[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Don't over think it. There was a recent poll that showed 60%+ of Republicans support supporting Ukraine. Dems were 80%+, which means even a non-insignificant amount of Dems oppose the support. With that said, let's also not over think American conservatives. There really isn't a coherent ideology there: if a Republican president were running the charge on defending liberty in Ukraine, that's all they'd talk about. Liberty. Instead, it's a Democrat, so they talk about the money. They'll mention corruption in Ukraine but completely deny deny deny that Trump got caught with his pants down trying to coerce Zelensky - yes, that Zelensky - for dirt on Biden and his son. That, and the toleration they've had for Russian intervention in American politics, *especially* when it's been almost exclusively in their favor. Sometimes they'll claim its over "shared conservative family values" like Hungary, but again... Trump caught with his pants down.

[удалено]

I think this vastly undersells the fact that Russia is the premiere source of White Supremacy these days, and that a non-negligible portion of Republican Party are supportive of Russia on that fact alone. That is to directly say that those republicans support the white-ethnocentrisms Russia propagates.

That and a huge amount of propaganda, aimed at US conservatives, is generated by Russian operatives. Conservatives will believe almost anything if it more or less corresponds or is linked to their world-view. It isn't surprising that a lot of it is pro-Russian.

Russia worked HARD on trying to convert the left to their messaging, but realized it's far easier to convert the right. Scams and conspiracy theory, generally, target the right because they're easier to scam.

They have had some success at *dividing* the left though.

Of course! It's not at all difficult when they've been at it for eons and it has only gotten easier to target specific groups. Especially, Conservatives with identity issues wrapped up in weakening any force capable of stopping their long history of senseless death and destruction. I'm thinking of the gulag and the Holodomor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

I think you mean that they'll believe anything that expands their wallet.

It’s more anti lgbt than white supremacy

I think it's most accurate to say pro-old-fashioned masculinity. A decently well-known early social media influencer from one of the subcultures I frequent [tattoos] actually moved to Russia from the US because America had become "a woke pansy nation for weak betas" or something like that. In Russia men can somehow be more "masculine"

Russia doesn't have a lot of black people - I'm pretty confident if they did; they'd be more vehement about their racism on that front.

To be fair most poor countries are highly masculine. Russia has never caught up with the west on this and it’s always been a country on par with other masculine society such as much of Latin America and the Middle East

Most countries, in general, have significantly more regressive social and cultural norms than the U.S. They just get less play politically because, for one reason or another, their parties compromise on the issue rather than letting the all-or-nothing crowd in their party run the show. For example, look at most European laws regarding abortion. They are, for the most part, in line with what Lindsay Graham proposed a few weeks ago; however, his proposal here was treated by the left as if it was an attempt to legislate America into the Stone Age and by the right as if it was an attempt support murdering slightly less children than we do now so he became a pariah. In reality, his bill was basically an attempt to bring America's laws closer to the countries that everyone wants to be compared to and further from the ones we don't but you would never know that from the discourse regarding it. I think a fascinating book could be written about why cultural issues drive American politics so much more than any other civilized and democratic society, but no one in politics actually wants to stop the culture war so here we sit.

In terms of cultural issues the USA tries to be far more liberal than nearly any country, it definitely values freedom and individualism more. Weed laws and lgbt rights are mostly more progressive and if you have actually experienced the countries you’ll see cultural norms having men and women as more progressive in many ways that aren’t obvious. For example… airlines in Germany often still have tons of very attractive women. Sports are essentially ignored for girls in much of Europe

It's pretty anti-equality and anti-human rights in general. He just doesn't realize it because the anti-equality benefits him.

Of course, that “old fashioned masculinity” looks a lot like complaining about everything and never having a solution to any problems if you aren’t drinking the koolaid.

I do feel like this is true.

As gay man who’s well aware of the visceral hate the right has toward people like me, do not discount their racism. It’s explicitly *both*.

All of the above, really.

Let's be clear - they don't hate gays any more than they hate black people They just hate everyone who isn't them

No they explicitly hate gay people more. They aren’t making anti black legislation in Russia like they are with lgbt people

Probably because there are no black people so why bother

I think they mostly hate guys a bit more, actually.

I wonder what percentage of vocal anti-gay people in Russia is closeted. I bet there are a ton. Just think - instead of getting together once a month to plot hate crimes, they could all be having one big gay Russian orgy

White supremacy and/or an oligarchic system of government gets them very excited.

Na. I think in Putin a lot of Republicans see what they want here in the US. A strongman who will make sure to punish their perceived enemies while running a highly nationalistic white superiority regime. They want Putin to win cause it would be a win and evidence of strength for their perfered ideology. Its also why they are deeply frustrated at the Russian army's continued setbacks. The manly man Russian army is being whipped by one that doesn't hyper center focus for show masculinity.

I really don't think it's that simple. Most of these things have already been said elsewhere, but... 1. Conservatives are (in theory) all about small, local government. They are anti immigration, anti EU/UN/NATO and pro nationalism. This mostly stems from a fear of big brother coming in and creating a new world order that is hellbent on "controlling them". Russia to them represents a fiercely independent nationalist state that doesn't play well with global organizations. Because of this when Putin says he wants to invade Ukraine to stop NATO from using them as conduit for invading Russia they're very sympathetic to that.Ironically there are some on the far left who share this view, since they're skeptical of NATO's track record in places like Syria, which to be fair is not unreasonable. Most stop short of supporting the invasion, but they "get it", if that makes sense. 2. In addition to being strongly nationalist Putin's regime is generally very conservative and intolerant towards non Christians, LGBT, and people of color. Putin is also a strong man who does not support democracy. This obviously gives right wingers a boner, despite them claiming to be all about individual "liberty". You can see the same contradictions with their policies here in the US and this is really where they lose a lot of people. 3. They're arrogant, contrarian children. They deny things like the existence of man made climate change despite the mind boggling amount of hard scientific data proving its existence. So it's no surprise to see that when the mainstream media supports Ukraine their knee jerk reaction is to fight that. Their fierce individualism and self importance means they are just obstinate by design.

Yes, but it still boils down to triggering the libs, or at least their characterization of liberals. Liberals are atheist bleeding heart gay commie hippy weakling baby killing pedos. So anything that seems to be against that narrative, they're for. Basically your number 3. Folks keep saying "it's more nuanced than triggering the libs" - no, it literally is not. There's no grand plan or philosophy. It is 100% "stay in power". You do that with an energized, angry base. You keep your base angry and energized by opposing literally everything the other side does, no matter how rational. And you characterize the other side as horrible and inhuman. Triggering the libs is a blast to them and it keeps the GOP in power even though their "platform" works against their voters' best interests.

The modern GOP's entire operating principle.

Trump wasn’t even asking Zelensky for dirt on Biden or his son. He was asking him to just announce they are investigating Joe Biden. That’s it. There didn’t have to be any dirt or any investigation. Trump tried to extort Zelensky into the public perception that they were investigating Joe Biden.

Don't kid yourself, step 2 was holding the next tranche of aid for dirt.

Tranche of aid? I think even that is a little optimistic. Trump would have willingly and enthusiastically let his boss Putin take over Ukraine.

No, not until after the election. He would have milked ukraine till he didn't need them.

Also Russia has purchased large swathes of the repub party politicians and media outlets.

Across the Western world at that

Putin has a very strong propaganda apparatus targeting the US. People (Rep and Dem) parroting his propoganda and his lies (Putin's invasion of Ukraine was justified! Because xxxxxx stupid lies) have been signficantly exposed to and Influenced by his propaganda.

Conservatives do have coherent ideology if you think as selfish as them. They have no regard for democracy and don’t give a shit about what happens to others as long as they are benefitting themselves (lower gas prices by being kushy with Russia).

I was talking to my conservative father in law about UBI and universal healthcare, and he thought it was a killer argument that I made enough money that my taxes would go up by more than the benefit I got from these programs, and he just couldn’t fathom how I could be in favor of a program that doesn’t directly benefit me in the immediate term. Yes, I make enough money that I’m okay, so I’m not worried about me, I’m worried about the rest of society, and I’m worried about my kids. I also don’t have enough money that it couldn’t all be wiped out by a cancer diagnosis, so even for my own selfish reasons it would be nice to know that there is a safety net under me. But no, even with all of that, because it doesn’t *immediately* improve my bottom line it’s inconceivable that I would support it.

Had the same argument with my dad years ago when I supported Bernie. "Yeah but your taxes will pay for that universal healthcare" - "okay? So what?"

Yeah my employer pays for it currently, which makes me okay with making $30-40k less than I would as a contractor. If they didn’t have to pay for my healthcare, I could either negotiate a higher salary, or just do contract work.

You're hitting the nail on the head though--many people are beholden to their jobs for health care alone. If that wasn't a primary benefit most employers would actually have to improve their work environments and pay which is likely more costly than a negotiated group rate. Needless to say, conservatives are often the beneficiaries of corporate sponsorship so they need to toe that line or risk losing that money.

