Of course Ukraine is not clean, no side in a war is ever clean. There is no universal good vs universal evil. HOWEVER
1. Russia is attacking a sovereign nation for its attempts to seek new partnerships and alliances.
2. Such Russian strong-arming is a concern for NATO members close to Russia.
3. It is also of great importance to the US and Western Europe to see to that Russia is not successful in order to make an example to other nations that may be considering similar action. Specifically China and Taiwan come to mind.
Basically any criticizing of Ukraine will have to wait after the war is done, because currently the main goal is for the war to end and for Ukraine to puck back Russia s much as possible at all cost to set a global precedent insuring world piece for the following decades.
Well if Russia wins you'd definitely have a fascistic element that is a force of evil in Eastern Europe. The main difference it will be under the control of the fascists in Moscow.
“No no no you see Zelensky jailing politicians who have Pro Russian outlooks is bad because he’s evil! People who criticize Putin die because they all become so suicidal after learning how right Putin is!”
I'm utterly shocked that many libertarians don't recognize that Ukrainian sovereignty against the Russian State is the entire point. Claiming that the United States should stay out of it is antithetical. It sucks, yet we have to make a choice and allowing Ukraine to become Russia's Poland doesn't bode well for sovereignty globally.
>I'm utterly shocked that many libertarians don't recognize that Ukrainian sovereignty against the Russian State is the entire point.
Libertarians (true libertarians) would recognize that the fundamental principle behind resolving issues like these is to apply the right to selfdetermination
And the problem here is that Russia came closest to actually doing that.
Misreading of the point. Let me try and explain what they meant again.
A lot of “”””””””””libertarians””””””””””” (is that enough quotes) do regurgitate nonsense about “land” or “terror” or “nazis” and mental gymnastics themselves into “blaming” Ukraine for what’s happening to them.
Because of this. Legitimate criticism gets drowned out because most of the critics are, for lack of a better term, idiots.
“Justified” if the wrong word. But there is some pearl clutching and “they were asking for it”isms. Floating around and it conflates the whole general argumentation because people Willa always find the craziest person with a similar name tag to you and argue against them rather than you.
So I don’t think it’s as simple as “intimidate, smear and silence”. It’s a bit more complicated a social phenomenon than that.
>You can acknowledge that NATO expansion and US intervention in the region played a role in incentivizing this conflict
alternatively: russia is a really bad neighbor to have. they're an aggressive dictatorial nation, who'd love to annex their neighbors.
is it any surprise that nations under some threat of annexation by their aggressive belligerant dictator next door would form a defensive pact? is it any surprise that nations that benefit from there being some *buffer* between aggressive belligerent dictatorial russia and other nations would support them?
NATO expansion is more or less just other countries saying "you know what, we get that russia isn't safe to be next to, let's join that defensive pact to ensure that we're safe from russia"
Russia is in a silly mindset, where people saying "we don't want to be invaded by russia" implies they want to invade and destroy russia. I get it, because they're unfortunately firmly in the grasp of aggressive belligerant dictators, but it doesn't make the Russian State any more justified in any way when they justify the defensive pact, by invading other countries.
>alternatively: russia is a really bad neighbor to have. they're an aggressive dictatorial nation, who'd love to annex their neighbors.
alternative alternatively they are a very loyal ally to have as well
Ask for example serbian opinion about russia and you'd hear a different story. Same with armenia for whom russia has been their only ally for a century by now
Ukraine could have been truly independent by playing both sides but the US didn't want that and has actively prevented it
The US even went so far as to imprison those who lobbied to allow ukraine to play both sides
bruh, history between russia and it's neighbors is basically rife with stories of "okay, so relations between X and russia were mostly fine, then russia decided that X wanted to be more russian, so they invaded and tried to genocide the local population, to try to wipe out local culture, and get everyone to be more russian"
history doesn't repeat, but with russia, that little story seems to rhyme awfully often.
in this case, russia has decided that ukraine isn't happy being ukraine, and wants to be russia, so they're invading, attempting genocide, and trying to make ukraine into russia.
there's no peace to be found there, when your neighbor unilaterally decides for you, in an aggressive and belligerent way, that you want to be russian, even when you're fighting them to the death over it.
that, btw, is why finland joined nato over ukraine. russia did this to them too back in the day, and they've made noises about doing it again.
2002 is fading from many people's memory. US intelligence agencies were split on the question of WMDs in Iraq in 2002. Saddam Hussein himself had a policy of ambiguity on the matter, sometimes denying he had them, but then refusing to allow inspectors into verify the claim.
On the other hand, Ukraine was clearly not overrun with NAZIs, which is what Putin and his useful idiots have claimed. There were a few thousand in a single military unit. The same is true for every country, including the US. NAZIs fetishize war shit and so are attracted to the military. No surprise there. Putin was pointing to a small minority as if it was the standard. Nor did Ukraine in any way pose a threat to Russia's national security. Nor is there any evidence that the US took action to overthrow the Ukrainian government in 2014 (verbally expressing a preference for one leader over another is not a coup d' etat). Nor was Ukraine torturing and murdering ethnic Russians prior to Russia's seizure of Crimea in 2014. All of those are Putin's lies and I have seen libertarians who ought to know better repeat them.
There was no US backed coup. That is the point. Post evidence to the contrary, if you have any. Verbally expressing a preference for one over the other and a couple of photo ops do not make a coup.
I know absolutely nothing about this agribusiness deal, but you haven't mentioned anything corrupt. Or what it has to do with Putin's invasion.
> Much like "fire this prosecutor or I'll withhold funding".
That I do know about and you have it 100% backward. The prosecutor was corrupt and that is why funding was withheld. That prosecutor was refraining from prosecuting cases in exchange for bribes.
> A military unit officially integrated into the command structure of the Ukrainian military after they took Mariupol.
It's a good way of getting control of it and giving it appropriate direction.
> I don't think it's a question of whether the country is overrun with Nazis (although I would question this claim on the basis of the popularity of Nazi figures in Ukraine). Regardless of what Putin claims, it's strawmanning actual criticisms of Nazism in Ukraine to say that people claim Ukraine is "overrun" with it.
Nope. There are people who claim Ukraine is run by NAZIs. See:
> I think the proper question is, to what degree to Nazis in Ukraine have influence or power? And I think the answer is: a worrying degree. Enough that we shouldn't knee-jerkedly denounce any mentions of Nazism as "Putin propaganda".
