How the Democratic Party prepared the war in Ukraine

[ralfy]

Part 1:

How the Democratic Party prepared the war in Ukraine

From Bill Clinton through Joe Biden, the Democrats have spearheaded the effort by American imperialism to encircle Russia and provoke war.

www.wsws.org

Part 2:

How the Democratic Party prepared the war in Ukraine

From Bill Clinton through Joe Biden, the Democrats have spearheaded the effort by American imperialism to encircle Russia and provoke war.

www.wsws.org

Additional points:

It's from the World Socialist Website, but all of the main points given in the articles are also made by both conservative and liberal outlets, such as Bush's invasion of Iraq, why he did not finish off the Iraqi Army, the Lisbon Protocol, the Budapest Memorandum, and so on. Go to source like Fox News, the NY Times, the Guardian, BBC, and others, and you will see similar news.

What the articles do is connect the dots between what the U.S. did from the early 1990s to the present involving Russia and in light of Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Ukraine, and others.

Also, the article titles refer to the Democratic Party, but the Republican Party is also involved.

The gist is that the U.S. has been working with and against Russia from the start. That is, it works with countries when it is favorable to do so, and then attacks them for the same reason.

"Attack" involves different forms, from using loans as a leverage to covertly supporting opposition groups to initiate coups or revolutions, and, of course, outright intervention.

Also, because the U.S. is overextended, it cannot manipulate various countries at the same time. Thus, it dealt with Russia and company only after invading Iraq, left Ukraine alone after 2004 because of the 2008 financial crash, worked with Russia to maintain control of Afghanistan but went against it over Syria, and so on.

 

[Antiwar]

Excellent opening:

Quote:

The mounting confrontation between US-NATO forces and Russia is portrayed by the Biden administration and the American corporate media as entirely the product of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This in turn is attributed to the demonic intentions of one man: Russian President Vladimir Putin.

This rips the Russia-Ukraine war out of its historical context.
----

I've been phrasing it as "people pretending that Russia exists in a geopolitical vacuum."

 

[Antiwar]

The end of Part 2:

 

[Fledermaus]

Part 1:

How the Democratic Party prepared the war in Ukraine

From Bill Clinton through Joe Biden, the Democrats have spearheaded the effort by American imperialism to encircle Russia and provoke war.

www.wsws.org

Part 2:

How the Democratic Party prepared the war in Ukraine

From Bill Clinton through Joe Biden, the Democrats have spearheaded the effort by American imperialism to encircle Russia and provoke war.

www.wsws.org

Additional points:

It's from the World Socialist Website, but all of the main points given in the articles are also made by both conservative and liberal outlets, such as Bush's invasion of Iraq, why he did not finish off the Iraqi Army, the Lisbon Protocol, the Budapest Memorandum, and so on. Go to source like Fox News, the NY Times, the Guardian, BBC, and others, and you will see similar news.

What the articles do is connect the dots between what the U.S. did from the early 1990s to the present involving Russia and in light of Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Ukraine, and others.

Also, the article titles refer to the Democratic Party, but the Republican Party is also involved.

The gist is that the U.S. has been working with and against Russia from the start. That is, it works with countries when it is favorable to do so, and then attacks them for the same reason.

"Attack" involves different forms, from using loans as a leverage to covertly supporting opposition groups to initiate coups or revolutions, and, of course, outright intervention.

Also, because the U.S. is overextended, it cannot manipulate various countries at the same time. Thus, it dealt with Russia and company only after invading Iraq, left Ukraine alone after 2004 because of the 2008 financial crash, worked with Russia to maintain control of Afghanistan but went against it over Syria, and so on.

Russia invaded and illegally annexed Crimea in 2014 and started a proxy war in Donbass.

Russia invaded the rest of Ukraine in 2022.

Neither were because of Biden.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

World Socialist Website?

 

[Yakshi]

Part 1:

How the Democratic Party prepared the war in Ukraine

From Bill Clinton through Joe Biden, the Democrats have spearheaded the effort by American imperialism to encircle Russia and provoke war.

www.wsws.org

Part 2:

How the Democratic Party prepared the war in Ukraine

From Bill Clinton through Joe Biden, the Democrats have spearheaded the effort by American imperialism to encircle Russia and provoke war.

www.wsws.org

Additional points:

It's from the World Socialist Website, but all of the main points given in the articles are also made by both conservative and liberal outlets, such as Bush's invasion of Iraq, why he did not finish off the Iraqi Army, the Lisbon Protocol, the Budapest Memorandum, and so on. Go to source like Fox News, the NY Times, the Guardian, BBC, and others, and you will see similar news.

What the articles do is connect the dots between what the U.S. did from the early 1990s to the present involving Russia and in light of Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Ukraine, and others.

Also, the article titles refer to the Democratic Party, but the Republican Party is also involved.