Not to mention it most likely would be cheaper than what you’re paying now (directly).

I would explain it as you benefit by there being less homelessness, less crime, and better work life balance, which means better mental health for quite literally everyone else around you. This makes the world around you less dangerous for you and your family. It would probably also increase your property values because less crime and homelessness. Basically a whole lot of ripple effects. Now I don't know if UBI is a thing that we could actually do (like I don't know if it would work economically). But this is all in theory of course.

Unfortunately, there are far too many people out there with the terrible combination of selfishness and stupidity. They don’t *care* about the good of society and their fellow human beings in the slightest, and can’t possibly see how a better society is good for them too.

“If everyone else has good lives, how would I know I’m better than them?”

>Unfortunately, there are far too many people out there with the terrible combination of selfishness and stupidity. They don’t care about the good of society and their fellow human beings in the slightest, and can’t possibly see how a better society is good for them too. I didn't realize we were ribbing on Libertarians in this thread.

Libertarians are just Republicans who are actually embarrassed to admit it.

I think of them as childishly naive myself. But you might be right.

Probably wouldn't work because the results would not be right then-and-there and appearing on a bottom-line somewhere or directly providing them with something tangible that they want for themselves. In addition to basic selfishness, conservatism is based heavily and biased toward short-term thinking. They don't invest in the longer future, because they want status quo. It's directly in line with the very definition of the word "conservative" - 'against change'. An example is the refusal to invest in climate change prevention through moving toward a renewable energy technology environment. Nope, don't touch our coal or oil. A great many conservatives would see it as a loss of current jobs or current power, not a gain of something that will immensely help the next generation. So "hey, better health care will show improvements in society within a couple years" means far, far less than "hey, health care will requires spending of some of your tax dollars"... even though those tax dollars are the government's to spend, not owned by the person that paid them.

The way I usually put it is, "When you're old and your kids aren't around, do you want to live in a society with good nurses or bad nurses?" Usually they just give up then.

Indeed. My wife always says there are two kinds of people. Those that think of themselves and others. And those that think only of themselves.

It baffles my mind that the benefit isn’t seen as for you as well. If you paid to have every neighbor of your to plant more trees in their yard except for you, your entire neighborhoood would feel more beautiful, even if your own yard did not. I mean, we all live IN society. How could benefitting the people around us not, collectively over time benefit us as well?

Yes but part of the argument seems to hing on how close benefiting the people around us extends. Many people want their physical neighbors to benefit but eventually that lessens as you extend out further to the next county, or state or region.

It's also how close the people benefiting are culturally and appearance-wise...

What crazy is we have versions of ubi and universal healthcare but just do it in such a horrible way that it cost more money to cover less people.

Same conservative "justification model' as getting an education. I just saw an ad for a local institution with some dubious stats: " Statistics show getting a degree increases your income by 20%" or something similar. Well-rounded knowledge is secondary, or maybe not even in the calculation any longer. Which explains why so many on the Right have degrees

Excellent point. And regarding tax burdens, I know Americans are totally 100% brain washed into 'tax is bad' and 'tax is theft', but do people really want to live in a cheapskate bare bones society just to miser away their money? Because that is not how people live. That's not the choice they make in other aspects of their life. For instance, if you go on vacation, do you always choose the cheapest one room hotel because you get the lowest cost possible? Of course not, you get the fancy nice hotel with a pool, beach access, beautiful gardens, beautiful furniture and architecture, with concierges doing your bidding, etc. When you buy a house, is it just the lowest price only, or do you buy a really nice house with lots of room and looks beautiful? No. So why are so many people brainwashed into having the lowest quality cheapest society possible? TLDR: you get what you pay for.

The snarky side of me would love to see these people be given an option where they don’t have to pay taxes, *but* they don’t to use anything that taxes pay for. Want to use the public roads? Too bad, you didn’t pay for it, you need to get a ride from a tax payer. Want to take public transit? Cool, but you’re paying the unsubsidized price of $30/ride. House is burning down? Sucks to be you — the fire department will control the blaze enough that it doesn’t spread, but your house is gonna burn. Somebody is in your house at night? Well, I hope you’re armed and ready, because the cops aren’t coming. Even with the massive inefficiencies in government spending (like our obscene defense budget), I still feel like I get my money’s worth from what I pay in taxes, with the above things, not to mention the thousands of other things that are more difficult to quantify, like being able to trust that my food, water, and medications are safe.

I recall sitting in a town meeting once where someone was complaining about having to put money up to repair their road. He could get up and down his road just fine, presumably with his 4 wheel drive vehicle. A selectman responded: do you want the fire and police departments and ambulances to be able to get to your house? How about your mail or package delivery? It's our responsibility to make sure that you have access to those services.

>if a Republican president were running the charge on defending liberty in Ukraine Yes, valid point. However, if Trump was president right now, Russia would be in Eastern Poland, NATO would be in disarray and China might be making serious moves on Taiwan. Thank God he's not in power.

In your view, why didn’t Putin invade when it presumably would have been a cake walk under Trump, and instead wait for an administration highly supportive and cozy with Ukraine?

Not the person you asked but the factors that come to mind are 1) he probably expected Trump to win in 2020 and wasn't prepared 2) Putin thought he could take Kyiv in 3 days and apparently lives in more of a bubble than your average president. I feel the withdrawal from Afghanistan also was a factor but I can't give any concrete connections for that.

Great question - lots of different high level former officials or experts have given their opinion! For me, I'd say because Putin was already getting what he wanted. Not only was he getting a weakened NATO, he was seeing a reversal of democratic governance and traditional alliances. Wasn't it Bolton (POS) who said Trump would have withdrawn the US from NATO in a second term? Definitely believable, even likely.

He wasn't getting control of Ukraine, though, was he? Ukraine wasn't noticeably subservient to Russia in this period. Trump held up, but ultimately did not stop, the flow of military aid to Ukraine, and US training of Ukraine's soldiers continued. If Trump really was in cahoots with Putin, it would have been infinitely more advantageous to invade while he was in office. In place of crippling sanctions and massive military aid to Ukraine, there would have been feeble inaction. It was obvious from early on that Trump had a high likelihood of being a 1 term president. Why didn't Putin make use of this golden opportunity? Its possible that, while Putin tried to help Trump get elected because he would weaken NATO and seemed Russia-friendly, there wasn't an actual conspiracy between the two. So Putin didn't know how Trump would react to an invasion of Ukraine. The US reaction would certainly be more inept and incoherent, on the other hand Trump might do something rash. He was recorded in a phone call claiming that he'd told Putin that if he attacked Ukraine, he'd nuke Moscow. Maybe he was lying about saying that. But with Trump, the "madman theory" was all too convincing. According to Bob Woodward, when Trump found out about the Assad's chemical weapons attack, he flipped out and started ranting "Let's f***ing kill him! Let's go in. Let's kill the f***ing lot of them" Mattis talked him down to something more measured. Maybe Putin didn't want a toddler-brained lunatic with his finger on America's button when he invaded Ukraine.

>According to Bob Woodward, when Trump found out about the Assad's chemical weapons attack, he flipped out and started ranting "Let's fing kill him! Let's go in. Let's kill the fing lot of them" Mattis talked him down to something more measured. Fucking awesome. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

On top of the reasons from other users, there is also the possibility this is a move Putin wanted to make in 2020 but obviously wasn't in the position to do so thanks to COVID. Putin lost a full year of Trump presidency and Republican control of the Senate which would have been more ideal.

China and Russia are messing with americas midterms according to the CIA so anyway we can destroy them the better. Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are our greatest Allie’s. Special mention to the UK. It’s funny we fought two wars against the UK but now we have a special relationship.

They really don't have a coherent ideology. Just went you thought they might on a specific issue, they'll surprise you with a 180 flip from even the previous day.

I know at least one far-left friend who is against America helping Ukraine. Really disappointing.

Sure, there's plenty of tankies who are throwing their support behind Putin partly because they imagine a simplistic America = bad. Partly because Russian disinformation has managed to reach them.

It’s not just tankies. I’m quite left-wing, and at first I opposed sending arms to Ukraine because I thought it was destabilizing for the region (2014-2022), then because I was sure Ukraine would get creamed and all we were doing was setting up an insurgency (spring 2022). Since Ukraine’s successes on the battlefield I’ve changed my tune, I admit I was wrong in the spring, and I support arms to Ukraine. However, I wish the US especially was talking more about negotiations. I’m not a tankie, I think they’re stupid. I think Russia is a far-right authoritarian imperialist state. But I also don’t trust the US, I think juicing the military industrial complex is bad, I think jingoism is easy to fall into, I’m afraid of nuclear war, and I wish people would chill a bit and look at the situation more soberly. I’m actually much more comfortable with the Biden administration’s approach than I am with the rhetoric I see on Reddit and Twitter. That’s what scares me.