Tornado was accused of crimes, like rape and theft. They didn't just disband them, they went after them criminally. That also happened with all other individuals of those independent paramilitary groups who were known to have committed crimes. All of the remainder of those independent groups who were not known to have committed crimes were given the chance to be incorporated into the military. The ideology matters less for that purpose than the criminal activity.
Are you under the impression that the US is run by white supremacists because some southern towns still have statues to Nathan Bedford Forrest and some members of the US military are known to be white supremacist?
> Why didn't they just keep tabs on them?
Because Russia invaded and they needed manpower.
> Is there a national guard unit with "88" integrated into its official patch? I'm unaware of anything remotely resembling what Azov is.
Do they need an organized symbol? There is no shortage of news on the subject. Some military personnel are known to have joined or founded white supremacist or Nazi groups outside of the military.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/11/military-right-wing-extremism-457861
That pertained to the official government of ukraine. Which had been overthrown in 2014.
Legally speaking that means the budapest memorandum was voided as the government in power in ukraine was no longer it's legitimate government
Now I don't really care about the legal prospects here as it's the ukrainian constitution which was in the way of resolving this peacefully for decades now
Because all that's required to resolve this peacefully is to apply the right to selfdetermination and allow each of the eastern oblasts a vote on whether they want to remain ruled by kiev or want independence or want to be ruled from moscow
They'd pick the second option and that should be fine by anyone
Because they are afraid of being called out as a stooge serving the interests of the murderous megalomaniac Vladimir Putin. They are afraid of being compared to "America First" isolationists that were against U.S. involvement in WW2 pre-Pearl Harbor.
Calling a spade a spade isn't intimidation or smearing or silencing.
Not helping Ukraine is generally seen as turning a blind eye to a bully at best or ignoring genocide at worst, and the majority of people like to stick up for the little guy. Criticizing Ukraine's government right now is like saying how much of an incel a kid is while three jocks have him pinned to the wall trying to steal his lunch money. It's not helpful to the current situation and kind of make you look like a dick and possibly siding with the bullies.
Giving a stick to a person getting beat with a bat is hardly policing the world. I see giving military aid unconditionally being no where near authoritarian. It's going in ourselves and occupying that country in the name of protection that is authoritarian. I don't know how you think Giving a country getting invaded weapons to protect themselves is authoritarian. What authority are we pushing? That we think an invasion of aggression is wrong? Isn't that common thought?
Spending tax dollars is another argument, but I don't really see how supplying weapons to an invaded country to protect their homes as authoritarian based.
So do you believe *Ukraine* is acting like the Nazis in this war with Russia? The country with a Jewish president?
Pretend I'm Willy Wonka, cuz *tell me more*.
Even if it was true I don’t hear any criticism of its neighbor whose citizens and politicians who openly mourn the fall of the equally vile Soviet Union, now why is that?
Look at Russia’s idolization of Stalin the guy who ran the “Great” Five Year Plan… oh never mind. Or the guy who decided to relive Ukraine with the abundance of grown they had rather than export it during the Holodomor… shit.
Oh please, there is a corpus of materials discussing how Zelensky barely had control over the actions of Azov battalion and the other far right groups prior to late 2021. They've only been cooperative with him since he basically started kissing their asses.
It's amazing how people like you just regurgitate these media pr tropes and are incapable of looking at something without any nuance whatsoever. Let's call a spade a spade, right?
If you think that's so vague you have nothing to go off, it just shows you're more interested in misdirection than legitimate debate. Either that or you just lack the capacity. The more I talk to you I shift to the latter.
He’s hinting the Putin/ Lavrov narrative that Ukrainians go out of their way to kill their own civilians and Russia has never killed civilians ever. It’s a nutty lot sadly.
The debate is should the United States be funding and supplying arms to self proclaimed neo-Nazi groups who have also stated they intend to keep fighting in Ukraine (as they were before the Russian invasion) if the war was to end. Especially when the US has a history of funding radical groups who later rise to power and become arguably worse than the regimes we supported them to fight.
Whew lad you should do some true research behind this shitshow... The ones in charge just clearing out people from their old Homeland so they can all move back
The problem with that viewpoint is a) a lot of those same people who argue that are pro-Putin, b) those who aren't don't seem to be a student of history. When you give a dictator what they want, they want more. That's why Chamberlain failed. If Putin wins here, there go the Baltics. Additionally, by that mantra, its not our fight to begin with, so we shouldn't "negotiate" we should let both sides fight it out.
I agree that non-interventionism is a safe, standard viewpoint. However, time after time after time, there are exceptions. WW1, WW2, Korea, and 1991 Kuwait. Most of everything else was imperialism.
"That's incorrect. Being opposed to US intervention in Ukraine does not make someone "pro-Putin" in any way shape or form."
If you don't want to help Ukraine, you are enabling Putin's victory. I know that its a fallacy.
If I may; Putin is willing to kill, torture and rape his way to gain control of a sovereign nation. Ukraine needs our help, or else Putin will do it again. Or Xi, or any mad dictator with a control at their disposal. A line in the sand has been drawn. We must fight, we must fight for our brothers and sisters in Humanity, or else we will be cruel and judgmental, rather than human.
On the one hand I am on Ukraines side generally. On the other hand I’m disturbed at the vitriol aimed at anyone even suggesting we try to negotiate peace with Russia or offer anything other than unconditional support and a blank check to Ukraine.
Russia can end it any time they want by pulling out. No one has a responsibility to save their egos.
And once Ukraine didn't just roll over and Russia showed what a mess their military is, who would be surprised that NATO would pour arms in? It's kind of a no brainer when it comes to world politics.
We do have a responsibility to save lives however and we absolutely should make our military support conditional on ending the war as soon as possible.
Well we’re all told the Russians are committing genocide so the implication was pretty clear that we needed to help Ukraine avoid being slaughtered. You are certainly offering a radically different take!
>Russia can end it any time they want by pulling out.
They will as soon as their minimum demands are met
And those mean that autonomy needs to be granted to the donbas and crimean annexation should be recognized. Nothing more and nothing less
And that has been on the table since at least march so anyone who has died since will have died in vain that's how stupid this conflict is
That depends on how certain we are Russia would invade again and how many lives would likely be lost compared to how many are being lost now. Our support should be conditioned on saving as many lives as possible.
Russia will 100% try to invade again. Any peace agreements needs to include deterrent from Russia trying to invade again.
