Thread by @Russian_Starr

I have some thoughts about how progressives should understand what is happening in Ukraine.I am concerned progressives are comparing U.S. intervention in Iraq to Russia and the two are very different scenarios. I say this as a progressive and expert of this region.

Thread.

I see tweets from progressives saying the U.S. should not give weapons to Ukraine and that the NATO response could mean U.S. troops fighting Russia over Ukraine and that this is Iraq 2.0. Nothing could be further from the truth.

For one, in 2001, Iraq wasn't an aggressive state, certainly no threat to the U.S. Unsubstantiated claims about WMDs were made and oil was the primary factor. Also, America has a poor history in the Middle East as an aggressor. All true.

Some argue that the NATO response will trigger a war with Russia and diplomacy should prevail. 1. Ukraine is not a NATO member and will not send troops to Ukraine; Ukraine has not asked for U.S. troop support, only weapons to defend themselves (more on this in a second).

Also, there is talk from the left that giving weapons to Ukraine will escalate Russia's aggression. The reality is that Russian troops have been here since 2014 and Russia is the only party provoking a conflict, not Ukraine. Many progressives seem to miss this.

Also, NATO did not ask former Warsaw Pact/USSR nations to come to NATO; they all begged to join because they fear Russian imperialism and wants protections. I don't need a lecture on NATO. I know it better than most people who'll wanna "teach me", so spare me. But I digress.

My point is that Putin claims NATO is a threat to his borders, but no NATO country has tried to attack Russia. Comparatively, Russia has invaded two of its neighbors in the past 13 years (Georgia/Ukraine). It also menaces the Baltics regularly. Why?

There are large numbers of ethnic Russians in the Baltics and Putin's usual go-to is "We'll protect Russian people" and that usually means invasion. If Russia did not threaten its neighbors so often, maybe they would not see a need for NATO. Just saying.

if Iraq had the second most powerful military in the world, had nukes and was menacing its neighbors constantly, I could see the comparison. But Russia is at the direct opposite and requires a different POV. Russia is the aggressor state, attacking its neighbors unprovoked.

How should a progressive FP respond?

Well, diplomacy isn't working because Putin is a bad faith actor. Does that mean military is the second option? No. No one is suggesting that. What about sanctions? Sure. But many progressives don't want that, either.

Most progressives will cite Iran as an example of how sanctions do not change behavior. I'd argue that the sanctions were levied in bad faith and should mostly be dropped. Also, Iran is not the same actor as Russia, so again, bad example.

Sanctions are a good option, so long as you target the powerful and not the common person. In my view, Putin and his inner circle should face stiff economic sanctions that pressure them to pressure Putin. We need to close loop holes so Russian elites can't launder their money.

America needs to clean up Kleptocratic practices at home so that Russian oligarchs (and other own, too) can't use American banks and real estate to hide their wealth. Sanctions aren't an exact science, but are a useful too if applied correctly.

If you sanctions banks, you can hurt the average Russian because you can cut off their ability to conduct business in dollars. But I am thinking there is a way around it. I honestly don't know, but open to suggestions. Anyway...

The main point is that progressives can't stand by and do nothing. Progressives say use diplomacy but what happens when diplomacy does not work? Also, the U.S. doesn't live in the world alone. Progressives SHOULD be able to take stands and not fear military options.

America should provide military aide to Ukraine because Ukraine should be able to protect itself. Yes, we can reverse colonial foreign policy AND make moral judgements on which nations we support without sending our own troops. Because here is the reality:

Russia is threatening our democracy. They meddle all of the time. Yes, we meddle in other nations' affairs and we should reverse that practice. BUT, that doesn't mean we should stop protecting allies. Progressive foreign policy can be anti-imperial; it can't be pacifist.

Conservatives beat progressives at foreign policy all of the time because no one feels progressives a. understand the world in a meaningful way and I'd agree with that argument; because many of us don't. b. progressive FP reads as pacifist and without direction.

I also think progressives lack area studies expertise on this part of the world, which makes their responses flawed in argument and wrong on facts. I am not a fan of Romney or McCain (RIP). But they understood Putin better than most Democrats ever could.

We also need to resist knee-jerk reactions to Russia as a repeat of Iran or Iraq. Let's employ expertise to assess what is happening here and THEN provide analysis. None of what I'd suggest involves ground troops and none of the REAL EXPERTS are arguing this anyway.

Google my work and you know I am anti-military expansion. But I am no pacifist, either. Progressives do not live in the world by themselves. We can't stand by and do nothing. If diplomacy doesn't work, what's your game plan, progressives?

I have a lot more to say, but it is almost 1 a.m. in Kyiv, so I am going to bed. if anyone wants to engage me on this, please respond and I will reply tomorrow when I wake up. I want to have an open dialogue and learn from you all.

I am an anti-imperialism, anti-military industrial complex progressive, but I support any efforts for Ukraine to have the weapons to defend itself against Russia. Because progressive foreign policy doesn't have to be pacifist foreign policy. Nuance people, nuance.

I'll add that any progressive foreign policy that stands by and lets another nation abuse another without a strong U.S. response undermines its progressive claims and sides with the abuser.