Thread by @ggreenwald

In the US, "the left" means Bernie/AOC. But so often, they're far from the left internationally -- as we see with Corbyn & Mélenchon's opposition to vaccine mandates, or you'll see if you ask Bolivia/Cuba/Venezuela/Ecuador/Lula what they think of Russia, and now with Ukraine:

https://twitter.com/yanisvaroufakis/status/1496952362048671745

Here's Varoufakis -- the leftist former Finance Minister of Greece and current member of Parliament -- elaborating on his view that the US should provide Russia its vow never to put Ukraine in NATO or militarily defend Ukraine in exchange for Russia withdrawing its troops:

And here's Varoufakis arguing that the "rules-based international order" wasn't destroyed by Russia's invasion of Ukraine (which he condemns) but by the US attack on Iraq and NATO/Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia with no UN permission, among many other prior lawless Western acts:

And here's Varoufakis saying the invasion of Ukraine is solely on Putin, but it was NATO that provoked it with reckless expansion and threatening behavior, and that the only way out isn't righteous, angry tweets about Putin's evil - that does nothing - but diplomatic concessions.

In Brazil, Lula's party (PT) posted condemnation of US "aggression toward Russia" and imperialistic expansion of NATO, then deleted it. But Lula yesterday equated Russia's invasion with the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and NATO bombing of Libya:

instagram.com/reel/CaX2J1IAP…

I post this not to agree with it all (though I agree with much) but to highlight how much wider the range of opinion is internationally.

Both US parties want to pretend they are wildly at odds but from Bernie/AOC to Rubio/Graham, the bipartisan consensus is virtually unanimous.

The Dem claim that the GOP is "on the side of Putin" is just as frivolous as the GOP attack that Dems are "weak on Russia." While there are certainly heterodox voices in media, there is very little divergence among elected officials in both parties regarding Russia/Ukraine.

The media -- and both parties -- love to find ways to pretend the two parties can't agree on anything. You can find differences of opinion if you look at media figures. But the major elected officials of both parties have the same view: condemning Putin and standing with Ukraine.

It's easy to scorn the idea that the US should engage with Russia or make concessions, to malign that as "appeasement." Reagan was accused of "appeasement" for negotiating. But this war is horrific and dangerous. Everything should be done to stop it.

https://twitter.com/SKMorefield/status/1497021253898706951

Here's the compilation of how the warmongering and neocon factions on the Right even attacked Reagan as an "appeaser" of Russia and compared him to Neville Chamberlain because he was making concessions to the Kremlin to attain peace:

salon.com/2008/05/17/rea…

If you say now that constant NATO expansion eastward toward Russia was viewed as highly threatening not just by Putin but most Russians, people will say you're inventing Kremlin apologia. Read what current CIA Director William Burns warned in 2008: 👇

nonzero.substack.com/p/why-biden-di…

This, from 2015, is also worth hearing. As I said last night, what is now taboo to say - NATO expansion has been legitimately threatening to Russia and Ukraine is of vital interest to Russia but not the US - was long recognized by US officials/scholars:

https://twitter.com/buddhimedia/status/1496783097534111746

Here, in two videos, is Noam Chomsky saying the same thing, which happened to be Obama's view as well. Threatened expansion of NATO to Ukraine is legitimately dangerous for Russia, for which Ukraine is of vital interest (but not to the US). Please watch:

https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1495330478722850817

Here's the answer given yesterday by Lula -- the current frontrunner in Brazil's 2022 presidential election -- when asked his view of the war in Ukraine:

Here's the view on Russia/Ukraine of former long-time President of Bolivia Evo Morales: