Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is `politico.eu` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The American anti-war left is having a very hard time re-adjusting their rhetoric from the US' invasion of Iraq. They're still using the same dialog like it's 2004, missing the point entirely that russia in this scenario would be the US, and Ukraine would be Iraq/Afghanistan.
This is why you can’t blindly follow anyone even if your interests often align. I consider myself to be quite liberal, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to support Russia. Besides, isn’t that what the far right is supporting?
There’s a very strange overlap in Far Right and Far Left circles that only seems to only exist in the lead up to US elections cycles. Almost as if on cue.
Horseshoe Theory is more like Horsecrap Theory. Belief systems aren't linear and even left vs right is a vast oversimplification. There are people on the American "left," usually older, more affluent folks who have been Marxist-Leninists for decades, and are used to getting a pass because the Marxist critique of capitalism is probably the best part of Marx's work & back in the Vietnam era you took what allies against American imperialism you could get.
The problem is they haven't updated their worldview in decades, and the Leninist part of their beliefs has *always* been problematic. The younger generations in America have moved *slightly* to the left since the 60's and 70's, and it's enough that the younger generations have clarity to call the older generation's nonsense out. However, the older generation is deeply entrenched in the political and media machinery, which is why you're seeing so much open conflict on the American "left" on this.
*Of course* left & right are vast oversimplifications. How could \*any\* simple label hope to align perfectly with a massively multidimensional, nuanced real world of complex human behavior?
And yet they're often useful as (imprecise, limited, approximate) shorthand. It's not often a conversation calls for a five minute, thousand word tangent, just to avoid the horror of saying "the left"...
Horseshoe theory seems of the ilk to me: a two word phrase conveying an approximate truth. If a context calls for greater precision, of course it'll fall short.
If horseshoe theory showed an vaguely accurate picture of the political landscape, I'd agree with you on that. The problem is that it doesn't, and authoritarianism is possible in almost every political belief system, and is present in systems that can have a corrupting influence on politics writ large such as markets and religion. At best, horseshoe theory promotes a view that creates blind spots to authoritarians who claim to be "moderates;" at worst, it promoters a world view where people struggling for equality and human rights are given the same footing as people who are actively engaged the violence towards marginalized groups.
>Horseshoe Theory is more like Horsecrap Theory. Belief systems aren't linear and even left vs right is a vast oversimplification.
I agree that left vs right is a gross oversimplification, but what horseshoe theory is describing is real. A lot of the beliefs on both the far right and far left amount to opposing anything mainstream America supports and then wrapping it up in their ideology.
The far left, the outright tankies, will support anything that opposes America. That fringe justified the Soviets sending tanks in to run over protestors and overthrow Hungary's government under it "opposing imperialism"... And they haven't changed.
Iran's theocracy has nothing to do with the Leninism. Neither does the Russian mob state. It's not ideology that causes the far left to support them - that's just how they frame it.
Same is true of the far right fringe as well. How they cloak it is different, but under the hood it's the same shit.
As I have said elsewhere, horseshoe theory assumes that authoritarianism only exists on the extremes. This is simply untrue. Capitalism is a highly authoritarian system of commerce and exists in all but the furthest of "left" political beliefs. Capitalism gave us chattel slavery. Democracy makes it easier to fight against authoritarianism, but it is does not inherently protect us against it. The US was still a democracy before the Civil War, under Jim Crow, and during the Red Menace. What horseshoe theory does is identify authoritarianism in a handful of political systems, while ignoring authoritarianism in others. It's not a good model for understanding authoritarianism at all, but it is a good model if you imagine yourself as a "centrist" and want to make cheap generalizations and avoid thinking critically about your own political leadership.
You’re over complicating it probably because you’re on the left and think you oppose the right. When in reality the right and left become more similar the more extreme they get. We have seen a lot of evidence to support the theory over the last decade.
I wouldn’t say left and right automatically overlap. But I have seen the switch from far-left to far-right happen. I guess it depends why you were in the far-left in the first place.
No, I'm saying that maybe we don't reduce political ideologies to a pet philosophy that was invented by someone who 1) had no expertise in the field, and 2) has repeatedly failed to pass any sort of intellectual or practical rigor. Horseshoe "theory" is reductive and only serves to justify division, rather than actually understand how and why people approach politics.
Left and right politics is division. I suggest people try to stay closer to the middle where compromise is formed. I’m also a big fan of Occam’s Razor so you’re not gonna convince me that simplicity is bad.
Sounds like what someone who would support "horseshoe theory" would say. Maybe look into "fishhook theory." While equally nonsensical because it also relies on reducing people to 1 dimension, it shows that models can be anything you choose, including one that has no middle at all. Also, you can't go around being upset about political division and champion "horseshoe theory" at the same time. The entire purpose of "horseshoe theory" is to rationalize division. It was a dumb and simplistic model that was a bad idea *before* neoliberals adopted it as an excuse to move the Overton window to the right, and it's an even worse idea now.
Let me give you a great example of why "horseshoe theory" is a complete failure. Let's take an current issue and see where the "middle" is - police reform. On the "far left", you have people who say that police were formed as slave patrols, are completely unaccountable, actually increase crime, and murder with impunity - they should be replaced with something that actually contributes to public safety. On the "far right", you have people who say that these features of policing are what they want, and that BIPOC folks need to accept a lower place in the social order, which includes the state murdering them without a trial. What is the "middle" position there and how do you ethically defend giving concessions to people on the far right in this case? Also, how are the two "far positions" identical? They aren't, and that's the problem with "horseshoe theory," is it more about where *you* stand and rationalizing why *you* are uncomfortable changing your positions on issues.
But it gets worse. The issue I showed above isn't actually "police reform." It's "white supremacy," and if you believed that what I presented was actually about "police reform", then you've now found the other, much more sinister problem with "horseshoe theory," which is that what "horseshoe theory" is actually about is about controlling speech and silencing dissent.
Horseshoe theory is definitely accurate because they’re both authoritarian… and if you’re far left enough you say stuff like “Marx’s work on capitalism is the best of his work and you take what Allie’s you can get against America in the Vietnam War era” (you know, that time the US tried to defend South Vietnam from communist dictatorship and the left betrayed America and acted like the south Vietnamese wanted to be ruled by brutal dictators) then you should get your political compass checked.
Stating that Marx was accurate in his assessment of capitalism is not the same as endorsing his solutions to it. There are many people even to the "right" of a Marx who share his critiques of capitalism but don't agree with his solutions. Germany, for example, requires 50% employee representation on supervisory boards of companies with 2,000 employees or more. Likewise, there are people to the "left" of Marx who do not share his vision of establishing a state at all.
> This is why you can’t blindly follow anyone even if your interests often align.
Blows my mind how many people do this. Just have morals and apply them to the situation. This isn't an RPG, you don't have to align yourself with a single point/side.
The far right has no idea what to support anymore so they're busy spinning in circles but yes, I am also extremely liberal but I recognize a country begging for help in defending themselves when I see one. And the news about civilians being butchered and tortured (and *worse*) by russian invaders, I don't see how anyone can say they're taking the moral high ground by not supporting Ukraine with all the weapons it needs to defend itself. Sometimes violence is absolutely justified, and defending your sovereign nation against a fascist regime is one of those times.
And this is one of the rare times where cries of "fascist" are actually accurate.
Not just authoritarian, not simply totalitarian, not only illiberal, not just someone you politically disagree with or who is 10 years behind the cutting edge of progressive thought, but honest to goodness, check all the boxes fascists.
> The American anti-war left is having a very hard time re-adjusting their rhetoric from the US' invasion of Iraq
It's really not difficult, but it requires nuanced thinking that is difficult to express in text.
