I don’t care which side of the isle they’re on, the enrichment that comes from war for those in D.C. is hard to resist. War is a cash cow. They turned off the Afghanistan teat, now they need a new one. Plain and simple. Have you totaled all the money thrown at this? Billion here billion there - who’s counting? The big question, where is it all going? You never see that revealed. Might be a fun research.
Thanks for commenting! I'd love to look into the money that's gone to arms companies as a result of this war; a lot of money has gone to oil companies too through less direct means. I'm not sure the extent to which these beneficiaries of the war are actually running policy in Washington, though.
I’d bet the farm that most of those running policy are beneficiaries. They’ll be 2 or 3 layers deep, but they are receiving $. I would also wager it’s been that way since Vietnam.
Unfortunately, I am not optimistic about it happening, unless the Republicans get in power — but more importantly as the story goes Washington sees this war as Russia’s Vietnam.
I should add the last thing I would ever want would be for the GOP ever get in power. That has been my position for 74 years— democrats are better on virtually every issue especially cultural but most wont call for negotiations until after 2924 election. So I suspect. Unless Europe bows out, this war will continue for some time— short a revolution in Russia.
Ordinarily not but like law and order in an age of Trumpism, if the democrats are doing anything, the Republicans are against it on literally every domestic issue. With respect to a GOP that is aligned with the global right “populists” they are pro authoritarians,etc. They will certainly stop the flow of money to the Ikraine.
Again, I will try to say it plainly. This is a pro-russian talking point. You may not like that, but that's what it is. Unless the russians agree to withdraw from Ukraine, they would be the ones to benefit most from any pause in the conflict right now as that would allow them to reorganize for another attack.
The quotes you cited from Chomsky are quite literally appeasement. "This guy might do bad things, so we should give him what he wants." And citing an article from March? Come on. We've had almost 7 months of brutality since then. We didn't know about Bucha when that article was published.
I also don't buy into the famine argument. All of the places cited in that article are places that were suffering already because of local conflict. Is their situation worse because of the conflict in Ukraine? Likely so, but it was already really bad, so it's not ALL Ukraine's fault for trying to defend itself.
And why is this point not used to say russia should pull out and end the war? Why is it used as an argument for ukraine giving in?
Also, this may be the best written article you have done so far. I disagree with your positions, your arguments and your conclusion, but structurally this is definitely your best work to date.
Lastly, don't ask if maybe I don't understand your position because I haven't read your other stuff. I have.
Thanks! I'm definitely becoming a much better and more organized writer, so that's a great thing; I appreciate your pointers too because you've helped point out some bad habits that I have as a writer.
On this ("Unless the russians agree to withdraw from Ukraine, they would be the ones to benefit most from any pause in the conflict right now as that would allow them to reorganize for another attack"), don't the Ukrainians also benefit from an end to the war in various ways that my article mentions? For example, my article mentions the risk to Ukraine's fragile environment; there's a hyperlink that you click on that goes into the risks on that front as the war continues. But also, there's the risk of complete destruction.
On this ("it was already really bad"), I agree that the war isn't responsible for all of the hunger in the world; an honest analysis will estimate the number of people that the war has added to the hungry...of course it's not like all of the world's hunger can be attributed to the war.
>don't the Ukrainians also benefit from an end to the war in various ways that my article mentions
There is a difference between and end to THIS war and a lasting peace. This is one of the things I have been trying to convey to you for months. What would be the point of an agreement signing away a chunk of the country if a year or two down the road russia decides they want another chunk of the country? It would be just a pause, not a peace and that's all that would have been achieved by any diplomacy prior to now. the russians have demonstrated that they can't be trusted to keep an agreement, so they need to be in a position where they can't break the agreement before they can be trusted.
Even now I don't think there's much point to it. I don't think the russians would ever agree to leave crimea or the donbas, but right now I don't think they'd give up Kherson or the south either.
I think we're getting there, but I also doubt the russians will sit down before the spring. They'll want the euros to go a winter without russian gas so they'll stop supporting ukraine.
Thanks for commenting! I think that it's important to engage with the moral (as well as self-interested) argumentation on this; a critic would say that you're gambling with millions and millions of innocent lives (including our own) because you have a hunch that diplomacy is impossible.
Diplomacy might be impossible; my Lieven piece addresses the important point that we can't know till we at least genuinely give it a try.
The Lieven piece also addresses the issue of maintaining a lasting peace; we go over that, since it's a good and fundamental question about what the point of diplomacy is given that war could break out again in a year or something.
Well written.
I think it’s much simpler.
Follow the money.
I don’t care which side of the isle they’re on, the enrichment that comes from war for those in D.C. is hard to resist. War is a cash cow. They turned off the Afghanistan teat, now they need a new one. Plain and simple. Have you totaled all the money thrown at this? Billion here billion there - who’s counting? The big question, where is it all going? You never see that revealed. Might be a fun research.
