track record when it comes to fighting proxy wars.
Also, I'm old enough to remember when the GOP were the "warmongers" and the Democrats were the ones saying "give peace a chance".
The times -- they are a changin'.
(EDIT - I don't know why I wrote "old enough to remember". It was only about twenty years ago, after all.)
The US hasn't had a very good track record when it comes to fighting proxy wars.
Also, I'm old enough to remember when the GOP were the "warmongers" and the Democrats were the ones saying "give peace a chance".
The times -- they are a changin'.
(EDIT - I don't know why I wrote "old enough to remember". It was only about twenty years ago, after all.)
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Again, can you supply us a link? If not, then I think we know where the real problem lies.
Yes, that would be fair. I don't think "isolationist" would be the correct term, but more "neutral" and "non-aligned." I have studied a fair amount of Russian history, but just because I understand some of their position and how they might perceive the world, I don't believe it makes me a Putin apologist. There are many Russians who strongly oppose Putin and don't like what he's doing. Even if Putin never existed, Russia itself would still have legitimate grievances and understandable fears about the expansion of NATO. For those who are unwilling or unable to understand that, I'm sorry, but I say what I say based on my knowledge and understanding of history - both Russian and American history. It's not a "thoughtless and uniformed view," and it's not RW propaganda or the imaginings of Tucker Carlson (who I've never watched anyway), as some people in this thread are trying to portray it (and failing badly).
All I would really ask is that we try to keep the discussion somewhat grounded in historical fact.
I understand the point you're making. I perceive it as well-intentioned, although there's an old saying that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. Sometimes, doing the right thing could trigger a thousand different unintended wrong things. Outside interventionism can often make a bad situation even worse. I'm not saying the US should do nothing, but again, we should think about what we're doing carefully and with clear heads.
Technically speaking, the US did not invade South Vietnam. We were there at the official request of their government, at least on paper. The US government is very "legalese" oriented, and this, in and of itself, can be considered a questionable tactic when applied to complex geopolitical questions where "the law" itself may be in dispute or somewhat vague. Likewise with the Bay of Pigs and Chile. All of the legal niceties were considered and addressed, but it still led to a very messy situation. US-flagged troops did not invade either Cuba or Chile, yet we found native personnel willing to do our bidding just the same.
But on the grand scale, sometimes these "native personnel" may also have their own agenda - smiling and friendly and saying "Go USA!" Yet, they might still be playing both sides of the fence and may prove to be treacherous (or maybe we are, it's hard to tell sometimes). Ho Chi Minh was once a US ally, and so was Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. What made them turn against us? Did they suddenly decide to go rogue for no reason?
I don't think anyone is letting Putin have his way. Part of the reason why he's getting his way now is probably because the Russian people feel threatened, which usually leads to strong support for a heavy-handed leader like Putin. They sense the hostility of the West towards their country and people, which makes them feel fear, which translates into even more fanatical support for Putin. Cause and effect. It's unintended consequences, just as the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War had the effect of practically handing the former Russian Empire to the Soviets on a silver platter.
Just as the Allied leaders at Versailles in 1919 made unfortunate choices which led to an even greater conflagration a few years later. (It's also how the French managed to get control of Syria and screw that country up to what it is now, as you mentioned Syria above.)
Other examples might include the Iranians in 1979. They may have had very righteous and justifiable reasons for hating the US and President Carter at the time, giving a great deal of political capital to Carter's opponent in the 1980 election, who was a staunch militarist and interventionist who made America into an even greater monster than we were before. Maybe they thought they were doing right, according to their point of view. But their actions merely triggered an even more aggressive America. Likewise with the terrorists on 9/11. They might have genuinely believed they were striking a blow for whatever cause they were fighting for, but all it did was make us even angrier.
In a very real sense, Putin is making the same mistake by invading Ukraine and provoking the West in this manner. He may have a Napoleon complex, but he ain't Napoleon. Not even close.
I understand. There are certain realities we have to deal with here. The most obvious of which relates to the existence of nuclear weapons and the modern tools of warfare which are much different than we saw in WW2 or the Napoleonic Wars. Even smaller regimes led by tinpot dictators who commit atrocities are not necessarily something that we can deal with in totality, even if they don't have nukes and can't really fight back (such as in Iraq and Afghanistan).
Also, considering the economic position of the West at present, especially here in America, we are reaching the breaking point. We keep hearing the same refrain when it comes to helping the people and improving their lives: "We can't afford it." There are currently widespread protests and strikes in France because they're also being told the same lie of "We can't afford it." Well, maybe we can't afford it. Maybe there is some truth to that, but if we can't afford it, then we can't afford it. What else can we do when we're so hobbled like this? We're not same country we were during WW2. We've expended so much of our resources, time, and energy on making the rest of the world safe for democracy that we risk losing it here at home. And then where we will be?
lukethethird
unknown member
The irony here is that the thugs in Washington DC are no better, no different, than the thugs in Moscow or the thugs in Ukraine, all of them thugs and lunatics. Tens of billions of dollars are being syphoned off of tax pools to support barbarity rather than engage in peace talks, of course peace talks aren't as profitable for the war profiteers so here we are. Some are getting extremely rich while most of us hope our money stops devaluing even further, and some of us hope that these hostilities do not escalate into a nuclear holocaust.
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, I still understand it differently as for different motives in different actors.
I have long thought that the UN should have a military force under their authority that is like the French Foreign Legion, made up of volunteers from member nations. They have pacekeepers much like this but they are seldom, if ever, allowed to use force. Such a force would be highly trained and used in crisis situations where there is threats of small conflicts growing into civil war or regional war.