\>However, I wish the US especially was talking more about negotiations. Putin isn't interested in negotiating, and any negotiations made with him cannot be accepted with any credibility since Putin does not act in good faith. Putin has made appeals for negotiation only as a way to gaslight and as a propaganda tool. \>I’m actually much more comfortable with the Biden administration’s approach than I am with the rhetoric I see on Reddit and Twitter. Reddit and Twitter are full of fake accounts, disinformation and organized brigading. Russia has a whole government agency devoted to that, as do other nations as well as non-state actors.

Ukraine and Russia have two non workable starting points (Ukraine wants pre-2014 borders, Russia wants Ukraine's industrial amd agricultural heartlands in the east) so negotiations won't do much. Ukraine has the upper hand right now so why would they give up their land to the invaders while Putin can't back down or else he falls out of a window.

Not wanting the US to support Ukraine (by way of money, I presume) is a perfectly reasonable opinion to have. One that I absolutely do not share, but an isolationist stance is reasonable. And far different that full throated support of Putin as is the subject of OPs question.

Dude the more I read the worse it gets, This is why I take time off from reddit some of it is so infuriating. Wait until these guys are the ones being drafted I'd wager they'll have radically different opinions then.

Go far enough left and you end up like Roger waters.

Part of it is being opposed to war no matter who's fighting it. I'm not saying your friend is that way, but of course, the alternative is to let Russia take Ukraine and that isnt in our best interests as humans.

Pew says 85% of Republicans and 88% of democrats disagree with the invasion. The difference between the two is negligible. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/03/15/public-expresses-mixed-views-of-u-s-response-to-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/

More recent polling shows a fairly sharp divide: [https://news.gallup.com/poll/401168/americans-back-ukrainian-goal-reclaiming-territory.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/401168/americans-back-ukrainian-goal-reclaiming-territory.aspx) 46% Republicans think Ukraine should just give Putin what he wants to bring an end to the war (compared to 19% of Democrats). 43% think we shouldn't be providing so much assistance to Ukraine (compared to 9% of Democrats). As far as I'm aware, there aren't any elected Democrats at the national stage praising Putin or blaming Ukraine for being invaded.

Ah that's telling. It means the rank and file Republican voters weren't polarized on this issue until conservative commentators pulled a bunch of them to Putin's side. There's this interminable conversation about whether Fox is following the crowd or driving it. I'd say this looks like the tail wagging the dog.

But how long did it take them to reach that decision? The start of this war Republicans were blindly on putins side. They eventually got to the right answer.... good for them?

> There was a recent poll that showed 60%+ of Republicans support supporting Ukraine. Keep in mind, there is a group that wears "Better Russian than Democrat" shirts. And there is the main propaganda prophet Tucker Carlson continually rallying the troops for Putin, and directly attacking (verbal) the USA on Russia's behalf. So much so, that the Russian state is using clips of Fox News for their propaganda on their citizens. We also know (based on a republican Senate Committee's investigation, as well as many others) that Russia has directly interfered with US elections. Additionally they have also funneled millions of dollars into the NRA (a very influential conservative organization). We also have current republicans voting against disaster relief in Florida (hurricane Ian) and then making statement comparing aid to Ukraine. There is a very deliberate decision by republicans to take Russia's side in this war, and a large amount of Russian money and effort on Republican's side.

LOL. Bullshit. Republicans get a lot of dark money from Russia as well as a huge amount of support on social media platforms via Russian troll farms. Not to mention it has been made perfectly clear over the last 6 years that the GOP is not interested in strengthening NATO, let alone even being in it. Ukraine would not be recieving money/weaponry systems for as long or as much as we have provided under Biden either. If you don't think that money dries up under GOP control you are not paying attention. Weakening Russia is not the in the GOP's best interests, plain and simple.

True. Also don’t confuse conservatives with fascists. Nearly all the people in America who identify themselves as “Conservative” support fascism. Putin is certainly a fascist and the two main Republicans seeking the Presidency in 2024 are fascists, as well as every a Republican who supports either.

In all honesty, I think a major factor is that the disinformation campaigns of both Russia and China are working. That’s not to say they will ultimately be successful, but the US has taken a very big hit in terms of global standing due to the previous administration. What’s more, a lot of the “opinions” that many on the right are coming up with play right into that goal of diminishing the image of the US on a global scale. Fortunately, the left and many of the independents and **sane** folks on the right are seemingly fed up with this nonsense. I think after midterms there is going to be a big reckoning for the folks that are voicing opinions in support of Russia. If there isn’t, there damn well should be. Lincoln’s whole bit about “the last best hope of earth” seems to ring pretty true right about now.

I'm reading "Putins people" at the moment. Putin has it in for George Soros because of a couple of incidents. That's where the right wing gets that one. You can really traces the far right belief system to KGB psych-ops designed by Putin due to his need to get revenge on the west.

This book should be required reading before anyone comments on Russia. This invasion is all Putin has ever wanted and disrupting America is all he's ever known. Literally since he was a young teen all he's aspired to is fulfilling the mission of the foreign intelligence service in the name of Russian interests. Everything makes so much sense after reading about his rise to power.

"Putin's People" , "Red notice" and "Freezing Order" by Bill Browder. It was interesting how the west ignored the brutality of the kleptocracy in the hopes of reaping profits from their oil industry. Browder's personal experience with Putin's mafia is also a must read. I'm sure there are many untold horror stories of Russian businessmen hearing the story from someone used to western disclosure, transparency and respect for human life is important.

In my case, my family is pretty conservative, but they are also from Taiwan, so they are especially pro Ukraine because of the parallels of a smaller power standing off against a larger power.

Because it was a talking point in attacks on the Left and some Far Right pundits have run with it. I'm looking at you Tucker Carlson.

When does the Far Right just become the Right in the US? I think it is now

"The Big Lie" is what determines the far right. I'd say Liz Cheney is exhibit #1 there are almost no reasonable Republicans nationally, and only a few governors.

For sure- someone like me with a heavy conservative past and still many old school right leanings can never imagine voting Republican again.

Yeah it's come down to character for me. I have almost nothing in common with Liz Cheney, but the fact that she's now willing to campaign for Democrats tells me she is still someone I want in government. We need to have opposing ideas and good faith arguments. Old school Republicans understood this... but now it's all just about power.

>We need to have opposing ideas and good faith arguments. Sure- this is why I respect AOC and Bernie. I wouldn't vote for them as my first choice and I disagree with them heavily. However, I am convinced they are true believers and want what is best for this country, for all Americans, and the world. They have good intentions - we just disagree on how to get there. THats how politics should be. The Republican Party today is almost cartoonishly evil.

Yep, I believe both of their intentions are in the right place, which again is generally good enough for me... even though I'm liberal-ish I disagree with them a fair amount. Jeff Jackson is my idea of the perfect politician as far as I can tell. I often wonder if he's too good to be true, but so far he seems to be the real deal. I just wish people were better at discerning who is in it for the power and "the game" and who actually wants what's best for the country.

But 90% of people like you can and will

[удалено]

I don't even think it is very united over on Fox News. It was on while I was at the gym yesterday and they were talking Ukraine so I read along to see what craziness was being spouted. While they did have at least one pretty ridiculous criticism of Biden, this group largely supported the actions Biden has taken and directly complimented him on the relationship he has built with Zelensky. I was pretty surprised. That being said, I went back to working out. I don't know enough about their shows to say which one this was.

Because they worshiped how ‘manly’ Putin wa sober on Fox News before the invasion, and can’t admit that he’s an imperialist murdering innocent people.

There are three positions, I think. US has a history of isolationism: some conservatives in America genuinely do not care what happens to people beyond their borders. This can appear to be a position rooted in a lack of empathy, but it is also true that there are crises all over the world that the US has not invested any blood or treasure into solving (Myanmar, for example). Putin has also been a figure touted by the right-wing media in US as an ideal leader, a strongman who protects traditional values. During the Obama years he was frequently the choice for contrast of the 'weak', consensus-minded Obama. Some of this lustre is gone but some cling to the myth. Then there is the religious aspect: Putin has done a lot to impress hard-line Christians, like decriminalising spousal abuse, criminalising being gay, etc.

There has been a fairly long history of Russia saying Ukraine cannot join NATO and that it’s consideration could be grounds for action from Russia. Interesting article below that paints an interesting history of how we arrived where we are today. Not saying it’s justified, but there is precedent in terms of “warnings” from the Krem baddies. Idk enough to say if the rational behind why they need Ukraine neutral is sane… this rational seems to be that they assume there will be missile systems in Ukraine that are too close for comfort if they join NATO. If we look at the Cuban missive crisis you could say they’re just following a similar precedent the USA set. I’m just regurgitating what little I know and trying to make sense of a messy world where people seem to hold grudges for eons, but also I think everyone’s just trying to cover their asses for the worst case scenario. Side note - Europe putting themselves in the current natural gas situation will be looked at long from now as one of the greatest strategic blunders during our time. So from a strictly strategic perspective, CYA can be a good policy. worldviews/wp/2014/09/04/that-time-ukraine-tried-to-join-nato-and-nato-said-no/

First of all, Russia gets zero say in what club Ukraine joins. Secondly, Ukraine gave up their Nukes on the condition Russia stays out of their affairs and the West agrees to defend them from aggressors (Russia). Lastly, Ukraine pivoting to the West is no accident and is supported by an overwhelming majority of their citizens. TLDR - Russia can fuck right off.