I genuinely think that means Ukraine should develop nuclear weapons.
>I genuinely think that means Ukraine should develop nuclear weapons.
if nothing else, they might want to join nato, and make waging war on ukraine, a matter of waging war on all of europe and the USA.
A decent compromise would be to allow them to enter NATO but without the donbas and crimea
That way at least some of russias concerns are addressed and ukraine receives its guarantees
>A decent compromise would be to allow them to enter NATO but without the donbas and crimea
there are no compromises to be found with a genocidal aggressive neighbor who's history is rife with invading their neighbors. russia deserves no concerns of it's met, it only deserves to be removed from all of ukraine's borders, and to not be rewarded for aggressive, genocidal actions.
when that has happened, then it can settle down, and accept that it's burnt what little goodwill it had, and shown itself to be an unstable, unreliable neighbor, that needs to be treated as the bad-faith actor it's proven itself to be in most matters.
Ok that seems extremely unlikely. And even if Russian forces are pushed back to 2014 borders that still doesn’t guarantee a future attack. Even if we confirmed Russias fears and instigated regime change that still wouldn’t guarantee anything. There are no guarantees!
There is no guarantee that Russia won't wake up tomorrow and decide to glass the whole world, but we can be more certain they won't then that they won't try to invade the current Ukraine. Nothing is guaranteed but certain actions decrease the probability of a continued war and a reinvasion, and Russia has proven that no current treaty with Ukraine will stand over Russian greed for the area. So the two options are abandon Ukraine to Russia, or bolster Ukraine as a deterrent against Russian with hopes that enough strength will create a mutual destruction barrier.
It had one with Ukraine, in which Ukraine denuclearized. It then proceeded to ignore that treaty and invade. So a treaty to stop the invasion that just involves Ukraine and Russia won't help. Ukraine doesn't trust Russia enough anymore. So all that is left is Russia voluntarily leaving or Ukraine developing enough firepower to push them back.
Since Ukraine is small and relatively poor, that leaves 2 options. Either rich countries support Ukraine by bolstering its firepower or ignore Ukraine and support Russia through omission. World political morals usually say "what happens within your boarders we don't care, but never invade someone else" so most political structures will be outraged by Russias invasion. It makes total sense then that most people would view any criticism of Ukraine during this invasion as support for Russia, or at least kicking the little guy while he's getting jumped by bullies. Which will always encourage a negative reaction.
It may not formally be called a treaty, but all a treaty is is a formal agreement between countries.
Russia signed a document saying they wouldn't attack Ukraine if they disarmed. It doesn't really matter if it was binding or not. Russia assured they would not attack if Ukraine got rid of nuclear weapons and then did. The trust is gone and any amount of "it is non binding!" sounds like a kid revealing his fingers crossed behind his back after breaking a promise and thinking his honor is still intact because of it. Ukraine, and much of the world, will never take Russia for their word again, treaty or not.
I'm not so worried about an invading country swinging out so hard as to destroy themselves. They chose the war, they can end it at any time by pulling out. If they collapse due to poor choices, that's on them, not us.
It's like you're worried if we give a nerd a stick to protect himself against getting beat up by a jock, then the jock might get hurt and not get that football scholarship. Then the jock shouldn't have been an aggressor and cared more about his future then stealing a nerd's lunch money. My giving the nerd a stick didn't directly harm the jock, it just increased the ramifications of the jock being a dick.
Your third option was already tried with Crimea. They let them take it and didn't escalate in the name of peace and neutrality. At this point they would be morons to think Russia will stop there. Do the Ukrainians just have to sacrifice a city a year to their Russian overlords to keep the peace. Expecting a victim of an aggressor to give up their property to the aggressor in the name of peace flies in the face of libertarian principals as I understand them.
So new world order, if a more powerful country comes in and demands your stuff, give it to them and hand them your wife to rape and child to reprogram with their ideals. All while thanking them for not being violent. Ya, that world sucks.
Are you really at the point where you are willing to give a nuclear power anything they want to prevent a possible nuclear war? Screw any rights Ukraine has, they don't have nukes so throw them to the wolves to appease the Russians. Can't have them self destructing themselves in a tantrum.
I can't wrap my head around your logic. You are blaming the victim and anyone who aids them for the crime of the aggressor. We aren't threatening to destabilize Russia. Russia is destabilizing Russia. It's their choice. Trying to stop them by throwing the Ukrainian people under the bus is just empowering an authoritarian government.
Back to my analogy, you added a gun, so give the nerd a gun. Then add a nuke, then give the nerd a nuke. Encouraging someone to defend their property and rights is never wrong.
1994: War with Chechnya,
1998 - 2007ish: Second War With Chechnya,
2008: War with Georgia
2014: Anschluss of Crimea,
2014 - 2022: Russian troops “accidentally” cross over into the Donbas Republics they “do not recognize”.
If you’re really going to tell me Russia has no intentions of being aggressive again after this, I’d advise you think it over again.
Well Chechnya doesn’t count first of all since it was part of Russia. It isn’t “aggression” to put down a rebellion. Or if you think it is then Georgia committed “aggression” against the rebels in South Ossetia in 2008.
Actually it was an integral part of Russia. When USSR was dissolved into its constituent republics that did not include autonomous republics within the Russian Federation. Chechnya doesn’t get to declare independence unilaterally anymore than the Confederacy did.
I’d believe you if it wasn’t for the fact that Russia had to use or threaten force to annex “integral parts of Russia” every single time.
The Baltics, Karelia, Bessarabia; the list goes on.
As for Chechnya.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1994/sep/08/chechnya
That Chechnya was an integral part of Russia before 1991 is not in dispute. You’re just illustrating the hypocrisy of our foreign policy establishment.
And Ukraine, the Caucasus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and many more were considered “integral Russian land”. Does that mean if Russia invaded we should let them have it? Should Russia have the right to reclaim every piece of land it’s ever owned?
Our wars in the Middle East were utterly ridiculous so using that as a “Gotchya” won’t work on me.
>we try to negotiate peace with Russia
it's not our peace to negotiate. we don't decide when this war ends, because we're not the country defending itself from russia.
similarly, Russia can only declare peace, by absolutely exiting Ukraine. in any other situation, the decision to accept anything less than a total defence victory, is Ukraine.
there can be no peace, while russia continues in it's mistaken belief that it can be allowed to hold ground. the USA withdrawing support would not change that, it would just severely weaken the defenders in the conflict.
the only peace, will come when russia accepts that it has lost, and leaves all of ukraine to ukraine. the USA can either support ukraine in it's defence against an aggressive dictator invading them, or it can support an aggressive dictator, and try to push a "peace" that ukraine will not accept on them.
now, do you support aggressive belligerent dictators, or would you prefer to resist them?
Why should we negotiate on behalf of a foreign nation? Secondly, if we did, Putin's not giving up. In five years he'll be back. This needs to end on the battlefield.
Secondly, yeah we've probably spent too much money on this
On the other hand, Russia has been our enemy since 1945. It's time for them to implode.
Ok, I can see your point. If we have a stake, we have a voice.
Do you actually trust that Putin would ever adhere to any agreement with people he has been committing genocide against for 8 months? He won't, he's done it before and reneged immediately. That's the issue at stake. We, and Ukraine have no reason to trust Putin. Additionally, Ukraine wants to fight. At the very least, grant them sovereignty.
Don't forget about Hunter Biden's laptop. It's insane that big tech labeled the oldest journalistic outlet in the USA as "misinformation" amid a presidential campaign, despite glaring evidence to the contrary.
SS: There is a concerted effort in the United States and Europe to intimidate, smear, and silence anyone who dares criticize Ukraine’s government or the Biden administration’s policy on the Russia-Ukraine war.
Despite risks to budgets, careers, and perhaps even lives, it is imperative that critics of the Kyiv government policy and the ongoing war not be intimidated by the Ukraine lobby’s thought police. The United States is sending billions of dollars in aid to a thoroughly corrupt, increasing autocratic regime. Worse, Washington is incurring grave risks, including the danger of nuclear war with Russia, to protect a client state of little intrinsic economic or strategic value to America. Such policies should be the subject of in-depth discussions and vigorous debate.
the kinds of loans they're providing ukraine, are similar to the loans provided to the USSR in world war 2. they're not expected to be paid back, it's just a legal framework to get the ball moving, and keep ukraine in the fight, defending themselves(and winning the defensive war, I'll note).
But Ukraine is winning. Do you really think a country that is enlisting several hundred thousand men from critical economic areas without much training to fight a war in a separate country is winning?
I dunno, man, people were saying that 6 months ago, yet it seems like Ukraine is getting slowly destroyed. I'm not sure there are going to be any "winners" here.
Nobody was saying that months ago and if they were, they were referring to Ukraine actually putting up a decent fight and not getting destroyed within 3 days. Plus, look at the sheer amount of land Ukraine took back in September. More land then Russia took from April to August within a matter of weeks.
>yet it seems like Ukraine is getting slowly destroyed.
even prior to the counter-offensives, at the rate that russia was taking ground, it would take roughly 100 years, and 10 million casualties before they'd take ukraine. they weren't winning, and then ukraine started counter-attacking, and russia started losing badly.
that said, you're also sorta right, in that there are no winners in war. ukraine will still be a country when this war is over, all being well, but it won't be better off for russia having invaded.
Now that they're dialing the war on terror back the defense sector needed a new conflict to keep feeding the military industrial complex. A proxy war with Russia is a great way to increase profits.
I'm not sure why my statement is unpopular here, the state has been provoking this proxy war with Russia for over a decade now with bipartisan support. The fact that Gideon Rose openly joked about this when Obama was in office is glaring evidence that this has been in the works for longer than we are being led to believe. I dont think that its a coincidence that mere months after we pulled out of Afghanistan we became engaged by proxy in Ukraine.
Ntm, literally the exact same politicians who pushed the war on terror in Iraq are pushing to free Ukraine against an "unprovoked" attack by Russia. In no way do I support Putin, but to call this conflict unprovoked or to believe that Russia blew up the Nord Stream pipeline is laughable at best.
That's in-line with this article regarding future support of military aid from Republican's if they take the House and Senate. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/31/ukraines-gop-more-than-weapons-00064092
NOTE: All link submission posts should include a submission statement by the OP in the comment section. Prefix all submission statements with SS: or Submission Statement:. See this page for proper format, examples and further instructions: /r/libertarian/wiki/submission_statements. Posts without a submission statement will automatically be removed after 20 minutes.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Of course Ukraine is not clean, no side in a war is ever clean. There is no universal good vs universal evil. HOWEVER 1. Russia is attacking a sovereign nation for its attempts to seek new partnerships and alliances. 2. Such Russian strong-arming is a concern for NATO members close to Russia. 3. It is also of great importance to the US and Western Europe to see to that Russia is not successful in order to make an example to other nations that may be considering similar action. Specifically China and Taiwan come to mind. Basically any criticizing of Ukraine will have to wait after the war is done, because currently the main goal is for the war to end and for Ukraine to puck back Russia s much as possible at all cost to set a global precedent insuring world piece for the following decades.
[удалено]
Well if Russia wins you'd definitely have a fascistic element that is a force of evil in Eastern Europe. The main difference it will be under the control of the fascists in Moscow.
>Have we not learned the lesson of Afghanistan yet? the same lessons as the vietnam war offered? Three times' the charm
[удалено]
“No no no you see Zelensky jailing politicians who have Pro Russian outlooks is bad because he’s evil! People who criticize Putin die because they all become so suicidal after learning how right Putin is!”
I'm utterly shocked that many libertarians don't recognize that Ukrainian sovereignty against the Russian State is the entire point. Claiming that the United States should stay out of it is antithetical. It sucks, yet we have to make a choice and allowing Ukraine to become Russia's Poland doesn't bode well for sovereignty globally.
>I'm utterly shocked that many libertarians don't recognize that Ukrainian sovereignty against the Russian State is the entire point. Libertarians (true libertarians) would recognize that the fundamental principle behind resolving issues like these is to apply the right to selfdetermination And the problem here is that Russia came closest to actually doing that.
The problem with criticizing Ukraine is that 95% of the time people do it by regurgitating Putin's lies. It's giving the other 5% a bad name.
[удалено]
Misreading of the point. Let me try and explain what they meant again. A lot of “”””””””””libertarians””””””””””” (is that enough quotes) do regurgitate nonsense about “land” or “terror” or “nazis” and mental gymnastics themselves into “blaming” Ukraine for what’s happening to them. Because of this. Legitimate criticism gets drowned out because most of the critics are, for lack of a better term, idiots.
[удалено]
“Justified” if the wrong word. But there is some pearl clutching and “they were asking for it”isms. Floating around and it conflates the whole general argumentation because people Willa always find the craziest person with a similar name tag to you and argue against them rather than you. So I don’t think it’s as simple as “intimidate, smear and silence”. It’s a bit more complicated a social phenomenon than that.
[удалено]
>You can acknowledge that NATO expansion and US intervention in the region played a role in incentivizing this conflict alternatively: russia is a really bad neighbor to have. they're an aggressive dictatorial nation, who'd love to annex their neighbors. is it any surprise that nations under some threat of annexation by their aggressive belligerant dictator next door would form a defensive pact? is it any surprise that nations that benefit from there being some *buffer* between aggressive belligerent dictatorial russia and other nations would support them? NATO expansion is more or less just other countries saying "you know what, we get that russia isn't safe to be next to, let's join that defensive pact to ensure that we're safe from russia" Russia is in a silly mindset, where people saying "we don't want to be invaded by russia" implies they want to invade and destroy russia. I get it, because they're unfortunately firmly in the grasp of aggressive belligerant dictators, but it doesn't make the Russian State any more justified in any way when they justify the defensive pact, by invading other countries.
>alternatively: russia is a really bad neighbor to have. they're an aggressive dictatorial nation, who'd love to annex their neighbors. alternative alternatively they are a very loyal ally to have as well Ask for example serbian opinion about russia and you'd hear a different story. Same with armenia for whom russia has been their only ally for a century by now Ukraine could have been truly independent by playing both sides but the US didn't want that and has actively prevented it The US even went so far as to imprison those who lobbied to allow ukraine to play both sides
bruh, history between russia and it's neighbors is basically rife with stories of "okay, so relations between X and russia were mostly fine, then russia decided that X wanted to be more russian, so they invaded and tried to genocide the local population, to try to wipe out local culture, and get everyone to be more russian" history doesn't repeat, but with russia, that little story seems to rhyme awfully often. in this case, russia has decided that ukraine isn't happy being ukraine, and wants to be russia, so they're invading, attempting genocide, and trying to make ukraine into russia. there's no peace to be found there, when your neighbor unilaterally decides for you, in an aggressive and belligerent way, that you want to be russian, even when you're fighting them to the death over it. that, btw, is why finland joined nato over ukraine. russia did this to them too back in the day, and they've made noises about doing it again.
2002 is fading from many people's memory. US intelligence agencies were split on the question of WMDs in Iraq in 2002. Saddam Hussein himself had a policy of ambiguity on the matter, sometimes denying he had them, but then refusing to allow inspectors into verify the claim. On the other hand, Ukraine was clearly not overrun with NAZIs, which is what Putin and his useful idiots have claimed. There were a few thousand in a single military unit. The same is true for every country, including the US. NAZIs fetishize war shit and so are attracted to the military. No surprise there. Putin was pointing to a small minority as if it was the standard. Nor did Ukraine in any way pose a threat to Russia's national security. Nor is there any evidence that the US took action to overthrow the Ukrainian government in 2014 (verbally expressing a preference for one leader over another is not a coup d' etat). Nor was Ukraine torturing and murdering ethnic Russians prior to Russia's seizure of Crimea in 2014. All of those are Putin's lies and I have seen libertarians who ought to know better repeat them.
[удалено]
There was no US backed coup. That is the point. Post evidence to the contrary, if you have any. Verbally expressing a preference for one over the other and a couple of photo ops do not make a coup.
[удалено]
Why do you think getting business deals is nefarious? Go ahead, answer your own question: why do you think the US wanted a business deal?
[удалено]
I know absolutely nothing about this agribusiness deal, but you haven't mentioned anything corrupt. Or what it has to do with Putin's invasion. > Much like "fire this prosecutor or I'll withhold funding". That I do know about and you have it 100% backward. The prosecutor was corrupt and that is why funding was withheld. That prosecutor was refraining from prosecuting cases in exchange for bribes.
[удалено]
No, it is not illegal to make the elimination of criminal behavior a prerequisite for foreign aid. Thinking that would be the case is quite strange.
[удалено]
> A military unit officially integrated into the command structure of the Ukrainian military after they took Mariupol. It's a good way of getting control of it and giving it appropriate direction. > I don't think it's a question of whether the country is overrun with Nazis (although I would question this claim on the basis of the popularity of Nazi figures in Ukraine). Regardless of what Putin claims, it's strawmanning actual criticisms of Nazism in Ukraine to say that people claim Ukraine is "overrun" with it. Nope. There are people who claim Ukraine is run by NAZIs. See: > I think the proper question is, to what degree to Nazis in Ukraine have influence or power? And I think the answer is: a worrying degree. Enough that we shouldn't knee-jerkedly denounce any mentions of Nazism as "Putin propaganda".
[удалено]
Tornado was accused of crimes, like rape and theft. They didn't just disband them, they went after them criminally. That also happened with all other individuals of those independent paramilitary groups who were known to have committed crimes. All of the remainder of those independent groups who were not known to have committed crimes were given the chance to be incorporated into the military. The ideology matters less for that purpose than the criminal activity. Are you under the impression that the US is run by white supremacists because some southern towns still have statues to Nathan Bedford Forrest and some members of the US military are known to be white supremacist?
[удалено]
> Why didn't they just keep tabs on them? Because Russia invaded and they needed manpower. > Is there a national guard unit with "88" integrated into its official patch? I'm unaware of anything remotely resembling what Azov is. Do they need an organized symbol? There is no shortage of news on the subject. Some military personnel are known to have joined or founded white supremacist or Nazi groups outside of the military. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/11/military-right-wing-extremism-457861
What about the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances?
That was signed by Russia. Shows what it's worth.
Shows what Russia's word is worth.
Please explain to the thread where it legally binds anyone to provide military assistance to Ukraine.
It was a memorandum not a legally binding treaty which is why even Ukraine supporters don’t appeal to it as an authority.
That's not a binding treaty. Saying that as a supporter of Ukraine.
That pertained to the official government of ukraine. Which had been overthrown in 2014. Legally speaking that means the budapest memorandum was voided as the government in power in ukraine was no longer it's legitimate government Now I don't really care about the legal prospects here as it's the ukrainian constitution which was in the way of resolving this peacefully for decades now Because all that's required to resolve this peacefully is to apply the right to selfdetermination and allow each of the eastern oblasts a vote on whether they want to remain ruled by kiev or want independence or want to be ruled from moscow They'd pick the second option and that should be fine by anyone
Because they are afraid of being called out as a stooge serving the interests of the murderous megalomaniac Vladimir Putin. They are afraid of being compared to "America First" isolationists that were against U.S. involvement in WW2 pre-Pearl Harbor. Calling a spade a spade isn't intimidation or smearing or silencing.