The gist is that the U.S. has been working with and against Russia from the start. That is, it works with countries when it is favorable to do so, and then attacks them for the same reason.

"Attack" involves different forms, from using loans as a leverage to covertly supporting opposition groups to initiate coups or revolutions, and, of course, outright intervention.

Also, because the U.S. is overextended, it cannot manipulate various countries at the same time. Thus, it dealt with Russia and company only after invading Iraq, left Ukraine alone after 2004 because of the 2008 financial crash, worked with Russia to maintain control of Afghanistan but went against it over Syria, and so on.

If I were you, I'd be embarrassed.

If you didn't have the wonderful privilege of posting anonymously on this site, you would never have made this post, which tells me that you already know that your opinion is ridiculous.

And if you would have done so anyway, which means that you would willingly share such comic-book opinions with friends and acquaintances, then be aware that they are laughing at you behind your back.

Man up and stop allowing yourself to be duped so easily.

You aren't revealing hidden truths to anyone.

Take up golf.

 

[Rogue Valley]

https://www.wsws.org

Overall, we rate the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) as strongly Left Biased based on promoting anti-capitalist, socialist viewpoints.

World Socialist Web Site - Bias and Credibility

LEFT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may

mediabiasfactcheck.com

 

[Sword 1944]

Russia invaded and illegally annexed Crimea in 2014 and started a proxy war in Donbass.

Russia invaded the rest of Ukraine in 2022.

Neither were because of Biden.

Stop repeating that lie.

 

[Antiwar]

World Socialist Website?

So what?

 

[Antiwar]

World Socialist Web Site - Bias and Credibility

LEFT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may

mediabiasfactcheck.com

So what? Is there something wrong with being politically left? All that shows it that there's an absurd two-dimensional political spectrum. They're using the word "biased" as if having a worldview is bad- it's not. Is the favored position on the spectrum "least biased"? Is there some problem with, as the preview says, being "moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes"? Does that mean that illiberal causes (right) are good, and/or that no causes ("least biased") are good?

And you forgot to add the "details."

 

[Antiwar]

If I were you, I'd be embarrassed.

If you didn't have the wonderful privilege of posting anonymously on this site, you would never have made this post, which tells me that you already know that your opinion is ridiculous.

And if you would have done so anyway, which means that you would willingly share such comic-book opinions with friends and acquaintances, then be aware that they are laughing at you behind your back.

Man up and stop allowing yourself to be duped so easily.

You aren't revealing hidden truths to anyone.

Take up golf.

What the hell are you talking about? Why do you post such drama queen nonsense instead of discussing and debating the issues? You should be embarrassed by the dismally low quality of your commentary.

 

[Questerr]

Excellent opening:

Quote:

The mounting confrontation between US-NATO forces and Russia is portrayed by the Biden administration and the American corporate media as entirely the product of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This in turn is attributed to the demonic intentions of one man: Russian President Vladimir Putin.

This rips the Russia-Ukraine war out of its historical context.
----

I've been phrasing it as "people pretending that Russia exists in a geopolitical vacuum."

What context justifies the Russian invasion of Ukraine and their blatant open land grab?

 

[Questerr]

So what? Is there something wrong with being politically left? All that shows it that there's an absurd two-dimensional political spectrum. They're using the word "biased" as if having a worldview is bad- it's not. Is the favored position on the spectrum "least biased"? Is there some problem with, as the preview says, being "moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes"? Does that mean that illiberal causes (right) are good, and/or that no causes ("least biased") are good?

And you forgot to add the "details."

View attachment 67451755

It's a tankie website populated by people who toe the Chinese/Russian line and whose philosophy can be summed up as "America always bad, therefore anyone America supports must always be bad and anyone opposed to America must be good". Also known as American Diabolism.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

So what?

So what? Is there something wrong with being politically left? All that shows it that there's an absurd two-dimensional political spectrum. They're using the word "biased" as if having a worldview is bad- it's not. Is the favored position on the spectrum "least biased"? Is there some problem with, as the preview says, being "moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes"? Does that mean that illiberal causes (right) are good, and/or that no causes ("least biased") are good?

And you forgot to add the "details."

View attachment 67451755

They are not just politically left. It's a Marxist website. Full-blown Communism.

What this means within the context of our political system, is that they want the system the Framers of the Constitution created, and the U.S. government destroyed.

They are enemies of the Republic.

THAT is what!

 

[Antiwar]

They are not just politically left. It's a Marxist website. Full-blown Communism.

What this means within the context of our political system, is that they want the system the Framers of the Constitution created, and the U.S. government destroyed.

They are enemies of the Republic.

THAT is what!

Chuckle.

 

[Antiwar]

What context justifies the Russian invasion of Ukraine and their blatant open land grab?

Who said that Russia's aggression is justified?

 

[Quag]

Stop repeating that lie.