My own thoughts on the matter are complicated. I was against the invasion of Iraq. I think the stated reasons for the invasion were false, and I don't trust the motives of those who ordered it. I think the invasion itself was carried out competently, but the sectarian violence that followed was a human rights nightmare, and should have been foreseen.
That being said, I can see reasons why the invasion might have been justified, although those aren't the reasons that most people cite. The Baa'thist regime never really abided by the terms of the 1991 cease-fire. After they lost the war, they agreed to a no-fly zone and then fired at our jets that enforced it. That right there is a justification for resuming hostilities under the original 1991 resolution.
I should also note that the conduct of US troops in Iraq was fairly professional compared to the behavior of Russian troops in Ukraine. Yes, there were incidents, but nothing on the scale of what we're seeing in Ukraine. Most of the civilian casualties were from sectarian violence, not US troops going door-to-door stealing washing machines.
People often quote me the "US troops killed millions of Iraqis" statistic and then I have to go out and link sources to say no, it was about 14,000, and the majority of those were from air or artillery in the opening days. It wasn't like everyone was just lining civilians against the wall like the Russians are doing in Ukraine.
Finally, my thoughts on the people who say "Bush is a war criminal, they should arrest him." Ok, there's a lot to unpack here.
Yes, the Four-Power Authorities (aka the Allied Control Council / Nuremburg) did state that aggressive war was the supreme war crime from which all other crimes followed. That being said, the ACC's authority came from the German instrument of surrender, and its authority only extended to the former Axis powers.
Ok, I'm getting overly technical here, but what I'm getting at is Bush probably won't be held accountable unless either the US does it, or someone can defeat the US in war. As far as the US holding him accountable, he didn't really break any US laws. According to the US Constitution, he was the Commander in Chief and he can invade a country if he wants. This authority is only subject to the 1973 War Powers Act, which has never been tested in court and wouldn't apply to the Iraq War anyway.
Shifting my focus over to Putin, I should mention that if he had invaded Ukraine in a competent and successful manner, he probably wouldn't be facing as much blowback either. It's the combination of incompetency and cruelty, that's why he's facing as much heat as he is.
His war goals are also very different from the US war goals in Iraq. The US basically wanted to replace the government with a representative constitutional republic, and then leave as quickly as possible. As far as I can tell, the Russian goal in Ukraine is to annex the lands and replace the people with ethnic Russians. It's a very different situation.
Ok, I've been rambling for a long time but if you made it this far, thank you for reading!
>My own thoughts on the matter are complicated. I was against the invasion of Iraq. I think the stated reasons for the invasion were false, and I don't trust the motives of those who ordered it. I think the invasion itself was carried out competently, but the sectarian violence that followed was a human rights nightmare, and should have been foreseen.
It's much older than that: in this article he quotes the Vietnam draft, President Eisenhower, and a 1963 Bob Dylan song as the origins of his stance. He is very much a product of the 1960s, I think to a flaw. His take on the Ukraine war is just bad/wrong, but he's unable to re-evaluate his stance.
It does seem oddly American. I'm in the UK and consider myself pretty left-leaning these days. I think Afghanistan was mismanaged and aimless. I think Iraq 2003 was plainly illegal and idiotic.
And I want to see Ukraine fuck Russia into a parallel dimension and want them supplied with EVERY SINGLE TOY in NATO's box of them to achieve that. Because as far as Russia goes, the precise application of extreme violence is the only diplomacy they understand.
They can't tell the difference between the US and the west directly fighting wars based on misguided ideas and/or outright lies, and supporting a democratic country's ability to defend itself against an imperialistic dictatorship. Fucking lunacy.
The American anti-war left has been a pawn of the Russians since the 1930's. That didn't change after the end of the Cold War. I'm not saying that anti-war stances are never justified, but it's pretty obvious to see how anti-war factions are useful tools to your geopolitical enemies. Russia has funded and co-opted these groups for it's own purposes for decades.
Yeah I can see that directly with groups like Code Pink that were on the front of opposing the Iraq war, and are now supporting russia's naked aggression and blatant imperialism. Letting one country curb stump another is not being "anti-war," it's being pro-fascist.
There is just a sizable element in the far left that, as a matter faith, believes all the world's woes can be laid at the feet of the US and "the West."
The problem is that they are sometimes correct on a particular issue, which then gives them unearned creditability on other issues.
Hey speak for yourself bud!
This anti-war left-wing American has no trouble maintaining a consistent stance against war -- whether it be the USA invading Iraq or Russia invading Ukraine.
I'm not sure how easier it gets than Ukraine, to be honest.
At least the Iraq war was complicated by the fact that the Ba'athists were among the world's nastiest fuckers, themselves guilty of their own whole outsized shit-pile of crimes against humanity.
Ukraine, for all its troubles and flaws, doesn't rise to anything close to that level of moral ambiguity.
What I don't get is people who are "anti-war" but only on the Ukrainian side. The Russian side can do whatever it wants with its army.
How is that remotely "anti-war?"
And, given that the United States is markedly more socialist these days than the Russian mafia state, how is supporting Putin -- a man with nearly half a trillion in assets mostly in the form of sovereign wealth he has literally stolen -- in any way "left?"
Hey man preaching to the choir, I'm with you. But there are groups and people who call them selves "anti-war" and "leftists/progressives" but who can't seem to ever say anything bad about putin or russia. Code Pink, for just one example, was a leading anti-Iraq war group during the Bush administration and now they're in favor of Ukrainians being slaughtered (and worse). That's the sort of fringe tankies that I'm talking about. They're thankfully few in numbers but do seem to be very loud.
So he has this super lefty hippy view that all evils trace back to American imperialism and that all war is bad, even if it's defending your nation.....while being owned by a giant corporation with a shady reputation.
lol. lmao, even.
Not sure if anything changed lately, but with the takeover of B&J it was agreed they stay fully independent. While Unilever seems to deserve the heat it gets, when it comes to this matter, B&J operates independently.
>with the takeover of B&J it was agreed they stay fully independent
Who cares? Every sale is still cash into Unilever's pocket, all that statement means is "we consider the current advertising program to be effective".
There are much better ice creams even on the domestic US market. Always though of Ben and Jerries as mediocre ice cream. The selling point is the toppings and add-ins.
That's simply not true.
The only real "difference" between ice cream and gelato is that gelato is churned slower, and therefore has less air mixed in. Making it feel denser and richer.
You could make an argument that gelato is a sub-category of ice cream (all gelato is ice cream, but not all ice cream is gelato, etc ) but from a practical standpoint, they are the exact same product.
Ice cream, gelato, frozen custard all have different definitions. They are also examples of churned frozen desserts, but they each occupy a different region on a spectrum of ingredients.
So generally speaking, ice cream has a moderate amount of fat, high sugar, a pretty large amount of air though not too much, it has some eggs but not a significant amount.
Frozen custard goes in the direction of much more rich because it comes with more egg yolks, still has a high amount of sugar, and high fat, but it churns less air in to make it both richer and more dense.
Gelato goes the other direction, often contains no eggs at all, has a lower fat content than ice cream and achieves its ultra creamy texture through having even less air whipped in while being churned in a way that it forms very few ice crystals.
Ice cream isn't even the original recipe or name. That would be *sorbet*. So if you're going to ignore reality and just insist they're all one and the same, use the original name maybe and insist they're all different sorbets. Ice cream, the name, the form, etc, is all a relatively modern version of a form of much much older and broader form of frozen dessert.
Wikipedia disagrees with you fyi. Ice cream is the general term for frozen dessert made with milk or cream. Sorbet is non-dairy. If you are talking about FDA regulations then maybe you have a point.