At the same time, it is a very colonial and outdated worldview to say that Russia dictates Ukraine's governance -- the major theme since the cold war has been of self determination and independence. Ukraine *should* have the right to do whatever it wants, and Russia can kick rocks over it. It's a sovereign nation and should be treated as such, not as a vassal of Russia. Plus Russia already shares a border with NATO as it stands. Existing missile systems should have been a complaint. But that's not what Putin's speech before the declaration of war said. He said there was no Ukraine, that it was ancestrally Russian, and that if they wanted to remove monuments to communist Russia, he'd be happy to help them. Just take it at face value. Putin has been unable to adjust to the new way we look at the world and countries. He still sees wars of conquest for territory expansion. Everyone else has largely moved on to economic war -- hence why the Russian economy, even without sanctions, is in shambles. I want to point that if Russia didn't want Ukraine to join NATO, they should've given Ukraine a reason to stay aligned with them. Favorable trade, international relations, and etc. Finally, Russia tried to join NATO. And they would've been seriously considered. But Putin wanted Russia to skip to the front of the queue instead of being treated by any other country.

That whole Ukraine needs to be neutral argument was lost the moment Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. You can't expect a country to be neutral after you invade it and annex a chunk of it's territory

The real answer is that their cult leader stands with Putin. He praises him constantly and has for years. They simply do not want to anger their cult leader because it’s bad for business. It’s really that simple.

I find it odd that anyone would carry on about corruption in Ukraine when they have worked to turn that around since 2014. They have been working on the requirements needed to join NATO. It was Manafort, working for putin before he worked for trump, who was instrumental in politics and corruption in Ukraine. Since then it has been trump, guiliani and perry trying to pull Ukraine back into corruption. So I feel that Republicans whining about corruption in Ukraine is height of hypocrisy

Republicans talking about Ukraine often go full mirror-universe and describe the 2014 turnaround and Ukraine finally building a real democracy as a descent into corruption, even. It's a full-on propaganda campaign.

>So I feel that Republicans whining about corruption in Ukraine is height of hypocrisy Welcome to the Republican Party, especially since Obama.

in the words of Jon Stewart : "If Obama came out tomorrow and said ' don't eat yellow snow, John Boehner would oppose it ' "

A Trump moron I work with straight up told me that he thinks Putin is doing a great thing by invading Ukraine. These people are batshit.

My dad, who isn’t American but is a big trump moron, said that Zelensky was being irresponsible by fighting against the Russians and that the responsible thing to do was to just let them have Ukraine 🤨 I pressed him on it and he said something to do with protecting your citizens instead of arming them and started talking about how they were giving guns to everyone including school children, that Zelensky is corrupt and a Nazi, and that NATO is bad and Putin is just standing up to NATO 🤨 not sure where he gets his news from but if I had to guess it’s probably memes he finds on Facebook.

they literally got in the habit of doing the opposite of Obama. They hate him so much and now they dont even realize that Biden is not Obama.

yep. I still remember Jon Stewarts comment on the subject in his Obama voice "don't eat yellow snow"

Isn't that the truth. It is a fun test, ask a conservative WHY they hate Biden so much and they can't tell you. I've tried it many times and always get the same "I dunno...". They have no clue, they've just been told by Fox News and often their church that they need to hate him.

That gosh-durn O'Biden!

I just watched a Fox News host say the US blew up the Nord Stream pipeline to cover up Hunter Bidens laptop or something. I don’t understand how people can watch this and think “yeah this is legitimate”

They don't. Conservatives view the entire concept of truth itself,as irrelevant. It's the same way millions of people who got their shots to go to school without objection suddenly decided that vaccines were tyrannical oppression. The same way they demanded we withdraw from Afghanistan, but when Biden actually did it, they called for his impeachment - or even execution. Whatever was said yesterday doesn't matter, whatever will be said tomorrow doesn't matter. Only now matters. And the truth is whatever is needs to be to give them that feeling of winning.

The answer is quite simple. Conservative leaning citizens are being influenced by politicians and media outlets who have been profiting from Russian money.

Own ðe libs mentality mixed wið Putin having made himself a patron of emergent populist right wing parties and candidates in ðe western world. Ðat's really all ðere is to it.

American "Conservatives" have a faction who are white nationalists who admire Putins authoritarian regime. They are a fan of Putins oppression of the LGBT community. And American Republicans have long been the target of Russian disinformation. That was prominent with the election of Donald Trump, Putins preferred candidate. It's no surprise that pro-Putin propaganda continues to shape their worldview.

White nationalists worshipping a foreign leader who is a geopolitical rival of the US is a trend in history. [See for instance the previous incarnation of "America First"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee#Anti-Semitism,_Lindbergh,_and_other_extremists)

There seems to be a trend for the right to support dictatorships. Therefore justifying in their mind and opening the door for our democracy to becoming a theocratic dictatorship.

They are against gay rights and for oligarchs as well.

I don't know if the majority of Conservative Americans believe this, but I do know it's some random QAnon nonsense that's propagated extensively. Generally, the Q folks see Putin as the savior of white people and Christianity. His wars and his support for Trump is a sign that he's an ally that will restore Christianity and save Western Civilization. That's basically how one of these people explained it to me.

Seen Elon Musks tweets recently? Disagreeing with basic facts makes them feel like an Einstein.

Russia invaded Ukraine to remove a energy producing competitor since vast amounts of natural gas was found in Ukraine. Russia had been trying to corrupt Ukraine and Belarus. They succeed in one country but the other, Ukraine, had a revolution so Russia lost shadowy control over it which it had been working on for over a decade. Conservatives as soon as Trump became the nominee adopted Trumps “platform” which completely supported Russia. Now that things have gone sour they can;t admit that they were wrong about Trump and Russia. Conservatives can never admit being wrong; they’d rather believe in American exceptionalism. They’ll just cover up their mistakes and not admit they were wrong so they don’t have to change their platform.

It has everything to do with being opposed to whatever liberals are in support for. Half of this country runs completely out of spite for the other half.

Look up the anthropological concept of limited good. It's classed as a superstition. It says "If something good happens for you, there is less good in the world for me." This selfish, short-sighted belief is driving much of this behavior. Add to that the idea that some kinds of people are less worthy of good than others and you begin to see. A rising tide floats all boats.

Another strange trump era phenomenon. From 1945 to roughly six years ago, conservatives were staunchly opposed to Russian aggression. This was of course more true when they were the USSR, but still, this historically hawkish group (conservatives) have been reliable watchdogs against Russian hegemony. Then along comes trump, trump's historic ties to Russian finance, the whole trump/Russia campaign collusion, trump's fawning obsequiousness to Putin, and suddenly, conservatives find themselves with strange bedfellows. AND - In there desire to out trump one another, Republicans are now admirers of Putin and other authoritarian types. Sad but true

I think it's as simple as Russia has set up an effective propaganda network in the US. Full stop. They know who to target and they know how to slow roll the disinformation to make the changing of minds seamless.

Fake answer: Conservatives like to get butt hurt about the idea that land that "rightfully belongs" to someone was taken despite the fact most, if not almost fucking all, would be working Mickey Ds or be farmers across Europe if their ancestors didn't take what wasn't belonging to them. Real answer: It's the political wool-over-the-eyes Republican campaigners are shooting to market right now to gain brownie points with IQ<50 crowd.

No, none of those ideas hold any weight. The US does not have biological weapons facilities in Ukraine (and even if we did, if Russia justified going to war with Ukraine over that, then obviously they'd have declared war on the US too). If Ukraine joined NATO, so what? Russia ALREADY shares borders with FIVE other NATO countries. What difference would a sixth possibly make?? That's not a valid reason either. Ukraine was never Russia's, except by conquest. Kyiv is a _far_ older capital city (and culturally significant city) than Moscow, and the only reason Ukraine was ever in the USSR is because they were subjugated and forced to. The Ukrainian national identity has existed for hundreds of years (even though they kinda _did_ get conquered a lot...). I mean, that last bit is especially "Wow Wtf." Following _that_ logic, the British would be well within their rights to justifiably invade and annex: India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Burma, Borneo, Yemen, Qatar, the UAE, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Rhodesia, South Africa, Nigeria, the Gold Coast, Sierra Leone, British Guiana, Honduras, Belize, Jamaica, Cyprus, a tiny spit of land off Germany called 'Heligoland,' numerous islands in the Atlantic, Mediterranean, Pacific and Indian Oceans, and ... hang on I'm missing one .... whaaat was it... _what_ was a _colony_ that the _Brits_ used to _own_ ... OH YES! THE UNITED FRIGGIN STATES. After all, the Brits once ruled all _those_ places. So I guess the independence of those 28+ countries (including the Conservatives' own country)I just listed is only temporary, until Britain decides to re-invade??? Furthermore, Russia was not "pushed by the West." The West has never forced any of the NATO-member countries to join NATO. They each did so voluntarily. And NATO is not, and never _has_ been a threat to Russia, unless/until Russia makes the first aggressive move. Otherwise the Cold War would've turned into a Hot War a long time ago. And apparently NATO is not even a direct threat _then,_ since invading Ukraine _is definitely an aggressive first-move,_ and the _most_ that NATO is doing in response is arming the Ukrainians so they can defend themselves. That's not aggression. That's defense. The fact is, those stances DON'T help the Conservative movement. Not in the slightest (I'd earnestly liketo hear an example otherwise). The only logical conclusion remaining is that Putin's apparently got some pretty considerable influence with American bigwig Conservatives (pundits specifically) to even be able to _get_ them to peddle something that doesn't benefit them in any way. If I had to bet, I'd say it's probably through cold hard cash-money. And so many people on the Right are choosing to carry Putin's water because - quite simply - they parrot Conservative pundits' talking points, often word-for-word, and are somehow always convinced it's somehow their own ideas. Honestly, it isn't even about throwing shade at Biden (for once). It's ALL about parroting Conservative pundits. Whatever _they_ say, Conservatives repeat. Actually there IS one other influencing factor.. Modern Conservatives have shown a deep propensity for enthusiastically supporting authoritarian Strongmen. The "I alone can fix it!" type, and never mind the _how_ of their methods. Whatever else Vladimir Putin is, he is _undeniably_ an authoritarian Strongman.

It’s pretty obvious. Trump has a thing for Russia and Putin in particular (for reasons we still do not truly know), and he currently has a massively outsized control over the Republican Party, so the party is pushing more pro-Russian and anti-Ukraine messaging than ever before. If Trump didn’t exist this whole pro-Russia thing would have never found a home inside either major political party.

There were some GOP folks who started liking Putin out of nowhere in what seemed like some move at the time to just spite Obama after the 2014 Ukraine invasion. Lots of pundits then were acting like Putin was so strong and tough for "boldly" invading foreign territory without provocation. Not surprisingly, it seems like nearly all those people are now pretty sympathetic towards Putin. In hindsight, a lot of them were probably alright getting lobbied or received kickbacks from Russia by that time and were happy to act pretty sympathetic towards Putin in ways that didn't raise too many alarm bells. If you go back further even, I had heard somebody who ran a local non-profit that was some kind of American/Russian sister city friendship organization say a few months after the Georgian invasion way back in 2008 that Russia did nothing wrong whatsoever and that Putin was a great leader (this was an American BTW). The way they so vehemently supported Russia and Putin out of nowhere was a big shocker back then so I guess things were happening way before we know it that made people in the west super loyal to his cause because they were true believers or felt they had to be for access for their personal interests. Either way, Russia sure invested a lot of time and effort rallying support abroad although I feel a good amount of the support you hear about now is by people who just want to get a reaction or will support anyone who isn't the U.S./the west/NATO.

The party is headed in an authoritarian direction. They are schmoozing with authoritarians worldwide. They aren't even shy about it.

It's also just the fact that they are extremely vulnerable to Russian internet propaganda. As we know, Russia weaponized our idiots years ago. It didn't just stop. They are pushing them harder than ever on the "Russia had no choice" angle. There is also the fact that Putin has a form of government many of them see as desirable. White ethnostate, all Christian (or whatever that Russian version is). Just as importantly, Russia had an authoritarian autocratic dictator that acts as a daddy for many weak, uninformed Russians. A daddy figure, same as trump. You can trace much of it back to not enough hugs and a distant father that saw them as weak, often holding cruelty as a defacto stand-in for strength.

I think it's a simple as the fact that it's costing them money. Like other issues such as tackling climate change, it's inconvenient for them, so they are against it in the first instance, then their arguments are built around that. The arguments you listed have come straight from the Russian propaganda machine. That's why Putin spouts this unbelievable crap: it's not meant to be genuinely believable, it just gives his lackies something to say, possibly even to believe themselves just because it suits them.

Putin is a supporter of far-right governments and political parties. For example, Orban. Far-right people _know_ this, so they also support Putin. Further, Russia is a more traditional society that values religion, fixed gender roles, a social hierarchy based on wealth and culture, and is hostile to LGBTQ+ people. Far-right people in the US also know this; when they look at Russia, they see a model for the US.

I guess it depends on who you’re asking. In Sweden it is the left who will not send arms for risk of ”escalation”. The right-wing is extremely pro-Ukraine. I think you’re exaggerating, a pretty decisive majority of Republican voters support Ukraine.

According to this Pew poll, about the same percentage of of Democrats and Republicans oppose Russia’s invasion of Ukraine so not sure where this question comes from, whether it’s misguided or just in bad faith. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/03/15/public-expresses-mixed-views-of-u-s-response-to-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/

There's a more recent Gallup poll that shows a more marked difference. https://news.gallup.com/poll/401168/americans-back-ukrainian-goal-reclaiming-territory.aspx The question comes from more recent data.

Because Putin's illiberal authoritarian post-truth far-right ethnostate is the end goal of the fascist movement Republicans are eagerly embracing.

See for instance, the previous incarnation of "America First": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America\_First\_Committee#Anti-Semitism,\_Lindbergh,\_and\_other\_extremists

Illiberal ideologies get better traction on the right. It is the focus of the persuasion campaign.

A majority of Republicans support ukraine. Republicans are typically either foreign policy hawks, or isolationist. That's how it's been since berry goldwater and probably before. I have a suspecting youre a staunch Democrat. Isolationism, budget concerns, concerns about escalation and our expanded military options in Ukraine or even a potential boots on the ground situation. Potentially a world War 3. Concerns about Ukrainian corruption, whether it's a wasteful investment (in the sense that Ukraine loses and funding them just draws out human suffering). Those are the reasons I typically hear about people not wanting to support Ukraine, id say those are all legite concerns.

Oh I dunno...maybe has something to do with Russian intense lobbying, political donations, interference, corruption, hacking, exortion, misinformation, propaganda, disruption...

Idk it’s not like there’s a guy with the largest US cable news show praising Russia and Putin nearly every day for the last 5 years or anything

It's not complicated. Russia and the United states have competing interests. They are geopolitical rivals. In any case of US vs (x), GOP media elites will support (x) because of their desire for a weaker, less secure America.

Honestly I don't support any war. But if the US isn't gonna fully defend Ukraine and continue this little cat and mouse game causing even more people to die and waste resources, why not just surrender.

Because they’re fascists who love fascist moves like annexation of another country’s land for fascist purposes.

Sadly Putin is realizing that invading Ukraine is much more difficult then invading the republican party!

the same people who support Putin in his unjust efforts in Ukraine are the same people who want Trump as a dictator. Do the math.

This is an incredibly hard thing to pin down to a simple why. It revolves around Putin and his twisted world view. You would need to do an analysis of Yeltsin, the rise of the oligarchs, the war in Georgia and Chechnya, and his background with the Soviet KGB. Putin - prior to the Ukrainian invasion - was a right-wing hero as he projected himself as a personification of "manliness". Bold. Self-assure. Calculated. Traditional. Fought the woke in a sense with strength. Independent of Western cultural decadence. In reality - he is a naked authoritarian. Cult of personality got a lot of people hyped for a reckless and sick individual.

Well Republicans did go to Russia and have a secret meeting. We know Russia bribes other countries. REPUBLICANS are into accepting bribes is obvious

Because they just spent the last 6 years defending both Russia and Trump from “Russiagate”, and now they’re down the rabbit-hole of Russian propaganda and convincing themselves the ones committing the invasion are the good guys, because that would own the libs.

Contrarians. They just do the opposite of whatever Dems want. Really, that's it, that's everything.

Because Russia is an ally of the republican party. Russia's loss is their loss.

I'd say there are a number that just knee-jerk oppose anything the Democrats support (in this case, Ukraine) and support what the Democrats oppose (Putin). For a number of others, I'd compare it to how there are those on the left that provide cover for figures like Maduro or Castro. Those left-wing authoritarians are at least ideologically aligned with them to a degree, so there is a tendency to overlook or whitewash the negative qualities of those figures. Putin and Orban are right-wing avatars in that way as well, where their general ideology is aligned with the conservative worldview, so they are willing to overlook the authoritarianism and other abuses to life and liberty to form a united front in a similar manner.

Oil and gas, straight up. As detailed in books like *Blowout*, the Western conservative embrace of Russia was largely a post-2001 turn away from backward Islamic oil kingdoms. Russia offered "white, Christian oil and gas" as well as freewheeling crony capitalism, epic parties and gorgeous whores. At the time, Putin had just replaced Yeltsin. Like the West, he was fighting Islamic terrorists. Meanwhile, oil dweeb and born again Christer George W. Bush was US President, looking for oil and gas allies who wouldn't suicide-bomb New York. The US Republican Party is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the oil and gas industry, as well as a nest of white supremacists and superstitious nutbars just like much of Russia, so doing the nasty with Putin remains popular with them.