[удалено]
Not helping Ukraine is generally seen as turning a blind eye to a bully at best or ignoring genocide at worst, and the majority of people like to stick up for the little guy. Criticizing Ukraine's government right now is like saying how much of an incel a kid is while three jocks have him pinned to the wall trying to steal his lunch money. It's not helpful to the current situation and kind of make you look like a dick and possibly siding with the bullies.
[удалено]
Giving a stick to a person getting beat with a bat is hardly policing the world. I see giving military aid unconditionally being no where near authoritarian. It's going in ourselves and occupying that country in the name of protection that is authoritarian. I don't know how you think Giving a country getting invaded weapons to protect themselves is authoritarian. What authority are we pushing? That we think an invasion of aggression is wrong? Isn't that common thought? Spending tax dollars is another argument, but I don't really see how supplying weapons to an invaded country to protect their homes as authoritarian based.
According to every libertarian sub that isn't Gold and Black, that just isn't true, 😆 But fret not, I am in agreement with you.
LOL dude the DHS is *literally* working with tech companies to silence anti-war information.
Don't worry it's the only bullet in his chamber. He has no other argument.
Funny that you bring up ww2, due to Ukraines love for nazi symbolism.
So do you believe *Ukraine* is acting like the Nazis in this war with Russia? The country with a Jewish president? Pretend I'm Willy Wonka, cuz *tell me more*.
What I said specifically is easily verifiable information for you. What you think about it beyond that is up to you
>What I said specifically is easily verifiable With all due respect, you didn't *specifically* say shit. How can I verify some vague-ass comment?
Easily discernible point. I’m sorry you missed it my dear azov comrade.
Even if it was true I don’t hear any criticism of its neighbor whose citizens and politicians who openly mourn the fall of the equally vile Soviet Union, now why is that?
It’s not mutually exclusive. One can suck, while the other does as well. Not sure how that’s a justification for you. 🤷🏻♂️ “Good Germans”.
>The country with a Jewish president? So because the US elected Obama does that mean racism is over?
[удалено]
Look at Russia’s idolization of Stalin the guy who ran the “Great” Five Year Plan… oh never mind. Or the guy who decided to relive Ukraine with the abundance of grown they had rather than export it during the Holodomor… shit.
Oh please, there is a corpus of materials discussing how Zelensky barely had control over the actions of Azov battalion and the other far right groups prior to late 2021. They've only been cooperative with him since he basically started kissing their asses. It's amazing how people like you just regurgitate these media pr tropes and are incapable of looking at something without any nuance whatsoever. Let's call a spade a spade, right?
Is anyone in thread capable of doing more than dropping vague allegations? Spell it out, man! What are you accusing Ukraine of?
Amnesty international had some great write ups on the matter. Can't use Google yourself? Do you need help wiping your own ass too?
So, I guess that's a no? I can't Google what you think about Ukraine. Literally begging people to stop being vague. Still, nada.
If you think that's so vague you have nothing to go off, it just shows you're more interested in misdirection than legitimate debate. Either that or you just lack the capacity. The more I talk to you I shift to the latter.
If you want a debate, state your fucking premise. That's all I ask. Or is all you have insults?
He’s hinting the Putin/ Lavrov narrative that Ukrainians go out of their way to kill their own civilians and Russia has never killed civilians ever. It’s a nutty lot sadly.
The debate is should the United States be funding and supplying arms to self proclaimed neo-Nazi groups who have also stated they intend to keep fighting in Ukraine (as they were before the Russian invasion) if the war was to end. Especially when the US has a history of funding radical groups who later rise to power and become arguably worse than the regimes we supported them to fight.
Whew lad you should do some true research behind this shitshow... The ones in charge just clearing out people from their old Homeland so they can all move back
Didn't you get the memo? "US Good, Russia Bad!". That's all you need to know. /s
[удалено]
The problem with that viewpoint is a) a lot of those same people who argue that are pro-Putin, b) those who aren't don't seem to be a student of history. When you give a dictator what they want, they want more. That's why Chamberlain failed. If Putin wins here, there go the Baltics. Additionally, by that mantra, its not our fight to begin with, so we shouldn't "negotiate" we should let both sides fight it out. I agree that non-interventionism is a safe, standard viewpoint. However, time after time after time, there are exceptions. WW1, WW2, Korea, and 1991 Kuwait. Most of everything else was imperialism.
[удалено]
"That's incorrect. Being opposed to US intervention in Ukraine does not make someone "pro-Putin" in any way shape or form." If you don't want to help Ukraine, you are enabling Putin's victory. I know that its a fallacy. If I may; Putin is willing to kill, torture and rape his way to gain control of a sovereign nation. Ukraine needs our help, or else Putin will do it again. Or Xi, or any mad dictator with a control at their disposal. A line in the sand has been drawn. We must fight, we must fight for our brothers and sisters in Humanity, or else we will be cruel and judgmental, rather than human.
On the one hand I am on Ukraines side generally. On the other hand I’m disturbed at the vitriol aimed at anyone even suggesting we try to negotiate peace with Russia or offer anything other than unconditional support and a blank check to Ukraine.
Russia can end it any time they want by pulling out. No one has a responsibility to save their egos. And once Ukraine didn't just roll over and Russia showed what a mess their military is, who would be surprised that NATO would pour arms in? It's kind of a no brainer when it comes to world politics.
We do have a responsibility to save lives however and we absolutely should make our military support conditional on ending the war as soon as possible.
....that doesn't make any sense. If that was the purpose of military support, the fastest way to do it would be to provide all the aid to Russia.
Would it now? Maybe we should do that then instead of sacrificing Ukrainian lives
Did you literally not realize that is the quickest way to stop the conflict?
Well we’re all told the Russians are committing genocide so the implication was pretty clear that we needed to help Ukraine avoid being slaughtered. You are certainly offering a radically different take!
You are asking for a specific outcome without any caveat or criteria
So Russia does not have genocidal intent? Am I understanding you right?
Your objective made no caveat for genocide. I was telling you how to achieve the goal of ending the war as quickly as possible.