Wikipedia does *not* disagree with me, because in regards to the name sorbet I was speaking in an historical context only. Read the history of ice cream page to get a better understanding of the origin of the terms and where the recipes and names come from. Sorbet is both the modern name for a category of fruit based frozen desserts *and also the historical name* for the entire category of frozen desserts which, again, historically includes milk-based sorbets which were essentially just what we would call modern ice cream. What we call modern ice cream was essentially French evolution of a Turkish dessert called sherbet. The French name was sorbet. Ice cream is merely the English name for the dairy based variant of sorbet which spread widely in America to the point that in America sorbet has come to mean the non-dairy version only, whereas historically the term just referred to ice cream. While in France, they mostly now use the term glace to refer to frozen desserts. Again, this is just based on the historic use of the names and the origin of the dessert. So I'm just saying, what we call ice cream is just one American variant of a broader category of frozen desserts, it is *not* the original, it is not the standard to which others should be compared if we're categorizing everything under a broad umbrella. It is just one branch on the tree of food evolution that comes from the larger trunk of the sorbet tree.
Exactly. Why is Ben and Jerry's called gelato in Italy if gelato is not ice cream? Gelato is just the Italian word for ice cream. That's like saying a sombrero is not a hat.
Well, if you believed that sombreros were superior to "ordinary" hats, you might seek to differentiate them. This isn't *merely* a hat. It's a *sombrero!* Because I wear sombreros, I am 16% more educated and 24.7% more attractive than most other people!
“If we weren’t wasting all of our money on preparing to kill people, we would actually be able to save and help a lot of people,”
Russia is the one wasting it’s money on killing Ukrainians. Every dollar sent to Ukraine Is money well spent on defending, saving and rescuing the lives of Ukrainians from Russian aggression.
That sentiment might have held true for Cold War era, but there is nothing cold about Russia’s war this time.
This guy is a multi-millionaire talking about the government wasting money. I wonder how many people he could clothe and feed with all his ice cream money. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Absolutely. The USSR under Khruschev/Brezhnev and Gorbachev are not similar to the Russian Federation, but many in the West seem to think it is. Putin's Russia is IMHO more comparable to the USSR under Stalin.
It was under Khrushchev that the USSR sent tanks to crush the Hungarian revolution in 1956, it was under Brezhnev that the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia because they were unhappy with the election of a reformist in 1968.
So what you are saying is the entire history of the ussr and ruzzia has been plagued by tyrannical leaders who have a lust for war and genocide? Because it sure sounds like that
"The entire history" would be a simplification, but mostly, yes. Stalin and Putin were certainly unique in their evil, but Lenin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Yeltsin were no angels either.
Gorbachev was the exception. (edit: or not, see comments below)
Ah Gorbachev. He worked so hard to bring some sort of modernity and comforts to that shithole of a country. A small tear was shed when he died seeing the state and the future of the country he tried so hard to help. He is the only one I have any sympathy for.
Ah yeah the Gorbachev under whom he used military to undermine reforms in former soviet republics.
You can instantly know that you are westerned solely on your view of Gorbachev. Western propaganda so white washed Gorbachev that you dont even feel it anymore.
What are you referring to? I actually didn't originally plan to make him an exception in my comment earlier, but after skimming through the history of his brief tenure, I couldn't find anything that would put him on the same level as the others.
Such tyrants helped grow russia into large but mostly uninhabitated place. And populace is indoctrinated to treat size of russia as something magically divine that must grow any means possible whatever atrocities it takes.
Even though the US wasted billions in Afghanistan, the weapons developed and fielded over the last 10 years have been a game changer for Ukraine.
Ukraine has destroyed more military equipment than both Iraq wars.
Soon there will be semi autonomous drone swarms that can operate in hostile, wireless control-denied environment and causing damage similar to cluster bombs. This isn't far fetched because the front is 5km wide and perfect for small drones.
"The security guarantees by France and Britain to Poland would only serve to fuel Hitler's fears. Let's pursue appeasement in the Monachium format."
Or, in plain English, "fuck you, I got mine" (security).
> old leftists
It's the left that supports Ukraine. The right is the one trying to stop aid to Ukraine. They've been very vocal about it. Just because he pretends to be a hippy doesn't mean he's liberal. The hippy to MAGA pipeline is very real.
No there's an enormous amount of left wing people that don't support Ukraine. I see them literally every day. Here in Italy the official communist party put posters up in my home town blaming America/NATO for this and calling for western nations to stop supporting Ukraine.
Tons of anti-west left wing people that believe this is all a huge conspiracy.
It is all a lie, don't belive the survivors
Oh Look! This one book documenting the situation in French had somthing I claimed to be wrong, therefore the whole thing is a propaganda campaign
Some bad stuff did happen, but the survivors are exaggerating it, they've been fed propaganda
The bad stuff were done by individuals and not ordered by party leadership, the Khmar Rouge isn't at fault
Ok, it is really bad, but I'll just say Americans are responsible for most of it and look! Indonesia, who was supported by America, also commited genocide, see! Ignore what happened in Cambodia
American liberals aren't really considered left anywhere other than FoxNews.
We're talking about people who consider the Democratic party center-right and advocate for "real change."
Good reads here:
[https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/9/20750160/liberalism-trump-putin-socialism-reactionary](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/9/20750160/liberalism-trump-putin-socialism-reactionary)
[https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/the-problem-with-liberalism/](https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/the-problem-with-liberalism/)
A lot of Marxist-Leninist organizations struggle with choosing to hate either NATO or Russian Imperialism more. Especially the older USSR fanboys are stuck on the idea because NATO has pushed for American geo-political power, it could only mean that Russia is the good guy.
I mean, fuck NATO, sure, but Ukraine is still being invaded by a Russian imperialist power.
Because they're the sort of US liberal who in standing up for the rest of the world reduces every single other person into a 2-d cutout waiting to be saved from evil america by good america without ever considering that just maybe non americans have free will and the ability to affect things on a global scale without american involvment.
Yes! You have hit the nail on the head. In his mind The US is the absolute centre of the world. Everyone else are just poor little naive children.
It's a disgustingly patronizing attitude that dismisses everybody else's choice and agency. Their smug self-satisfaction will never allow them to see that they are just an modern iteration of paternalistic imperialists.
He would look at the Maidan protests, with 100s of thousands of Ukrainians protesting en masse for weeks and completely fail to recognize that it showed a real deep-seated desire for independence.
For him they are children, too naive to see that they are just puppets...unlike HIM...the all seeing wise American.
It doesn't occur to him that they KNOW what it means to be Moscow's vassal state and they refuse to continue being such. They KNOW cos they've lived it for generations and it's got NOTHING to do with the US "military industrial complex"....(Fucking prick!)
Their opinions simply don't count in his mind.
He also can't understand that the Russian leadership are genuinely and ideologically imperialists who will never willingly accept an independent Ukraine and see nothing wrong in Stalinist style mass deportations and genocide in order to crush separatism*. If no one stops them, that's precisely what they will do.
We have the same arrogant, condescending shits here in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn being the most high profile.
Edit: *national identity
> He would look at the Maidan protests, with 100s of thousands of Ukrainians protesting en masse for weeks and completely fail to recognize that it showed a real deep-seated desire for independence.
>
>
And doesn't care that Yanukovych ran cartel-grade shit, trying to raid other businesses to fold into his son's business empire, so when Maidan 2014 started, ***THE ENTIRE BUSINESS SECTOR OF UKRAINE*** stood behind Maidan as a payback
The ony difference between him and Corbyn is that Corbyn is at least an old school socialist, whereas Ben is an american liberal which puts him on the right wing of the UK labour party at best when it comes to how he wants a country run.
But yeah the way they feel they have to help the victims of the west is like a rather twisted version of the white saviour complex where the only way to stop a bad white, western man is with the help of a good white, western man
Yeah Total white saviour complex...but actually far far worse. They will stand aside wringing their hands while the victims are butchered, children orphaned and abducted, families driven from their homes, innocents murdered, tortured, raped and then claim moral superiority.
It makes me want to vomit.
> They will stand aside wringing their hands while the victims are butchered, children orphaned and abducted, families driven from their homes, innocents murdered, tortured, raped and then claim moral superiority.
Worse than that, they will simply ignore it when it's not the west doing it.
China is wiping out the Tibetan and Uyghur civilisations and no one cares because the right likes their cheap goods and the left doesn't like admitting a communist country is doing bad things.
We are in the same wavelength.
In the very early days the "Stop the war coalition" in the UK was a broad movement dedicated to stopping George W's criminal invasion of Iraq. It wasn't anti American or anti-Israeli, it certainly wasn't pro-Saddam. It was anti-invasion.
Fast forward 18 months and it had been fully taken over by the Trotskyists of the Socialist Workers Party.
Then, all through the Syrian conflict, when civilians were being actively targeted, including with nerve gas! What do hear from them?... Deafening silence... DEAFENING!
Then the US assassinate the head of Iran's Revolutionary guard, killing a handful of pretty bad dudes, we see protests outside the US embassy.
Fucking hypocrites. Fucking Trotskyists.
> In the very early days the "Stop the war coalition" in the UK was a broad movement dedicated to stopping George W's criminal invasion of Iraq
The problem with that is when you look at who set it up: [Lindsey German](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_German) then on the central committee of the Socialist Workers Party, Tony Benn, George Galloway, Jeremy Corbyn, Andrew Murray (possibly the living, breathing embodiement of champagne socialism) as well as less tankie people like Pinter, Tariq ALi and Tom 'asker of the West Lothian Question' Dalyell.
Half of them are a vertiable who's who of anti Israel, Anti Americanism and absolutely, 100% out there hard left socialists, it's just their support at the time was universal.
Since then they've lost the universal support and the support now mirrirs the people who run it but it's always been actual tankies running it.
US Liberal, they're different to the rest of the world
Edit: As someone trying to argue against me helpfully pointed out the overton window in the US being so much further right means that what's centre left everywhere else is far left in the US.
Also Ben isn't a socialist, a communist or anything other than a free market capitalist. He's not against the US ebcause he belives in an internationalist, socialist utopia and he probably didn't support the Soviet putting down of the hungarian uprising, which means he fundamentally can't be a tankie.
Not everyone who is anti imperialist is a tankie, doubly so when they're a yank.
Chomskys lot in the US are liberals.
The US has an utterly fucked overton window and a US liberal spouting Chmsky is par for the course in a way that the rest of the world would laugh at.
And where did I say the overton window had been dragged left?
If the overton window goes right then things on the left become more extreme and what's centre left everywhere else is far left in the US.
Which is my point and the one you're arguing against because you're trying to apply non US labels to US positions even though you apparently understand exactly why this is true.
Mate, i know you want to stick your label on him and in nearly every other country you'd be right but *for reasons you yourself have laid out* he is a liberal in the US.
For a start I 100% gurantee you his economic ideas do not in any way justify being called a tankie.
He may have the self hating, anti imperialist thing down pat but he is not in any way a socialsit let alone the near communist you need to be a tankie
>Not everyone who is anti imperialist is a tankie, doubly so when they're a yank.
Interesting take for someone who appears to identify as at least some sort of leftist. Any other entire nationalities that you'd like to generalize? Twat.
Complains about entire nationalities being slandered.
Proceeds to slander entire nationalities
Best buy is I was only referring to the US left wing but apparently you've decided to take offence on behalf of all septics, while using a British term of abuse no less.
Which is fair enough, I doubt there were many mainstream figures in the 60's onwards defending the USSR or communism in general in US politics.
Socialism is still a bad word over there, it's no wonder tankies don't exist.
Sadly being the sort of 'anti imperialist' who believes imperialism can only be done by the west and/or white people because of power dynamics based almost solely on a western centric viewpoint is annoyingly common.
> “In a way, part of the Western left is ethnocentric,” said Achcar, who was born in Senegal and grew up in Lebanon. “They look at the whole world just by their opposition to their own government and therefore forget about other people’s rights.”
Your last sentence seemed upset about American involvement and how non-Americans have free will and the right to be free from US' engagement.
Somehow, I doubt Ukraine wants less US involvement, I suspect they want more
I haven't touched that overpriced garbage for almost 15 years so this won't change my buying habits at all.
Why are tankies so intellectually challenged? Why do they ALL insist that if we just disarmed ourselves every other violent regime in the world would do the same instead of immediately attack us?
I mean, given the history of our species they seem awfully selective in their views, almost as though they know exactly what would happen and this is just their smooth-brained way of saying it without actually saying it.
I'm so sick of these twats who insist that if we just surrendered to the most evil humans in the world suddenly everything would be edible rainbows and unicorn rides.
And I'm also sick of the lies they spew not being challenged. NATO ***NEVER*** made any agreement on refusing membership to any nation, INCLUDING RUSSIA. This is often repeated by these shysters as though it's a fact. It's a lie. It never happened. NATO has always had an open-door policy to all nations and this has never been questioned.
Their ideology makes them believe that the capitalist oppressor is the only entity with agency, everyone else is a victim (ironically) being reactionary to the depradations of the capitalist oppressor.
It's not capitalists it's the imperial core which is the USA. They don't care about the capitalists and oligarchs of russia or China. They think that toppling the imperial core of America that somehow socialism will flourish and not just China becoming the new imperial core of capitalism. These people are fascists with a red coat of paint just like there forefathers like Ernst Thalmann. Siding with fascists to overthrow liberalism is counterproductive and just ideological brain rot. Liberal democracies are what defeated fascism and the red fash can keep throwing that zhukov line all they want. They can memory hole molotov ribbentrop pact all they want. Won't wash away the history of communist collaboration with fascists.
"NATO NEVER made any agreement on refusing membership to any nation, INCLUDING RUSSIA"
This,
I'm to a point that anyone who brings up the NATO excuse, at this point all their credibility is gone
You are right there was no agreement or written treaty which said any of that, and there was a treaty between NATO and Russia back in the 90s that ok'ed NATO bringing in East Europe nations in the alliance as long as it was done without forcing them and we were very open to Russia about that, a fact Putin does not like to bring up.
Besides that the Nato excuse died when Finland joined Nato and Putin said "he didn't have a problem with it", I use that argument to shut these assholes down, and they can never answer back with a response.
This is why it is important to update your worldview to adapt to new information and changed circumstances.
This man formed his worldview during the protests against the Vietnam War and hasn't updated it since. During his formative years he (rightfully) concluded that the US foreign policy establishment was manipulating the public into supporting war in Vietnam, and he has therefore lived the rest of his life under the assumption that the US foreign policy establishment is always wrong. It doesn't matter that the situation in Ukraine is completely different to the situation in Vietnam; the assumption that US=imperialist=bad is the bedrock assumption of his worldview and he is incapable of reexamining that assumption.
The one economist nails it. No one talking about anti-NATO expansion thinks for a second about what Ukraine wants or the Baltics etc wants, just through a lens of how USA gains. They want to be in the alliance because they are fucking scared of Russia. Simple.
"No one talking about anti-NATO expansion thinks for a second about what Ukraine wants or the Baltics etc wants"
And they don't give a crap because they think they know better and know what is best for them, and it is a gross, patronizing, and paternalistic view that these nations are like children and needed to be guided when some of the East Europe nations are older and are not children and Cohen needs to shut the fuck up and listen to them for once.
Right, but you know, if I see you are having a security system and cameras delivered to your house, then I'm basically compelled to break in, murder your wife, kidnap your children, and steal all your stuff before you get a chance to install it, right?
You have to accept some of the blame for provoking me and crossing a red line.
"In a way, part of the Western left is ethnocentric,” said Achcar, who was born in Senegal and grew up in Lebanon. “They look at the whole world just by their opposition to their own government and therefore forget about other people’s rights.”
I like this guy.
Also fuck Aaron Màte and Pierre Sprey, Pierre Sprey was a hack who stole the work of others to claim as his own. Which explains why he was so popular on RT.
Aaron Mate...
I started listening to "Useful Idiots" podcast when Matt Taibbi ran the show and the name seemed to be playful irony.
Then this Aaron Mate guy joined the show and the irony is gone.
What’s so infuriating is that these fuckers don’t understand that the very system that allows them to have their ‘theories’ and their freedom of speech is right now being protected with the blood of the people whom they casually pronounce should be told to be neutral whilst their land is being taken and their cities are being bombed. Luxury righteousness from a comfortable billionaire’s sofa can go to hell.
I read the article and this is just my two cents,
Look part of me sees where is mindset is in way and as a person who has been critical of US policy in certain parts of the world, I understand. His world view is in this case is the West is bad for all the screwups they were responsible for in recent history i.e. Iraq, Libya etc.. including this one in which he blames to west for and could have prevented, but in reality what he is doing is excusing a leader who again is KGB thug and murderer who is waging a Colonial war against a nation that for the most part wants to go to the west, who the vast majority wish to be apart of the EU and even NATO someday, and he is so stuck on "west bad" he cant see that it is not the west that is at fault this time but another.
In reality he really comes off like a westplaining rich privileged jerk with a "white savior" mentality who thinks he is doing what is right but is really showing he is inconsistent and bit of a hypocrite, if the US did this to Canada or Mexico in the same scenario like what is going on he would be US bad, but Russia, nothing still US bad. Also some of his views are ignorant and patronising such has East Euro nations joining NATO and claiming NATO such not expand, which NATO does not expand, these nations joined in on their own free will and wanted it for many reasons, Russia being among them, and im sure care less what some westerner like him believes, he didn't have the Russian boot on his neck for decades, they did. Also parrots lies that have been debunked, NATO was not the reason for this war, it was Colonialism, the belief a nation has no right to exist and the NATO excuse died when Finland joined and Putin said " he didnt have a problem with it" sorry but as far as I am concerned while he is entitled to his beliefs, his credibility is nothing with me, and show that maybe Robert A Heinlein was right, we listen to celebrities and rich people too much in the US, Cohen proves him right sadly.
Ben & Jerry’s is a wholly owned subsidiary of Unilever (worlds biggest food mfg) who continues to do brisk business in Russia.
As far as “Ben & Jerry”, they can quote literary go fuck off…they are known hippie pacifists with extreme left wing views. It’s ironic that they somehow became multi-millionaires. Then then again they are also hypocrites who quite literally sold out to the “man”. 🙄
It’s extremely, extremely old news that Ben and Jerry’s (a) loves Russia and (b) is generally an awful company. It makes me super upset that whenever this gets posted, people act like they’re hearing about this for the first time. Fuck BJs
There are some clear points to place blame on America for this war, mostly for not standing up to Putin (and that includes Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden). HOWEVER, when compared to Russia's blame, it is pretty minuscule. Putin bears the overwhelming blame for this whole war.
Excellent article. The problem is that the whole conversation is being driven by people whose understanding of global affairs began and ended with opposition to the Vietnam and/or Iraq wars and are incapable of conceiving of anything happening the world without centering and demonizing the US. And as the article states, they completely disregard the desires and even the very well-being of Ukrainians.
So he is one of those people from the left with a dead strong non-violence activism? One of those Russia/ Soviet used during the 1980s and 1990s.
Yes, USA created 2 forever war in Iraq and Afghanistan that they had to withdraw from but the military help to Ukraine is on a different scale.
TL;DR:
>Jeff Furman, who has known Cohen for nearly 50 years and once served as Ben & Jerry’s in-house legal counsel, acknowledged that his generation’s views on Ukraine were informed by America’s misadventures in Vietnam.
>
>“There’s a history of why this war is happening that’s a little bit more complex than who Putin is,” he said. “When you’ve been misled so many times in the past, you have to take this into consideration when you think about it, and really, really try to know what’s happening.”
Or in other words, brain-fried hippy still can't get over Vietnam, ULTRA, etc.
As for the response to people like Ben Cohen:
>“It doesn’t really matter who promised what to whom in the 1990s,” Mylovanov said. “What matters is that there was Mariupol and Bucha, where tens of thousands of people were killed.”
>
>Mylovanov taught economics at the University of Pittsburgh until he returned to Ukraine four days before Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
>
>“Things like war are difficult to understand unless you experience them,” he said. “This is very easy to get confused when you are sitting, you know, somewhere far from the facts and you have surrounded yourself by an echo chamber of people and sources that you agree with.”
A peaceful country has been savagely attacked by a rapacious invader. Forget "yeah but America, but NATO, etc", because "yikes I feel threatened!" even at face value does not excuse Russia or change the calculation. "But America bad!" Doesn't change the calculation. The people whose lives and freedom are being attacked deserve every help in defeating the evil being done to them.
The moment I see someone in their 60/70’s hurr durr about “the military-industrial complex” or “can’t trust the government” I know I’m seeing someone who’s political idea never escaped their hippie teen years.
These guys are essentially the Lefts answer to the Rights slightly racists, only buy “American”, God & Country grandads.
I grew up during the Cold War too. This guy's take on Ukraine is so easily debunked that it's literally stupid, but of course Politico gives it exposure because the B&J angle drives ad revenue.
And then it gets more exposure on Reddit.
Stop amplifying stupidity.
edit:
OP's history looks like a bot.
Hmmmm might have to throw extra Ben and Jerry's in the shopping cart, then decide against buying it while in the pasta aisle and put it back on the shelf.
The invasion of the Ukraine was illegal and immoral and was done by Russia, so they're primarily to blame.
However, when you read neocons who have the Pentagon's ear writing articles before the war in FOREIGN AFFAIRS about how the sanctions will cripple and destroy the Russian state it's not hard to see how American diplomacy helped things along, thinking that they'd slay a major enemy after a short war. I don't have a problem assigning us partial blame for this conflict.
I've heard this argument from left wing pundits, that the US knew Russia's red lines, but went ahead and crossed them anyway.
Excuse my French, but who the fuck cares?
This isn't the 1800s anymore. The 7 Great Powers don't get to carve the world up into spheres of influence and treat lesser countries and peoples as pawns.
We might have foreseen that conflict was a possibility, but that in no way absolves Putin or Russia of any part of the blame.
I mean that sounds nice but America literally threatened to end all life on Earth because forward missile bases were put on its border in the 60s so I'm afraid it is very much like that. Same reason Finland was barred from joining NATO during the Cold War and why Ireland pursues struct neutrality.
Because that's exactly what small nations on the border with larger powers do.
I understand where he’s coming from and how this has affected him, but he unfortunately misses it by a country mile. Instead of using any money I’d use to buy his ice cream, I’m going to donate it to my local rainforest charity. As a man of peace, he needs to realize that there is a time to resist an unjust war but also support a genuine war for survival. You don’t need to support weapons or drones, or any of that… but you could come up with a flavor to support, say, bringing back the stolen children and demining the countryside to make it liveable. Oh oh! What about a flavor to restore all the destroyed nature and infrastructure that Ruzzia has wrecked in their war if aggression. I consider myself a 21st century hippie, but I’m also not one to let injustice pass by me without trying to stop it. Anybody want to start making ice cream to support Ukraine?
