Great read from @Russian_Starr on why progressives (especially in the U.S.) should be fully on board with supporting the defense of Ukraine from Russian neo-imperialism: foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/11/pro…
One thing that *feels* different from 2014 is that the U.S. left seems far more unified on backing Ukraine—and that differences are relegated only to policy (i.e. certain arms packages, certain sanctions crafting, etc).
Both the Jill Stein wing of US-as-root-of-all-evil foreign policy and the Chapo-style version of cynicism over everything seem effectively dead on the U.S. left, at least in terms of any influence on foreign policy and Ukraine. (Which are both fantastic developments.)
(The only vestige of this kind of RT-infused foreign policy on the US left was this recent statement from the "DSA International Committee," which thankfully landed with a resounding thud.)
One thing there *hasn't* been much of yet is more discussion of how counter-kleptocracy policy fits in an effective Russia policy.
Targeted oligarchic sanctions, financial transparency reforms at home, recognition of national security threats therein—all are necessary.
One point @Russian_Starr highlights, for especially U.S. progressives: Russia was, and remains, a gargantuan settler-colonial empire—and has far, far more similarities with the U.S. in terms of continental conquest than most realize.
A false flag attack. A revanchist dictatorship in the Kremlin. An unprompted invasion of a western neighbor—and a bloody failure for the entire world to see.
The most striking statistic from the Soviet-Finnish Winter War:
The Soviet Union—which planned the time and place of the invasion—still had over *five times as many casualties as the Finns*, with a higher casualty-per-day rate than later battles like *Stalingrad*.
Stalin thought grabbing territory from tiny, prone Finland would be easy. He thought invasion would be a cakewalk.
1) Those arguing that the West offered a “pledge” to forego NATO expansion grapple with the fact that Yeltsin and Putin both openly flirted with joining NATO in the 1990s/early 2000s.
2) Self-proclaimed realists digest the clear reality that the (post-colonialist) Kremlin’s designs on Ukraine go far, far beyond the simple question of Ukrainian NATO membership.
+1 Not nearly enough grappling with what would have happened if NATO actually *had* stopped expanding. (Polish nuclear program? Hungarian irredentism? A far, far, far worse security landscape on Russia’s western flank?)
If Moscow thinks it could somehow “install a pro-Russian leader in Kyiv,” Putin’s even further down the rabbit-hole than assumed. gov.uk/government/new…
The notion that the Kremlin could somehow(?) successfully install a “pro-Russian leader” in Ukraine reminds me of Yanukovych’s dreams he could return and somehow “reunite the country”:
Would be a good time to revisit Putin’s recent jeremiad that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people—a single whole”: en.kremlin.ru/events/preside…
Nearly a decade ago, Azerbaijan secretly bankrolled one of the most lavish American congressional junkets (hiding the funding behind a “non-profit” organization): occrp.org/en/corruptista…
The details of Azerbaijan’s secret funding of the US congressional trip are almost comical: crystal tea sets and expensive rugs, DVDs about Azerbaijan’s dictator, etc. archive.thinkprogress.org/mastermind-beh…
In 2013, Kanye took millions to perform for the family of Kazakhstan's dictator (and never apologized, returned the money, etc): theguardian.com/music/2013/sep…
Kanye is also "working on business deals" with the Agalarov family, who coordinated the infamous 2016 Trump Tower meeting offering dirty on Hillary Clinton: newrepublic.com/article/143879…