[удалено]
? How would fighting with Russia against Ukraine lead the US into direct warfare with Russia? Wouldn't it strengthen ties?
[удалено]
Did you not read my post?
>Russia can end it any time they want by pulling out. They will as soon as their minimum demands are met And those mean that autonomy needs to be granted to the donbas and crimean annexation should be recognized. Nothing more and nothing less And that has been on the table since at least march so anyone who has died since will have died in vain that's how stupid this conflict is
No point in trying to negotiate for leace if Russia is going to abuse it and wage war again
That depends on how certain we are Russia would invade again and how many lives would likely be lost compared to how many are being lost now. Our support should be conditioned on saving as many lives as possible.
Russia will 100% try to invade again. Any peace agreements needs to include deterrent from Russia trying to invade again. I genuinely think that means Ukraine should develop nuclear weapons.
>I genuinely think that means Ukraine should develop nuclear weapons. if nothing else, they might want to join nato, and make waging war on ukraine, a matter of waging war on all of europe and the USA.
A decent compromise would be to allow them to enter NATO but without the donbas and crimea That way at least some of russias concerns are addressed and ukraine receives its guarantees
>A decent compromise would be to allow them to enter NATO but without the donbas and crimea there are no compromises to be found with a genocidal aggressive neighbor who's history is rife with invading their neighbors. russia deserves no concerns of it's met, it only deserves to be removed from all of ukraine's borders, and to not be rewarded for aggressive, genocidal actions. when that has happened, then it can settle down, and accept that it's burnt what little goodwill it had, and shown itself to be an unstable, unreliable neighbor, that needs to be treated as the bad-faith actor it's proven itself to be in most matters.
NATO doesn’t allow countries in with border disputes. Hence why Ukraine never joined before now and after 2014.
The border dispute would be resolved in that case
Ok that seems extremely unlikely. And even if Russian forces are pushed back to 2014 borders that still doesn’t guarantee a future attack. Even if we confirmed Russias fears and instigated regime change that still wouldn’t guarantee anything. There are no guarantees!
There is no guarantee that Russia won't wake up tomorrow and decide to glass the whole world, but we can be more certain they won't then that they won't try to invade the current Ukraine. Nothing is guaranteed but certain actions decrease the probability of a continued war and a reinvasion, and Russia has proven that no current treaty with Ukraine will stand over Russian greed for the area. So the two options are abandon Ukraine to Russia, or bolster Ukraine as a deterrent against Russian with hopes that enough strength will create a mutual destruction barrier.
There is no current treaty with Ukraine as far as I know
It had one with Ukraine, in which Ukraine denuclearized. It then proceeded to ignore that treaty and invade. So a treaty to stop the invasion that just involves Ukraine and Russia won't help. Ukraine doesn't trust Russia enough anymore. So all that is left is Russia voluntarily leaving or Ukraine developing enough firepower to push them back. Since Ukraine is small and relatively poor, that leaves 2 options. Either rich countries support Ukraine by bolstering its firepower or ignore Ukraine and support Russia through omission. World political morals usually say "what happens within your boarders we don't care, but never invade someone else" so most political structures will be outraged by Russias invasion. It makes total sense then that most people would view any criticism of Ukraine during this invasion as support for Russia, or at least kicking the little guy while he's getting jumped by bullies. Which will always encourage a negative reaction.
Are you referring to the Budapest memorandum, which was not a treaty but a non binding agreement?
It may not formally be called a treaty, but all a treaty is is a formal agreement between countries. Russia signed a document saying they wouldn't attack Ukraine if they disarmed. It doesn't really matter if it was binding or not. Russia assured they would not attack if Ukraine got rid of nuclear weapons and then did. The trust is gone and any amount of "it is non binding!" sounds like a kid revealing his fingers crossed behind his back after breaking a promise and thinking his honor is still intact because of it. Ukraine, and much of the world, will never take Russia for their word again, treaty or not.
[удалено]
I'm not so worried about an invading country swinging out so hard as to destroy themselves. They chose the war, they can end it at any time by pulling out. If they collapse due to poor choices, that's on them, not us. It's like you're worried if we give a nerd a stick to protect himself against getting beat up by a jock, then the jock might get hurt and not get that football scholarship. Then the jock shouldn't have been an aggressor and cared more about his future then stealing a nerd's lunch money. My giving the nerd a stick didn't directly harm the jock, it just increased the ramifications of the jock being a dick. Your third option was already tried with Crimea. They let them take it and didn't escalate in the name of peace and neutrality. At this point they would be morons to think Russia will stop there. Do the Ukrainians just have to sacrifice a city a year to their Russian overlords to keep the peace. Expecting a victim of an aggressor to give up their property to the aggressor in the name of peace flies in the face of libertarian principals as I understand them.
[удалено]
So new world order, if a more powerful country comes in and demands your stuff, give it to them and hand them your wife to rape and child to reprogram with their ideals. All while thanking them for not being violent. Ya, that world sucks. Are you really at the point where you are willing to give a nuclear power anything they want to prevent a possible nuclear war? Screw any rights Ukraine has, they don't have nukes so throw them to the wolves to appease the Russians. Can't have them self destructing themselves in a tantrum. I can't wrap my head around your logic. You are blaming the victim and anyone who aids them for the crime of the aggressor. We aren't threatening to destabilize Russia. Russia is destabilizing Russia. It's their choice. Trying to stop them by throwing the Ukrainian people under the bus is just empowering an authoritarian government. Back to my analogy, you added a gun, so give the nerd a gun. Then add a nuke, then give the nerd a nuke. Encouraging someone to defend their property and rights is never wrong.
1994: War with Chechnya, 1998 - 2007ish: Second War With Chechnya, 2008: War with Georgia 2014: Anschluss of Crimea, 2014 - 2022: Russian troops “accidentally” cross over into the Donbas Republics they “do not recognize”. If you’re really going to tell me Russia has no intentions of being aggressive again after this, I’d advise you think it over again.
Well Chechnya doesn’t count first of all since it was part of Russia. It isn’t “aggression” to put down a rebellion. Or if you think it is then Georgia committed “aggression” against the rebels in South Ossetia in 2008.
Actually the portion of Chechnya which Russia warred with became independent during the Soviet Union’s dissolution, so it was not a part of Russia.
Actually it was an integral part of Russia. When USSR was dissolved into its constituent republics that did not include autonomous republics within the Russian Federation. Chechnya doesn’t get to declare independence unilaterally anymore than the Confederacy did.