Stop pretending that that is a lie

 

[Questerr]

Who said that Russia's aggression is justified?

Then why does the context matter? If their invasion is unjustified it’s unjustified. The only reason to bring up “context” is to justify it.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Who said that Russia's aggression is justified?

The practical consequence of what you and your Communist friends are suggested is to simply let Russia either indirectly control Ukraine or let Russia conquer and annex Ukraine.

That is what it means to follow the foreign policy of your Communist friends.

And these suggestions are not in Ukraine's interests, nor are they in the interests of the West as a whole, they are only in the interests of Russia. And the Communists latch onto this because they hate the U.S. and the West and they want the U.S. and the West transformed into a Communist hell hole.

 

[Antiwar]

Then why does the context matter? If their invasion is unjustified it’s unjustified. The only reason to bring up “context” is to justify it.

Why would justification supposedly be the only reason to discuss context? The opposite is true: The reason to NOT discuss context is to pretend that there are no reasons for Russia to be concerned about the inherent threats within the context. I know you have a very difficult time with words, so I will try to preempt your conflation: My "reasons to be concerned about inherent threats" isn't equivalent to "justified."

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Why would justification supposedly be the only reason to discuss context? The opposite is true: The reason to NOT discuss context is to pretend that there are no reasons for Russia to be concerned about the inherent threats within the context. I know you have a very difficult time with words, so I will try to preempt your conflation: My "reasons to be concerned about inherent threats" isn't equivalent to "justified."

What Putin wants is veto power over the foreign policy of Eastern European countries and former Soviet countries.

That is what Putin and the Russian government have expressed as it pertains to Ukraine, those were their demands before they invaded. If we take them at their word, that's what they wanted.

But has it ever occurred to you that Russia is not entitled to that?

 

[Antiwar]

The practical consequence of what you and your Communist friends are suggested is to simply let Russia either indirectly control Ukraine or let Russia conquer and annex Ukraine.

That is what it means to follow the foreign policy of your Communist friends.

And these suggestions are not in Ukraine's interests, nor are they in the interests of the West as a whole, they are only in the interests of Russia. And the Communists latch onto this because they hate the U.S. and the West and they want the U.S. and the West transformed into a Communist hell hole.

If you want to discuss impracticalities, then let's discuss the impracticality of fomenting nuclear war and further destroying Earth's ecosystems. Those are two different things that also overlap because nuclear war will also further destroy Earth's ecosystems.

Yep, anyone that doesn't want to experience nuclear war, the collapse of Earth's ecosystems, and doesn't believe in US militarism (isn't a barbarian) is a "COMMUNIST!" Since I'm not an ignorant neoliberal neoconservative warmongering American patriot, well by golly, then boneheaded binary logic dictates that I'm a "COMMUNIST!"

 

[Antiwar]

What Putin wants is veto power over the foreign policy of Eastern European countries and former Soviet countries.

That is what Putin and the Russian government have expressed as it pertains to Ukraine, those were their demands before they invaded. If we take them at their word, that's what they wanted.

But has it ever occurred to you that Russia is not entitled to that?

You're in favor of the US Racism-Militarism Paradigm. You believe the US is entitled to rule the world through force. You're an international authoritarian.

 

[Quag]

You're in favor of the US Racism-Militarism Paradigm. You believe the US is entitled to rule the world through force. You're an international authoritarian.

He never said anything to that effect or that could even by implied as such

 

[W_Heisenberg]

If you want to discuss impracticalities, then let's discuss the impracticality of fomenting nuclear war and further destroying Earth's ecosystems. Those are two different things that also overlap because nuclear war will also further destroy Earth's ecosystems.

You think only in binary, either/or, black/white terms. This is a logical fallacy. This particular logical fallacy is known as false dichotomy.

You are implying that if the West doesn't surrender to Russia then we will all die.

That is your basic argument, is it not?

Yep, anyone that doesn't want to experience nuclear war, the collapse of Earth's ecosystems, doesn't believe in US militarism (isn't a barbarian) is a "COMMUNIST!"

World Socialist Web Site is a Communist organization, and we know this to be true based on their professed beliefs, beliefs they have made public. So it is accurate to describe them as Communists whether or not we are discussing other issues such as the possibility of nuclear war, or the collapse of the Earth's ecosystems. And my suggestion to you, if you want to persuade others of the validity of your political opinions, is to simply speak the truth, and refrain from misconstruing the arguments of others.

Since I'm not an ignorant neoliberal neoconservative warmongering American patriot, well by golly, then boneheaded binary logic means that I'm a "COMMUNIST!"

This isn't an argument I've made. This is another logical fallacy. This logical fallacy is called a Strawman Argument.

While I am very sympathetic to your views (doesn't everyone want peace?), I find your methods to be very disagreeable. You are intelligent enough to know that your debate tactics are disingenuous. You're doing this on purpose.