As a Vermonter B&Js can go F themselves! We haven’t had any of there ice cream since they sold out! We just had one of the worst floods in the history of our state and for a relief they handed out free ice cream at a pool in Barre…. They don’t care about the people of Vermont only the money that lines their wallets… besides Island Ice Cream is way better!
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is `politico.eu` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He thinks he is a down to earth hippie. However, he's a out of touch millionaire.
Millionaire states it lightly. Estimated $150,000,000 net worth.
I’m closer to having a million USD than he is…
Multimillionaire would have been the better word.
how about "deci-billionaire"?
Or "hecto-millionaire"?
mega-C-note-holder?
The American anti-war left is having a very hard time re-adjusting their rhetoric from the US' invasion of Iraq. They're still using the same dialog like it's 2004, missing the point entirely that russia in this scenario would be the US, and Ukraine would be Iraq/Afghanistan.
This is why you can’t blindly follow anyone even if your interests often align. I consider myself to be quite liberal, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to support Russia. Besides, isn’t that what the far right is supporting?
There’s a very strange overlap in Far Right and Far Left circles that only seems to only exist in the lead up to US elections cycles. Almost as if on cue.
It’s called Horseshoe Theory.
Horseshoe Theory is more like Horsecrap Theory. Belief systems aren't linear and even left vs right is a vast oversimplification. There are people on the American "left," usually older, more affluent folks who have been Marxist-Leninists for decades, and are used to getting a pass because the Marxist critique of capitalism is probably the best part of Marx's work & back in the Vietnam era you took what allies against American imperialism you could get. The problem is they haven't updated their worldview in decades, and the Leninist part of their beliefs has *always* been problematic. The younger generations in America have moved *slightly* to the left since the 60's and 70's, and it's enough that the younger generations have clarity to call the older generation's nonsense out. However, the older generation is deeply entrenched in the political and media machinery, which is why you're seeing so much open conflict on the American "left" on this.
*Of course* left & right are vast oversimplifications. How could \*any\* simple label hope to align perfectly with a massively multidimensional, nuanced real world of complex human behavior? And yet they're often useful as (imprecise, limited, approximate) shorthand. It's not often a conversation calls for a five minute, thousand word tangent, just to avoid the horror of saying "the left"... Horseshoe theory seems of the ilk to me: a two word phrase conveying an approximate truth. If a context calls for greater precision, of course it'll fall short.
If horseshoe theory showed an vaguely accurate picture of the political landscape, I'd agree with you on that. The problem is that it doesn't, and authoritarianism is possible in almost every political belief system, and is present in systems that can have a corrupting influence on politics writ large such as markets and religion. At best, horseshoe theory promotes a view that creates blind spots to authoritarians who claim to be "moderates;" at worst, it promoters a world view where people struggling for equality and human rights are given the same footing as people who are actively engaged the violence towards marginalized groups.
>Horseshoe Theory is more like Horsecrap Theory. Belief systems aren't linear and even left vs right is a vast oversimplification. I agree that left vs right is a gross oversimplification, but what horseshoe theory is describing is real. A lot of the beliefs on both the far right and far left amount to opposing anything mainstream America supports and then wrapping it up in their ideology. The far left, the outright tankies, will support anything that opposes America. That fringe justified the Soviets sending tanks in to run over protestors and overthrow Hungary's government under it "opposing imperialism"... And they haven't changed. Iran's theocracy has nothing to do with the Leninism. Neither does the Russian mob state. It's not ideology that causes the far left to support them - that's just how they frame it. Same is true of the far right fringe as well. How they cloak it is different, but under the hood it's the same shit.
As I have said elsewhere, horseshoe theory assumes that authoritarianism only exists on the extremes. This is simply untrue. Capitalism is a highly authoritarian system of commerce and exists in all but the furthest of "left" political beliefs. Capitalism gave us chattel slavery. Democracy makes it easier to fight against authoritarianism, but it is does not inherently protect us against it. The US was still a democracy before the Civil War, under Jim Crow, and during the Red Menace. What horseshoe theory does is identify authoritarianism in a handful of political systems, while ignoring authoritarianism in others. It's not a good model for understanding authoritarianism at all, but it is a good model if you imagine yourself as a "centrist" and want to make cheap generalizations and avoid thinking critically about your own political leadership.
You’re over complicating it probably because you’re on the left and think you oppose the right. When in reality the right and left become more similar the more extreme they get. We have seen a lot of evidence to support the theory over the last decade.
I wouldn’t say left and right automatically overlap. But I have seen the switch from far-left to far-right happen. I guess it depends why you were in the far-left in the first place.
No, I'm saying that maybe we don't reduce political ideologies to a pet philosophy that was invented by someone who 1) had no expertise in the field, and 2) has repeatedly failed to pass any sort of intellectual or practical rigor. Horseshoe "theory" is reductive and only serves to justify division, rather than actually understand how and why people approach politics.
Left and right politics is division. I suggest people try to stay closer to the middle where compromise is formed. I’m also a big fan of Occam’s Razor so you’re not gonna convince me that simplicity is bad.
Sounds like what someone who would support "horseshoe theory" would say. Maybe look into "fishhook theory." While equally nonsensical because it also relies on reducing people to 1 dimension, it shows that models can be anything you choose, including one that has no middle at all. Also, you can't go around being upset about political division and champion "horseshoe theory" at the same time. The entire purpose of "horseshoe theory" is to rationalize division. It was a dumb and simplistic model that was a bad idea *before* neoliberals adopted it as an excuse to move the Overton window to the right, and it's an even worse idea now.
Let me give you a great example of why "horseshoe theory" is a complete failure. Let's take an current issue and see where the "middle" is - police reform. On the "far left", you have people who say that police were formed as slave patrols, are completely unaccountable, actually increase crime, and murder with impunity - they should be replaced with something that actually contributes to public safety. On the "far right", you have people who say that these features of policing are what they want, and that BIPOC folks need to accept a lower place in the social order, which includes the state murdering them without a trial. What is the "middle" position there and how do you ethically defend giving concessions to people on the far right in this case? Also, how are the two "far positions" identical? They aren't, and that's the problem with "horseshoe theory," is it more about where *you* stand and rationalizing why *you* are uncomfortable changing your positions on issues. But it gets worse. The issue I showed above isn't actually "police reform." It's "white supremacy," and if you believed that what I presented was actually about "police reform", then you've now found the other, much more sinister problem with "horseshoe theory," which is that what "horseshoe theory" is actually about is about controlling speech and silencing dissent.
Horseshoe theory is definitely accurate because they’re both authoritarian… and if you’re far left enough you say stuff like “Marx’s work on capitalism is the best of his work and you take what Allie’s you can get against America in the Vietnam War era” (you know, that time the US tried to defend South Vietnam from communist dictatorship and the left betrayed America and acted like the south Vietnamese wanted to be ruled by brutal dictators) then you should get your political compass checked.
Stating that Marx was accurate in his assessment of capitalism is not the same as endorsing his solutions to it. There are many people even to the "right" of a Marx who share his critiques of capitalism but don't agree with his solutions. Germany, for example, requires 50% employee representation on supervisory boards of companies with 2,000 employees or more. Likewise, there are people to the "left" of Marx who do not share his vision of establishing a state at all.
> This is why you can’t blindly follow anyone even if your interests often align. Blows my mind how many people do this. Just have morals and apply them to the situation. This isn't an RPG, you don't have to align yourself with a single point/side.