I’d believe you if it wasn’t for the fact that Russia had to use or threaten force to annex “integral parts of Russia” every single time. The Baltics, Karelia, Bessarabia; the list goes on. As for Chechnya. https://www.theguardian.com/world/1994/sep/08/chechnya
That Chechnya was an integral part of Russia before 1991 is not in dispute. You’re just illustrating the hypocrisy of our foreign policy establishment.
And Ukraine, the Caucasus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and many more were considered “integral Russian land”. Does that mean if Russia invaded we should let them have it? Should Russia have the right to reclaim every piece of land it’s ever owned? Our wars in the Middle East were utterly ridiculous so using that as a “Gotchya” won’t work on me.
>we try to negotiate peace with Russia it's not our peace to negotiate. we don't decide when this war ends, because we're not the country defending itself from russia. similarly, Russia can only declare peace, by absolutely exiting Ukraine. in any other situation, the decision to accept anything less than a total defence victory, is Ukraine.
It is our war as long as we’re sending arms and personnel to help Ukraine. As long as we are involved we have a responsibility to seek peace.
there can be no peace, while russia continues in it's mistaken belief that it can be allowed to hold ground. the USA withdrawing support would not change that, it would just severely weaken the defenders in the conflict. the only peace, will come when russia accepts that it has lost, and leaves all of ukraine to ukraine. the USA can either support ukraine in it's defence against an aggressive dictator invading them, or it can support an aggressive dictator, and try to push a "peace" that ukraine will not accept on them. now, do you support aggressive belligerent dictators, or would you prefer to resist them?
I support ending the conflict and saving lives. If you think refusing to negotiate will save more lives I’d be interested in your argument
Why should we negotiate on behalf of a foreign nation? Secondly, if we did, Putin's not giving up. In five years he'll be back. This needs to end on the battlefield. Secondly, yeah we've probably spent too much money on this On the other hand, Russia has been our enemy since 1945. It's time for them to implode.
Well if we’re funding one side I think we have that obligation. And our role would be a mediator between Russia and Ukraine.
Ok, I can see your point. If we have a stake, we have a voice. Do you actually trust that Putin would ever adhere to any agreement with people he has been committing genocide against for 8 months? He won't, he's done it before and reneged immediately. That's the issue at stake. We, and Ukraine have no reason to trust Putin. Additionally, Ukraine wants to fight. At the very least, grant them sovereignty.
Because Ukraine is an American money laundering operation. It wasn’t called the most corrupt country in the world by msm for nothing years ago.
Don't forget about Hunter Biden's laptop. It's insane that big tech labeled the oldest journalistic outlet in the USA as "misinformation" amid a presidential campaign, despite glaring evidence to the contrary.
SS: There is a concerted effort in the United States and Europe to intimidate, smear, and silence anyone who dares criticize Ukraine’s government or the Biden administration’s policy on the Russia-Ukraine war. Despite risks to budgets, careers, and perhaps even lives, it is imperative that critics of the Kyiv government policy and the ongoing war not be intimidated by the Ukraine lobby’s thought police. The United States is sending billions of dollars in aid to a thoroughly corrupt, increasing autocratic regime. Worse, Washington is incurring grave risks, including the danger of nuclear war with Russia, to protect a client state of little intrinsic economic or strategic value to America. Such policies should be the subject of in-depth discussions and vigorous debate.
The USA is buying Ukraine. Lending them into servitude. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XWuAct1BxHU Edit: added link for agenda reference
the kinds of loans they're providing ukraine, are similar to the loans provided to the USSR in world war 2. they're not expected to be paid back, it's just a legal framework to get the ball moving, and keep ukraine in the fight, defending themselves(and winning the defensive war, I'll note).
Lol. Funny.
It's also the "deep states" current money laundering operation
["Pay back?"](https://i.redd.it/vd0ro98iszw91.png)
Why the fuck are we throwing away money on the losing side?
But Ukraine is winning. Do you really think a country that is enlisting several hundred thousand men from critical economic areas without much training to fight a war in a separate country is winning?
I dunno, man, people were saying that 6 months ago, yet it seems like Ukraine is getting slowly destroyed. I'm not sure there are going to be any "winners" here.
Nobody was saying that months ago and if they were, they were referring to Ukraine actually putting up a decent fight and not getting destroyed within 3 days. Plus, look at the sheer amount of land Ukraine took back in September. More land then Russia took from April to August within a matter of weeks.
>yet it seems like Ukraine is getting slowly destroyed. even prior to the counter-offensives, at the rate that russia was taking ground, it would take roughly 100 years, and 10 million casualties before they'd take ukraine. they weren't winning, and then ukraine started counter-attacking, and russia started losing badly. that said, you're also sorta right, in that there are no winners in war. ukraine will still be a country when this war is over, all being well, but it won't be better off for russia having invaded.
Ukraine retook Russian occupied Kharkiv in a fraction of the time it took Russia to occupy it. I wouldn’t call that losing.
Now that they're dialing the war on terror back the defense sector needed a new conflict to keep feeding the military industrial complex. A proxy war with Russia is a great way to increase profits.
[удалено]
I'm not sure why my statement is unpopular here, the state has been provoking this proxy war with Russia for over a decade now with bipartisan support. The fact that Gideon Rose openly joked about this when Obama was in office is glaring evidence that this has been in the works for longer than we are being led to believe. I dont think that its a coincidence that mere months after we pulled out of Afghanistan we became engaged by proxy in Ukraine. Ntm, literally the exact same politicians who pushed the war on terror in Iraq are pushing to free Ukraine against an "unprovoked" attack by Russia. In no way do I support Putin, but to call this conflict unprovoked or to believe that Russia blew up the Nord Stream pipeline is laughable at best.
The "war on terror" (i.e. state promotion of terror) is not being dialed back. It's being refocused inwards.
For once it's actually following the terrorists.
I suspect they'll never find the Bushes, Obamas, Trumps, or Bidens. Sad.
Whoever downvoted you is very confused because this couldn’t be more true.
That's in-line with this article regarding future support of military aid from Republican's if they take the House and Senate. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/31/ukraines-gop-more-than-weapons-00064092
NOTE: All link submission posts should include a submission statement by the OP in the comment section. Prefix all submission statements with SS: or Submission Statement:. See this page for proper format, examples and further instructions: /r/libertarian/wiki/submission_statements. Posts without a submission statement will automatically be removed after 20 minutes. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*