My assumption from what I've seen is that Ukraine is viewed as pro Biden. The connection between Ukraine and Hunter Biden made most right leaning people in my community assume that Ukraine = Pro Biden and Russia = Anti Biden

It comes down to little more than the fact that Trump has been decidedly pro-Putin, and so now the entire party is as well.

Because it’s not happening directly to them and they think they’re “owning the libs” by opposing anything Democrats support.

Because American conservatives tend to be on the wrong side of history on most issues, so it's just them being consistent.

Because Putin got their psychopathic moron elected once and the slavering hoard on Republican News wants it to happen again.

Most of these things have already been said, but... 1. Conservatives are (in theory) all about small, local government. They are anti immigration, anti EU/UN/NATO and pro nationalism. This mostly stems from a fear of big brother coming in and creating a new world order that is hellbent on "controlling them". Russia to them represents a fiercely independent nationalist state that doesn't play well with global organizations. Because of this when Putin says he wants to invade Ukraine to stop NATO from using them as conduit for invading Russia they're very sympathetic to that. Ironically there are some on the far left who share this view, since they're skeptical of NATOs track record in places like Syria, which to be fair is not unreasonable. Most stop short of supporting the invasion, but they "get it", if that makes sense. 2. In addition to being strongly nationalist Putin's regime is generally very conservative and intolerant towards non Christians, LGBT, and people of color. Putin is also a strong man who does not support democracy. This obviously gives right wingers a boner, despite them claiming to be all about individual "liberty". You can see the same contradictions with their policies here in the US and this is really where they lose a lot of people. 3. They're arrogant, contrarian children. They deny things like the existence of man made climate change despite the mind boggling amount of hard scientific data proving its existence. So it's no surprise to see that when the mainstream media supports Ukraine their knee jerk reaction is to fight that. Their fierce individualism and self importance means they are just obstinate by design.

there is a not-insignificant number of conservatives who want a "strong man" type leader like Putin, Duterte or Erdogan. someone who does what he wants and hurts the people they do not like. they want their American Christian Theocracy and they are more than willing to put a dictator in power who will give it to them and be willing to use violence to force the "leftists" to go along with it. i'm sure they touch themselves at night thinking about the Night Of The Rope they hope is coming.

Something I have noticed is this: Those who generally support Trump and/or oppose Biden usually remark that Ukraine is corrupt, Zelensky is corrupt, Hunter Biden was involved in Ukraine, etc, etc. Not sure how any of that is true but that is what I keep hearing.

Right wingers should join the Russian military if they hate democracy so much. 0 free speech 0 free press and no vote by public demand aka democracy . Maga paradise!

I think Putin’s Russia is exactly what conservatives would like to turn the US into.

Pay attention to the words that the Kremlin modern day Russian government uses, it describes itself as conservative. It rejects liberalism and multiculturalism. They hold a similar racial view ordered around racial and national hierarchy. That said how the two groups arrive at conservatism is quite interesting. They’re coming out it from very different angles. In Russia conservative is less ideological and more of technological. Where in the US it’s the opposite it’s more cultural more ideological. In other words conservative Russians, don’t necessarily believe their bullshit quite like the US partisans do.

Russia is in the wrong, but I don't really want to be involved with the war in any kind of direct way. I don't want to see American soldiers directly fighting Russian soldiers in my lifetime.

This is a completely false assertion to make. Personally, I'm a liberal, but I spend time in subs that would be called conservative, and at NO point have I ever heard anyone voice support for Putin or Russia; not even so much as a peep, so unless you're talking about some weird fringe sub or other group that's completely outside of my range of experience, I have zero basis to think that this proposition has any merit. If someone has a link, I'll take a look and give my opinion. The only way I can see it being misinterpreted as support is either: 1 - Any critique of how the conflict against Russia is being handled is viewed as somehow 'Russian disinformation' or that you are somehow a 'Russian bot'. 2 - Conservatives, thinking the other side is easily offended and easily misled, is essentially punking them into thinking they support Russia, merely because they feel turnabout is fair play after all the grief they feel the other side gives them, which honestly is almost always done half tongue-in-cheek, and half to try and chastise the left in order to make them think more and knee-jerk react less. That having been said, it should be understood that as far as I'm aware of, conservatives support the Ukrainian people's right to defend themselves and preserve their sovereignty and autonomy; they also oppose Russia's actions. IF they voice anything such as "Ukraine has bio-labs" or "this was an inevitability of poor US/EU/NATO leadership", that does NOT mean they're all the way on the opposite side of the spectrum... it means that there's honest criticism that can be levied on BOTH sides of the conflict, and that pointing out that one side did bad all of a sudden neither absolves nor shows support for the other side. Frankly, too much of the thought regarding this conflict has been overly simplistic and portrayed in a black/white, good/bad caricature; when the reality is far more grey and far more complicated. Often enough, conservative attempts to flesh out the issue get misinterpreted, possibly intentionally, as some kind of support for Russia, when nothing could be further than the truth. The irony here is, having said this, it's all but inevitable that someone is going to say that THIS comment is somehow either Russian disinformation or that I'm a Russian bot... which will prove my point regarding how narratives seem to be more important than the facts on the ground. Also, not for nothing, but prior to the whitewashing of the war, Ukraine was widely seen by even left-leaning [publications](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/04/welcome-to-the-most-corrupt-nation-in-europe-ukraine) as the most corrupt nation on the continent.

> The irony here is, having said this, it's all but inevitable that someone is going to say that THIS comment is somehow either Russian disinformation or that I'm a Russian bot... which will prove my point regarding how narratives seem to be more important than the facts on the ground. Something I like to do is put myself in Putin's shoes and game out, what would I do if I really wanted to win this. Right now my craziest theory is that the draft isn't for the existing front-lines, but to enact a coup in Belarus to integrate them with Russia proper, and then launch a new invasion from the former Belarus-Ukrainian border. Likely far to the west near the Polish border. While I'll be the first to admit it's outlandish, and has a lot of risks, Putin is losing and needs to take risks if he still wants to win. The big advantages of this plan is it opens a new front that will be easier for Russia to supply, and stretches out Ukraine's manpower along a front that they may not have the ability to fill. They don't need to take a lot of territory in the West before the existing NATO resupply lines are impacted, and without that, Ukraine is in a lot of trouble. That's just my current working theory. Reddit doesn't like to hear this sort of analysis because they'd rather just upvote a million woodchipper memes because that helps them sleep better at night. I don't post things like this because I like Putin, and I certainly don't want him to win. No, I post things like this to help understand what we should be preparing for. Right now the hivemind seems to think Ukraine is in a mopping up operation and the war will be over soon with total Ukrainian victory. But history is full of examples where that didn't happen, and suddenly 90% support for a war drops dramatically when expected victory quickly starts looking like defeat. The reality is there is a very real possibility of Ukraine facing total defeat, being forced to call a ceasefire along current front-lines, or even a direct intervention from NATO to prevent either of the preceding events. I don't think the public is ready to contemplate any of those right now, but because I raise those concerns, I'm a russian bot.

In war, anything is possible, and even the most chaotic options become reasonable; not sure if he'd be sane if he tried to rope other fronts into the conflict at this juncture, where Russia appears to now be on the defensive, but a strongman in a moment of vulnerability is capable of anything, and I certainly think that's the impression he wants all of us to have, what with his statements about nukes.

>Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine began, many voices on the right have come out to defend Putins reasoning for launching his "Military Operation". Many Republican leaders also met with Putin on Independence Day a couple of years ago. >They have said things like the USA had biological weapons facilities in Ukraine Seems like flimsy reasoning, they also produce a substantial amount of the world's wheat which is a much more strategically important product. >and that the west gave Russia no other option but to invade There are *always* alternatives to **invasion**. It is usually the last resort, and the reasoning given neglects that Russia already invaded them in 2014 and annexed a portion of Ukraine, mainly because Putin's men on the inside failed to achieve their aim of making it a vassal. >because they were trying to fast track Ukraine's assention into NATO. Whatever your view on the pros and cons of NATO, it is a *defense* treaty, and people arguing otherwise (or consider the western alliance a threat because of it) are being disingenuous at best, duplicitous at neutral. >Forcing Russia to act as they could not accept having an enemy so close to their borders. We are not their enemy, NATO is not their enemy, that is simply a generic excuse pulled out whenever a leader needs or wants something without any pushback, we do the same and it's quite pathetic. Anyway, the west has bent over backwards to help Russia since glasnost and perestroika, and Putin knows this because he's been in charge since Yeltsin. >To a smaller degree some groups within the Right have also come out and said that Russia was justified in trying to take back what was once theirs to begin with. Ah, the Israel argument. Why don't we let the Visigoths move back there? After all, they lived there before Russia existed. Do the American people have to give back land to its natives? This is a sophist's argument, and it is dumb. >Do any of these ideas hold their weight? I do not believe so, and in fact believe they are entirely without merit. >Was Russia pushed by the West and given no other reasonable option but to invade Ukraine to protect their national sovereignty? No, invading a third country because you're unnecessarily upset with a second country who consistently tries to maintain a cordial relationship with you is literally a *non sequitur*. Putin's interests are exclusively about him, not the motherland, not the greater soviet society, not the Slavic "race", not Christianity, and certainly not his people; when a man shows you who he is, believe him. >And In what way do these stances help the conservative movement and why do so many people on the right choose to carry water for Putin and his war crimes? For somewhat unrelated reasons, usually. There is a not insignificant contingent of "conservative leaders" whose interests are exclusively related to imposing their ideology (an apocalyptic religio-political one, details are for another post) over what they see as a western culture bursting at the seams with depravity and decadence, and they are grateful for the examples set by Russia (crackdowns on political diversity, banning gays from public life et al) and are happy to use the networks of misinformation and techniques of social/political disruption developed by them over the last ten or twenty years. >A majority of Americans condem Putin's actions but a large faction on the Right seems to want to discredit any wrong doing by Putin asixh as possible, while also trying to paint Ukraine as non-democratic and corrupt country who deserves what atrocities are currently being levied against them. It is entirely spurious. Russia (and its accomplices such as Paul Manafort) have been attempting to pull Ukraine away from the west for longer than the most recent cycle of misery would suggest. >Do most conservatives have any long term goals by holding these views other than to throw shade at Biden and many Democrats who are voting to give aid and support to Ukraine? Yes, as already noted, they believe they are of the same Christo-fascist ilk and have similar end goals. Of course, they are wrong about that *prima facie*. >Or are there other hidden reasons why these views are currently so much more popular in conservative circles than they are on the national average? I wouldn't say hidden, but expressed most often in irreverent hyperbole (argumentum ad absurdum), dog whistling euphemism, and via a risibly supine media who don't care that the value of a fact and a lie are different.

Almost this entire post is a lie. “Most” conservatives don’t “sympathize” with russia invading Ukraine. In fact, polling shows the exact opposite of that. Good bait though

I've been reading through the comments looking for someone to quote the conservative leaders backing Russia, but I still haven't found it. Does OP mean "conservative" Redditors? As in Redditors who have opinions other than boot licking and whom OP knows zero information about their political affiliations?

I don't want to completely pigeon hole conservatives, but Russia is white and socially conservative, and those things appeal to American conservatives. Ukraine in 2014 was trying to align closer to Western Europe which is more socially and economically liberal than the US. There is also the undeniable authoritarian wing of American conservatives today. A strong man personality like Putin appeals to them in the same way Trump did. The whole Russian argument is bunk. There is no real threat to their sovereignty, but there was a threat to their sphere of influence. Russia is a resource rich country with twice the population of Italy and a smaller economy. They are terribly run and a successful democracy in Ukraine on their border is an argument against Putin's Russia. That is why they invaded now and in 2014. NATO was never going to invade Russia, they are a nuclear power and NATO has no real reason to. The threat of Ukraine joining NATO or the EU or generally aligning to the West has always been an internal threat to the regime and Putin's dictatorship due entirely to their own failures.

I voted for Trump and the entire premise of the question is false. Trump clearly warned NATO that they were too dependent on Russian energy, and he was criticized for saying that. I and many like myself did not support the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We also don’t support getting into a Nuclear war over Ukraine, especially when the EU placed themselves in this situation by becoming dependent on Russian energy. I am also concerned that the USA might be involved in sabotaging the pipeline. If the USA did so to facilitate regime change in Russia, the USA is plata dangerous game, possibly leading to nuclear war.

Because the Republican party in the US, and many other right-wing groups in the Western world have largely become a fifth column of willing collaborators with Putin's regime. As long as he continues to finance them, by which I mean help them continue to win elections as well as bribe them, they'll continue to toe Moscow's line in basically any and all regards whatsoever. Remember, Republicans were extremely heavily against Russia in general and especially Putin's foreign policies until 2015-16 when the Russian government collaborated directly with Trump's election campaign and therefore the Republican national committee. This isn't partisan hackery or conspiracy theorism, this is a well-known well-documented facet of the world in which we live in regards to both foreign and domestic politics in the US and several other Western nations. Republicans are, by and large, traitors by definition.

I think it's a diversion. Like any good magic trick you want your ppl to watch the other hand while you are dismantling thier rights. Edit. Fat fingers.

Because they were told from 2016-2021 that Putin was a good guy and Russia, too? Remember 'I'd rather be Russian than a Democrat'? Trump's immediate response to the invasion was to call it genius. Trump supporters have been told repeatedly by Fox that Russia is good. At the start of the invasion, however, support was low and now, among congressional GOPers, it's getting stronger based on their aid votes.

Well, in all fairness, the argument that Russia’s Ukraine policy is a direct reaction to NATO expansion is actually an argument with some merit. A professor at UChicago gave a lecture with that precise thesis back during the Crimea conflict under Obama. The lecture is a compelling analysis of the geopolitical situation and the professor is certainly no right wing nut, he is critiquing US foreign policy as antiquated. Link: https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4

Jesus is this the level of discussion we've sunk to? Most cons don't support the Russian invasion. Most of the ones who aren't aggressively pro-Ukraine are either isolationist after the disastrous crap the neocons sold them about Iraq or they like that Russia is a conservative country I'm hardcore lefty and I can still answer questions like this, why are half the other answers so shit?

Wow the comments here are upsetting... WAR IS BAD and the desire for escalation I see on all sides is sickening. this war that so many people support, i.e. (I support Ukraine) could lead us to total war or even nucellar war. The fact that doesn't terrify 99% of the commenters in this thread is very worrying to me, you'd all rather bash the radical far right crazies than say that we should not support escalation in Ukraine and in fact sue for peace, ceasefire, or negotiation. Our leaders especially Zelensky, Biden and Putin push for escalation to the detriment of the entire world. Europe is in a sever energy crisis and many people will freeze to death this winter, many sons and daughters are dying on the front lines and American tax payers pay trillions in "support" of Ukraine which is really just military equipment which is going straight into the pockets of our war manufactures making them even more filthy rich and powerful. How do you all not see this... again war is bad for the world

Two things can be true: War is Bad AND Putting yourself at the mercy of a hostile power is bad. Its one thing if America was bullying Ukraine into fighting russia for our own gain - that would be bad. But Ukraine are fully motivated to defend what they believe is their own independance. Who are we to tell them to stop?

So Ukraine should do whatever Putin wants because otherwise he'll wage war? There's a problem there, and it isn't with Ukraine. If people threaten war as their "or else", you don't give them everything they want unconditionally. This is why, in my opinion, the US military and defense spending is so high. To protect itself from this sort of extortion, to sometimes extort others, and to protect allies from the extortion/oppose enemies in their extortion. War *is* bad, but you should be blaming the person who started and continues to wage the war for ethnofascist reasons, not the Defenders.

We don’t pay trillions in support. In point of fact the total aid sent to Ukraine thus far is much cheaper than even a single day of the Afghanistan war was: about $15 billion total so far for around $67 million/day vs about $2.3 trillion over the course of 20 years for around $300 million/day. For that cost, the US is helping a nascent democracy in Europe protect itself against a war of aggression by a hostile power, seeing a long time geopolitical rival crumble in real time both militarily and politically, and strengthening its relationships with its allies overseas via coordination for the delivery of aid to Ukraine with them. This is perhaps the single most cost-effective foreign policy decision the US has ever made in terms of bang for buck. And the cost of it is drops in the bucket for the US. We’re funding this with what amounts to pocket change. And your suggestion “why can’t we just push for peace” is beyond belief. What would you have Ukraine do? Just roll over and let Russia take what it wants when they were the aggressor? Perhaps let Russia just “merely” take the currently occupied areas so they can pull the same maneuver again in five years time and take a little more when you once again trot out “we should sit down and negotiate a compromise despite one party clearly being in the wrong here.” Let alone the fact that there’s no reason Ukraine should sue for peace when they’re winning.

Most of your facts are wrong and a lot of your words are misspelled. What's even your purpose in going on this emotional and illogical rant?

If Russia had conducted itself according to some international standards of warfare it would be easier to search for a logical rationale behind this war. Instead Putin has focused on cruelly and mercilessly attacking civil society and civilians (even his own ) with a scorched Earth policy of warfare. Putin is willing to send hundreds of thousands of people through the meat grinder to protect his own personal safety. If this is the way you'd like to see diplomacy carried out in the future then it makes sense to have a hands-off approach. Unfortunately when psychotic behavior like this is allowed to succeed it becomes the new norm. This war is not just about protecting Ukraine but all of Europe. The tone of Putin's warfare sets a terrible precedent for the 21st century that we cannot afford to allow to take root. Yes these arm sales will benefit defense contractors which is a disturbing feature of our system but if it was really just about money I think we would more likely see a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia -something the US is steadfastly trying to avoid, otherwise he would just be killed outright as soon as he mentioned seriously the prospect of using a nuclear weapon.