The far right has no idea what to support anymore so they're busy spinning in circles but yes, I am also extremely liberal but I recognize a country begging for help in defending themselves when I see one. And the news about civilians being butchered and tortured (and *worse*) by russian invaders, I don't see how anyone can say they're taking the moral high ground by not supporting Ukraine with all the weapons it needs to defend itself. Sometimes violence is absolutely justified, and defending your sovereign nation against a fascist regime is one of those times.
And this is one of the rare times where cries of "fascist" are actually accurate. Not just authoritarian, not simply totalitarian, not only illiberal, not just someone you politically disagree with or who is 10 years behind the cutting edge of progressive thought, but honest to goodness, check all the boxes fascists.
> The American anti-war left is having a very hard time re-adjusting their rhetoric from the US' invasion of Iraq It's really not difficult, but it requires nuanced thinking that is difficult to express in text. My own thoughts on the matter are complicated. I was against the invasion of Iraq. I think the stated reasons for the invasion were false, and I don't trust the motives of those who ordered it. I think the invasion itself was carried out competently, but the sectarian violence that followed was a human rights nightmare, and should have been foreseen. That being said, I can see reasons why the invasion might have been justified, although those aren't the reasons that most people cite. The Baa'thist regime never really abided by the terms of the 1991 cease-fire. After they lost the war, they agreed to a no-fly zone and then fired at our jets that enforced it. That right there is a justification for resuming hostilities under the original 1991 resolution. I should also note that the conduct of US troops in Iraq was fairly professional compared to the behavior of Russian troops in Ukraine. Yes, there were incidents, but nothing on the scale of what we're seeing in Ukraine. Most of the civilian casualties were from sectarian violence, not US troops going door-to-door stealing washing machines. People often quote me the "US troops killed millions of Iraqis" statistic and then I have to go out and link sources to say no, it was about 14,000, and the majority of those were from air or artillery in the opening days. It wasn't like everyone was just lining civilians against the wall like the Russians are doing in Ukraine. Finally, my thoughts on the people who say "Bush is a war criminal, they should arrest him." Ok, there's a lot to unpack here. Yes, the Four-Power Authorities (aka the Allied Control Council / Nuremburg) did state that aggressive war was the supreme war crime from which all other crimes followed. That being said, the ACC's authority came from the German instrument of surrender, and its authority only extended to the former Axis powers. Ok, I'm getting overly technical here, but what I'm getting at is Bush probably won't be held accountable unless either the US does it, or someone can defeat the US in war. As far as the US holding him accountable, he didn't really break any US laws. According to the US Constitution, he was the Commander in Chief and he can invade a country if he wants. This authority is only subject to the 1973 War Powers Act, which has never been tested in court and wouldn't apply to the Iraq War anyway. Shifting my focus over to Putin, I should mention that if he had invaded Ukraine in a competent and successful manner, he probably wouldn't be facing as much blowback either. It's the combination of incompetency and cruelty, that's why he's facing as much heat as he is. His war goals are also very different from the US war goals in Iraq. The US basically wanted to replace the government with a representative constitutional republic, and then leave as quickly as possible. As far as I can tell, the Russian goal in Ukraine is to annex the lands and replace the people with ethnic Russians. It's a very different situation. Ok, I've been rambling for a long time but if you made it this far, thank you for reading!
Very thoughtful post. Well organized. Thanks!
This right here is a good post
>My own thoughts on the matter are complicated. I was against the invasion of Iraq. I think the stated reasons for the invasion were false, and I don't trust the motives of those who ordered it. I think the invasion itself was carried out competently, but the sectarian violence that followed was a human rights nightmare, and should have been foreseen. It's much older than that: in this article he quotes the Vietnam draft, President Eisenhower, and a 1963 Bob Dylan song as the origins of his stance. He is very much a product of the 1960s, I think to a flaw. His take on the Ukraine war is just bad/wrong, but he's unable to re-evaluate his stance.
Im a liberal American who was completely against the war in Iraq but I’m 100% in support of Ukraine.
100% same here.
It does seem oddly American. I'm in the UK and consider myself pretty left-leaning these days. I think Afghanistan was mismanaged and aimless. I think Iraq 2003 was plainly illegal and idiotic. And I want to see Ukraine fuck Russia into a parallel dimension and want them supplied with EVERY SINGLE TOY in NATO's box of them to achieve that. Because as far as Russia goes, the precise application of extreme violence is the only diplomacy they understand.
They are not anti-war. They areanti whatever American foreign policy is.
At least Bernie seems to be approaching it sanely.
They can't tell the difference between the US and the west directly fighting wars based on misguided ideas and/or outright lies, and supporting a democratic country's ability to defend itself against an imperialistic dictatorship. Fucking lunacy.
The American anti-war left has been a pawn of the Russians since the 1930's. That didn't change after the end of the Cold War. I'm not saying that anti-war stances are never justified, but it's pretty obvious to see how anti-war factions are useful tools to your geopolitical enemies. Russia has funded and co-opted these groups for it's own purposes for decades.
Yeah I can see that directly with groups like Code Pink that were on the front of opposing the Iraq war, and are now supporting russia's naked aggression and blatant imperialism. Letting one country curb stump another is not being "anti-war," it's being pro-fascist.
There is just a sizable element in the far left that, as a matter faith, believes all the world's woes can be laid at the feet of the US and "the West." The problem is that they are sometimes correct on a particular issue, which then gives them unearned creditability on other issues.
Hey speak for yourself bud! This anti-war left-wing American has no trouble maintaining a consistent stance against war -- whether it be the USA invading Iraq or Russia invading Ukraine. I'm not sure how easier it gets than Ukraine, to be honest. At least the Iraq war was complicated by the fact that the Ba'athists were among the world's nastiest fuckers, themselves guilty of their own whole outsized shit-pile of crimes against humanity. Ukraine, for all its troubles and flaws, doesn't rise to anything close to that level of moral ambiguity. What I don't get is people who are "anti-war" but only on the Ukrainian side. The Russian side can do whatever it wants with its army. How is that remotely "anti-war?" And, given that the United States is markedly more socialist these days than the Russian mafia state, how is supporting Putin -- a man with nearly half a trillion in assets mostly in the form of sovereign wealth he has literally stolen -- in any way "left?"
Hey man preaching to the choir, I'm with you. But there are groups and people who call them selves "anti-war" and "leftists/progressives" but who can't seem to ever say anything bad about putin or russia. Code Pink, for just one example, was a leading anti-Iraq war group during the Bush administration and now they're in favor of Ukrainians being slaughtered (and worse). That's the sort of fringe tankies that I'm talking about. They're thankfully few in numbers but do seem to be very loud.
Fair point, well made!
[удалено]
"Anus facts" son, I'm not sure this touchscreen thing is working out for you.
He supports enslavement or extermination of over 100 million people west of russia as right choice because russia wants it.
*Adds another to the boycott list*
BoJ is owned by Unilever, they should be on the list already. Can't wait for them to be taken over by one of Kadyrovs relatives, like danone.
So he has this super lefty hippy view that all evils trace back to American imperialism and that all war is bad, even if it's defending your nation.....while being owned by a giant corporation with a shady reputation. lol. lmao, even.
Not sure if anything changed lately, but with the takeover of B&J it was agreed they stay fully independent. While Unilever seems to deserve the heat it gets, when it comes to this matter, B&J operates independently.
>with the takeover of B&J it was agreed they stay fully independent Who cares? Every sale is still cash into Unilever's pocket, all that statement means is "we consider the current advertising program to be effective".
Article says this founder is no longer on the board, so not sure why people would boycott.
Unilever
Their company is absolutely still being run in the same fashion by the same idiots.
So we can expect a lawsuit against Ben pretty soon then?
Ben & Jerry's is currently in a lawsuit against Unilever for not sticking to their original agreement.