Thanks for commenting! I'd love to look into the money that's gone to arms companies as a result of this war; a lot of money has gone to oil companies too through less direct means. I'm not sure the extent to which these beneficiaries of the war are actually running policy in Washington, though.
I’d bet the farm that most of those running policy are beneficiaries. They’ll be 2 or 3 layers deep, but they are receiving $. I would also wager it’s been that way since Vietnam.
>Follow the money.
The serendipitous occasion where financial interests and helping Ukraine defend itself are aligned.
Nice piece and quite true And unfortunately it is not even discussed in DC or essentially any mass media.
Thanks for commenting! Hopefully commentary gets better on this front! :)
Unfortunately, I am not optimistic about it happening, unless the Republicans get in power — but more importantly as the story goes Washington sees this war as Russia’s Vietnam.
I should add the last thing I would ever want would be for the GOP ever get in power. That has been my position for 74 years— democrats are better on virtually every issue especially cultural but most wont call for negotiations until after 2924 election. So I suspect. Unless Europe bows out, this war will continue for some time— short a revolution in Russia.
Thanks! Is the GOP less hawkish on the war in Ukraine, though?
Ordinarily not but like law and order in an age of Trumpism, if the democrats are doing anything, the Republicans are against it on literally every domestic issue. With respect to a GOP that is aligned with the global right “populists” they are pro authoritarians,etc. They will certainly stop the flow of money to the Ikraine.
2024
Again, I will try to say it plainly. This is a pro-russian talking point. You may not like that, but that's what it is. Unless the russians agree to withdraw from Ukraine, they would be the ones to benefit most from any pause in the conflict right now as that would allow them to reorganize for another attack.
The quotes you cited from Chomsky are quite literally appeasement. "This guy might do bad things, so we should give him what he wants." And citing an article from March? Come on. We've had almost 7 months of brutality since then. We didn't know about Bucha when that article was published.
I also don't buy into the famine argument. All of the places cited in that article are places that were suffering already because of local conflict. Is their situation worse because of the conflict in Ukraine? Likely so, but it was already really bad, so it's not ALL Ukraine's fault for trying to defend itself.
And why is this point not used to say russia should pull out and end the war? Why is it used as an argument for ukraine giving in?
I've also sent you this article before:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/putins-claim-that-sanctions-are-creating-conditions-for-a-global-famine-is-a-myth-say-yale-academics-11660331559?mod=home-page
and the UN Food Price Index is almost where it was back in January. https://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/
Also, this may be the best written article you have done so far. I disagree with your positions, your arguments and your conclusion, but structurally this is definitely your best work to date.
Lastly, don't ask if maybe I don't understand your position because I haven't read your other stuff. I have.
Thanks! I'm definitely becoming a much better and more organized writer, so that's a great thing; I appreciate your pointers too because you've helped point out some bad habits that I have as a writer.
On this ("Unless the russians agree to withdraw from Ukraine, they would be the ones to benefit most from any pause in the conflict right now as that would allow them to reorganize for another attack"), don't the Ukrainians also benefit from an end to the war in various ways that my article mentions? For example, my article mentions the risk to Ukraine's fragile environment; there's a hyperlink that you click on that goes into the risks on that front as the war continues. But also, there's the risk of complete destruction.
On this ("it was already really bad"), I agree that the war isn't responsible for all of the hunger in the world; an honest analysis will estimate the number of people that the war has added to the hungry...of course it's not like all of the world's hunger can be attributed to the war.
>don't the Ukrainians also benefit from an end to the war in various ways that my article mentions
There is a difference between and end to THIS war and a lasting peace. This is one of the things I have been trying to convey to you for months. What would be the point of an agreement signing away a chunk of the country if a year or two down the road russia decides they want another chunk of the country? It would be just a pause, not a peace and that's all that would have been achieved by any diplomacy prior to now. the russians have demonstrated that they can't be trusted to keep an agreement, so they need to be in a position where they can't break the agreement before they can be trusted.
Even now I don't think there's much point to it. I don't think the russians would ever agree to leave crimea or the donbas, but right now I don't think they'd give up Kherson or the south either.
I think we're getting there, but I also doubt the russians will sit down before the spring. They'll want the euros to go a winter without russian gas so they'll stop supporting ukraine.
Thanks for commenting! I think that it's important to engage with the moral (as well as self-interested) argumentation on this; a critic would say that you're gambling with millions and millions of innocent lives (including our own) because you have a hunch that diplomacy is impossible.
Diplomacy might be impossible; my Lieven piece addresses the important point that we can't know till we at least genuinely give it a try.
The Lieven piece also addresses the issue of maintaining a lasting peace; we go over that, since it's a good and fundamental question about what the point of diplomacy is given that war could break out again in a year or something.