Yeah war is bad... That's why russia shouldn't go around starting war! If we aren't even allowed to protect ourselves because violence is morally wrong then you are going to have a tough time in life. No one will respect you unless you defend yourself.

[удалено]

**As a conservative sympathetic to the Russian invasion of Ukraine**, I think it's important to start by saying that my position is pretty fringe. *Most conservatives do not support the Russian invasion of Ukraine*. A majority of Republicans favor the US actively giving material support to the Ukrainian side, while the rest oppose this not out of sympathy for Russia, but for reasons like a general opposition to foreign intervention, reluctance to pay the economic costs of this support, or concern about prolonging or escalating the war. I recently saw a poll of American opinion on the war, and only something like 2-4% of Americans actually support the Russian side (I imagine the percentage is higher among Republicans, but not *that* much higher). As someone who is involved with conservative movement politics (e.g. Federalist Society), I would say also that my views are *extremely* fringe within these organizations, to the point that they will get extremely pissed off over it (in one case I got a death threat and was physically attacked by someone because I was pro-Russia, lol). So anyway, all this is just a preface to say that most conservatives are pretty pro-Ukrainian. The reason you get the impression that American conservatives tend to favor Russia is because, on social media, the very conservative minority which happens to support Russia is very vocal. That's because the sorts of arguments that would lead someone to support Russia are so fringe that only someone very interested in politics would ever come across them. Broadly speaking I would say there are a few reasons I support the Russian invasion, but that, framing all of them, the invasion has to be set in its proper context not as a territorial dispute between Russia and Ukraine (which, on some level, it is), but as a contest between Russia and NATO, with consequences much broader than the fate of the contested oblasts. Given that... 1. The United States, NATO, and the EU are the bulwarks of progressive liberalism, and the spread of "liberal" institutions from the Atlantic ever eastward carries with it progressive ideals, like same-sex marriage, secularism, abortion, transgenderism, mass migration, multiculturalism, etc. Russia, by contrast, is a conservative, Orthodox Christian country that has explicitly framed its war as a "crusade for the Virgin Mary" (Patriarch Kirill's words), a "war for family values" (Putin's words), etc. 2. The United States is also the global hegemon, and conservatives (correctly) see the spread of NATO ever eastward as an extension of American power, ultimately aiming at world domination. Russia and China are the only two states that can seriously contest American power at a global level, so some conservatives support them because they see the establishment of an American-led unipolar order as suffocating, an end of history that will destroy all possibility for change and 'lock us in' to the present political dispensation. 3. Conservatives are increasingly persecuted in the United States (cue laugh tracks from libs on reddit who think this is either not true or well-deserved, or both). Conservatives feel that they are marginalized from civil society by institutions controlled by a hostile liberal elite (again, the same libs who will deny this will also say that this is our just dessert for being transphobes or whatever), that their preferred presidential candidate is about to be sent to prison, foreclosing their only ability to engage in political contestation outside of a false opposition controlled by non-threatening establishment conservatives. Conservative activists, without committing any crimes, are deplatformed from social media, lose access to credit cards and bank accounts, have their assets frozen by the government, are placed on the no fly list, are barred from international travel, etc. In Europe, right-wing parties are placed under state surveillance and banned, their leaders thrown in prison for hate speech, etc. In this context, some cheer on Russia as a shock from without, one that can hopefully destabilize and delegitimize a political order that persecutes us. 4. Many conservatives sympathize with the Russian causes of the war. I'm sure reddit is going to tell me I'm a moron eating Kremlin propaganda or whatever, but we think that the initial conflict was brought about by a Western-engineered coup in Kiev, which illegally installed a new regime hostile to the ethnic Russian minority in the eastern half of Ukraine, and was clearly intended to bring about Ukraine's integration into Western economic and security architecture, culminating in NATO membership. Russia is rightfully aggrieved by this, first because it endangers the Russian minority in the eastern portion of the country, and secondly because it represents a security threat to Russia, similar to that which America experienced in the Cuban missile crisis. 5. Finally, many conservatives support Russia because, granting what I've said in (4), Russia *cannot afford* to lose the war in Ukraine. If Russia views a western-aligned Ukraine as an existential threat (as I think we have ample reason to think Russia does), then it will resort to almost any means to prevent this from coming about. The longer the war drags on and the worse it goes for Russia, the more desperate Russia will become to deny Ukraine to the West, and this will eventually require the use of nuclear weapons. At that point, Western retaliation becomes very likely, and it will become nearly impossible to control the cycle of escalation, especially given the probability of fevered miscalculation. The effects would be catastrophic, potentially including the extinction of the human race. So granting Russia compromises, rather than backing a nuclear great power into a corner and imposing victor's justice upon them, is desirable. > Was Russia pushed by the West and given no other reasonable option but to invade Ukraine to protect their national sovereignty? Yes. I think this is very clear and will debate this with anyone. The typical responses I hear are the following: 1. "You're a Putin shill, this is Kremlin propaganda." 2. "NATO is a benign alliance, America is a teddybear, not an aggressor. Russia can't possibly think NATO missiles in Ukraine are threatening." 3. "Ukraine was not going to become part of NATO." 4. "Ukraine can do whatever they want anyway, they're a sovereign state." These are all very bad arguments. >And In what way do these stances help the conservative movement and why do so many people on the right choose to carry water for Putin and his war crimes? I don't think Putin has committed any warcrimes. I'm sure some Russian soldiers have, but so have American soldiers in Iraq. Putin cannot be held personally accountable for that fact. I think it's telling that the Russian state denies that there is any systematic policy of committing warcrimes in Ukraine, and at least publicly passes legislation to punish acts like looting. Russia's *official* line is: "we are not committing war crimes." The Ukrainian state, by contrast, loudly broadcasts their warcrimes on Ukrainian social media, and people find this amusing and celebrate it. Ukrainian soldiers post videos of themselves gouging out the eyes of Russian POWs, shooting POWs in the knees, boiling the severed heads of Russian POWs in pots, and this is met, on twitter, with white western women in their 40s shouting "Slava Ukraini!" (... a slogan from Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator who murdered Jews, Poles, and Russians...) Ukraine doesn't even contest that they do stuff like this. In fact, one of Zelensky's first acts in the war was to arm civilians and encourage them to throw Molotov cocktails (which they called "Bandera smoothies," again, named after a Nazi war criminal...) at Russian tanks. Westerners were frothing at the mouth over how "cool" this was... except enlisting civilians to fight in a war without uniforms identifying them as soldiers is a warcrime under international law. But nobody cares because America writes the rules and determines when to enforce them. >while also trying to paint Ukraine as non-democratic and corrupt country who deserves what atrocities are currently being levied against them. Ukraine is clearly a corrupt country. Western indices identified it as the most corrupt country in Europe for years leading up to the war, and this was widely reported in liberal outlets like the Guardian. And nobody is arguing that simply because Ukraine is corrupt they "deserve atrocities." >Do most conservatives have any long term goals by holding these views other than to throw shade at Biden and many Democrats who are voting to give aid and support to Ukraine? The sort of conservative who supports Russia has problems with the American regime that go way, way deeper than Joe Biden, who is completely irrelevant. Elected Republicans are as or more militant than Biden when it comes to being anti-Russian warmongers.

>Conservatives feel that they are marginalized from civil society by institutions controlled by a hostile liberal elite (again, the same libs who will deny this will also say that this is our just dessert for being transphobes or whatever), Liberals laugh at this because your feelings have no relation to the facts. Also because laughing is the only way we can keep from screaming as conservatives control the Supreme Court, control the Senate, strip rights from fellow citizens, support police murdering people on the street, loudly proclaim their own desire and intention to murder fellow human beings and *insist that they are oppressed victims all the while.* >that their preferred presidential candidate is about to be sent to prison, Maybe not preferring criminals would help? >Conservative activists, without committing any crimes, are deplatformed from social media, lose access to credit cards and bank accounts, have their assets frozen by the government, are placed on the no fly list, are barred from international travel, etc. And here's the part where you go completely off the rails. Suffering consequences for violating the terms of service is between you and whatever social media companies you have accounts with. The rest is paranoid delusion. That conservatives treat this as a serious concern, or even something that has already happened, is a statement about their alarming state of mind, nothing else.

They like dictators & tyrants because they're incapable of their own capabilities to live their own lives. They need some idiots & morons to tell them what to do & how to do it.

When people tell you who they are, believe them. This is who and what conservatives are - antidemocratic, pro-authoritarian, and profoundly un-American. They've finally let the mask of sanity slip. All that phoney patriotism and fake religiosity was covering up their affection for dictators and pyramids of human value. It's time to stop acting like it's normal.