There’s a funny rhyming or symmetry to Russia’s current invasion of Ukraine and America’s 2003 Iraq debacle.
Both Moscow and Washington justified war as “liberation,” “protecting minorities,” and even “de-Nazification.” The Donbas region, supporting anti-Saddam liberals, the Azov battalion, and sending Iraqi girls to college can all be mixed and matched.
Both invasions also started out with spectacular “shock and awe” campaigns. In 2003, many analysts warned of Iraq’s military’s prowess, not to mention WMDs. Last night, I was amazed at the speed of the Ukrainian military’s collapse, barely putting up a fight.
Washington, infamously, never factored in a long-term, religious and nationalist insurgency (“we’ll be greeted as liberators,” “Mission Accomplished!”).
We’ll see what happens in Ukraine. If recent history is any guide, this will not go smoothly in the coming years.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The conflict in Ukraine is depressing and sickening—and could have been avoided. But I ultimately think it is a positive and necessary development for European civilization and consciousness.
We are returning to the 20th century, to a divided world (probably a trifurcated, instead of a bifurcated one). The 30-year period of true globalism—"The End of History," Unipolar Moment"—is over. It was America's time, when it projected itself across the globe, and it is over.
The difference between the new 20th century and the old is that the three sides (U.S./EU/NATO; Russia; and China) have been evacuated of ideology.
Putin has already sent forces of some kind into the break-away regions. A full invasion of the country, including Kyiv, is more that possible. I’d say it’s probable, and I’ve been saying this for a while. The reasoning behind my assessment is the basic structure of the conflict.
Returning Ukraine to the Russian sphere—the long-term Russian empire, which stretches back further than the USSR—means quite a bit to Moscow, and, apparently, Putin in particular. It means more to Moscow than the option of Ukraine entering NATO does to Washington.
Biden might change his tune (as Macron seemed to suggest…), but he told the world in clear language that Washington will not send ground troops into Ukraine. It follows—or I hope it follows—that catastrophic retaliation, like aerial bombing or nukes, is off the table.
Returning Ukraine to the Russian sphere is far more important to Moscow than bringing Ukraine into NATO is to Washington—which is why Biden explicitly said he won’t send in troops. Putin, however, *is* willing to invade.
The pro-Russia (“anti-imperialist”) Left has offered some of the dumbest analysis of this conflict. In some ways, it would be worse if they’re *not* getting paid to spread falsehoods. It’s worse if they actually believe this nonsense.
Perhaps the oddest thing about the Whoopi Goldberg controversy is the actress’s choice of stage names—“Goldberg.” To make matters even odder, Whoopi—born Caryn Johnson—truly believes that she has Jewish heritage.
According to Whoopi: “My mother did not name me Whoopi, but Goldberg is my name, it's part of my family, part of my heritage. Just like being black."
The article mentions a less charitable theory: Whoopi chose the name as a way of getting a leg up in Hollywood and Broadway, as many Jews are successful king-makers in the entertainment industry. For what it’s worth, her star turn came in Steven Spielberg’s *The Color Purple.*
A typically stupid statement by Scott Adams. PF would never be able prove they’re *not* feds to his satisfaction; any evidence to the contrary would be spun by this loon as part an even deeper conspiracy.
That said, reactions like this, which are widespread, seem to reveal something important about where Alt-Right activism and “optics” have ended up in 2022.
PF is attending a mainstream pro-life rally while wearing masks—surrounded by people showing their faces. They carry shields, even though Antifa isn’t attacking anyone. They’re uninvited guests, or a protection squad that the organizers don’t need or want.
There is no evidence, and no reason to believe, that Patriot Front are "feds," in the sense that they are government agents on a mission to "make conservatives look bad," provoke another J6, or whatever it is they're being accused of.
Conservatives making the "fed accusation" are acting in bad faith, and I bristle at this, as someone who's been called a "fed" by various right-wing figures, with no evidence offered or required.
Whatever your opinion might be of Patriot Front—mine is mixed and ambivalent—there is no question that they demonstrated organizational ability and group discipline and cohesion in what was, on the whole, a successful event.