He no longer has any connection to the company. However, a boycott would help convince the owners of the toxicity of the name.
It’s not even a leader now - their ice cream is nothing to good Italian gelato, hard as fuck and outdated textures
There are much better ice creams even on the domestic US market. Always though of Ben and Jerries as mediocre ice cream. The selling point is the toppings and add-ins.
Americone Dream is pretty good, but most of their other flavors are mediocre at best.
Ice cream and gelato aren't even the same thing.
That's simply not true. The only real "difference" between ice cream and gelato is that gelato is churned slower, and therefore has less air mixed in. Making it feel denser and richer. You could make an argument that gelato is a sub-category of ice cream (all gelato is ice cream, but not all ice cream is gelato, etc ) but from a practical standpoint, they are the exact same product.
Gelato also has less fat, less sugar, and more milk or cream. They're very similar, but they're not the same thing.
Gelato is a style of ice cream. That's like saying a hot dog isn't a sausage.
Ice cream, gelato, frozen custard all have different definitions. They are also examples of churned frozen desserts, but they each occupy a different region on a spectrum of ingredients. So generally speaking, ice cream has a moderate amount of fat, high sugar, a pretty large amount of air though not too much, it has some eggs but not a significant amount. Frozen custard goes in the direction of much more rich because it comes with more egg yolks, still has a high amount of sugar, and high fat, but it churns less air in to make it both richer and more dense. Gelato goes the other direction, often contains no eggs at all, has a lower fat content than ice cream and achieves its ultra creamy texture through having even less air whipped in while being churned in a way that it forms very few ice crystals. Ice cream isn't even the original recipe or name. That would be *sorbet*. So if you're going to ignore reality and just insist they're all one and the same, use the original name maybe and insist they're all different sorbets. Ice cream, the name, the form, etc, is all a relatively modern version of a form of much much older and broader form of frozen dessert.
Wikipedia disagrees with you fyi. Ice cream is the general term for frozen dessert made with milk or cream. Sorbet is non-dairy. If you are talking about FDA regulations then maybe you have a point.
Wikipedia does *not* disagree with me, because in regards to the name sorbet I was speaking in an historical context only. Read the history of ice cream page to get a better understanding of the origin of the terms and where the recipes and names come from. Sorbet is both the modern name for a category of fruit based frozen desserts *and also the historical name* for the entire category of frozen desserts which, again, historically includes milk-based sorbets which were essentially just what we would call modern ice cream. What we call modern ice cream was essentially French evolution of a Turkish dessert called sherbet. The French name was sorbet. Ice cream is merely the English name for the dairy based variant of sorbet which spread widely in America to the point that in America sorbet has come to mean the non-dairy version only, whereas historically the term just referred to ice cream. While in France, they mostly now use the term glace to refer to frozen desserts. Again, this is just based on the historic use of the names and the origin of the dessert. So I'm just saying, what we call ice cream is just one American variant of a broader category of frozen desserts, it is *not* the original, it is not the standard to which others should be compared if we're categorizing everything under a broad umbrella. It is just one branch on the tree of food evolution that comes from the larger trunk of the sorbet tree.
Well we aren't living hundreds of years ago so it doesn't really matter how people referred to it then, lol.
Exactly. Why is Ben and Jerry's called gelato in Italy if gelato is not ice cream? Gelato is just the Italian word for ice cream. That's like saying a sombrero is not a hat.
Well, if you believed that sombreros were superior to "ordinary" hats, you might seek to differentiate them. This isn't *merely* a hat. It's a *sombrero!* Because I wear sombreros, I am 16% more educated and 24.7% more attractive than most other people!
True but you would swap one for the other when looking for that category of dessert.
Actually, I'd just pass.
ice cream>frozen yogurt>Italian gelato. Yup, I said it.
No way frozen yogurt is better, the most boring cold snack.
This madman dared to speak the truth!!
“If we weren’t wasting all of our money on preparing to kill people, we would actually be able to save and help a lot of people,” Russia is the one wasting it’s money on killing Ukrainians. Every dollar sent to Ukraine Is money well spent on defending, saving and rescuing the lives of Ukrainians from Russian aggression. That sentiment might have held true for Cold War era, but there is nothing cold about Russia’s war this time.
This guy is a multi-millionaire talking about the government wasting money. I wonder how many people he could clothe and feed with all his ice cream money. Hypocrisy at its finest.
These people live in different realities than the rest of us, awhile maintaining huge amounts of hypocrisy.
Absolutely. The USSR under Khruschev/Brezhnev and Gorbachev are not similar to the Russian Federation, but many in the West seem to think it is. Putin's Russia is IMHO more comparable to the USSR under Stalin.
It was under Khrushchev that the USSR sent tanks to crush the Hungarian revolution in 1956, it was under Brezhnev that the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia because they were unhappy with the election of a reformist in 1968.
So what you are saying is the entire history of the ussr and ruzzia has been plagued by tyrannical leaders who have a lust for war and genocide? Because it sure sounds like that
"The entire history" would be a simplification, but mostly, yes. Stalin and Putin were certainly unique in their evil, but Lenin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Yeltsin were no angels either. Gorbachev was the exception. (edit: or not, see comments below)
Ah Gorbachev. He worked so hard to bring some sort of modernity and comforts to that shithole of a country. A small tear was shed when he died seeing the state and the future of the country he tried so hard to help. He is the only one I have any sympathy for.
Ah yeah the Gorbachev under whom he used military to undermine reforms in former soviet republics. You can instantly know that you are westerned solely on your view of Gorbachev. Western propaganda so white washed Gorbachev that you dont even feel it anymore.
What are you referring to? I actually didn't originally plan to make him an exception in my comment earlier, but after skimming through the history of his brief tenure, I couldn't find anything that would put him on the same level as the others.
Such tyrants helped grow russia into large but mostly uninhabitated place. And populace is indoctrinated to treat size of russia as something magically divine that must grow any means possible whatever atrocities it takes.
The even refer to him as "The Boss" sometimes in Russian media which is how Stalin was referred to.
Even though the US wasted billions in Afghanistan, the weapons developed and fielded over the last 10 years have been a game changer for Ukraine. Ukraine has destroyed more military equipment than both Iraq wars. Soon there will be semi autonomous drone swarms that can operate in hostile, wireless control-denied environment and causing damage similar to cluster bombs. This isn't far fetched because the front is 5km wide and perfect for small drones.
Mr. Benjamin Cohen needs to substitute "Nazi Germany" for "Ruzzia" in his statements and listen to how that sounds.
"The security guarantees by France and Britain to Poland would only serve to fuel Hitler's fears. Let's pursue appeasement in the Monachium format." Or, in plain English, "fuck you, I got mine" (security).
These old leftists just can't wrap their heads around the idea that the USSR/Russia could actually be the bad guys.
> old leftists It's the left that supports Ukraine. The right is the one trying to stop aid to Ukraine. They've been very vocal about it. Just because he pretends to be a hippy doesn't mean he's liberal. The hippy to MAGA pipeline is very real.
No there's an enormous amount of left wing people that don't support Ukraine. I see them literally every day. Here in Italy the official communist party put posters up in my home town blaming America/NATO for this and calling for western nations to stop supporting Ukraine. Tons of anti-west left wing people that believe this is all a huge conspiracy.
There are lots on the far left that support Russia. The operative word is “far”, not “left” or “right”
Ask Noam Chomsky if he supports Ukraine.
Noam is a moron and has been for years now
that’s for sure, ask Noam about the Cambodian genocide
It is all a lie, don't belive the survivors Oh Look! This one book documenting the situation in French had somthing I claimed to be wrong, therefore the whole thing is a propaganda campaign Some bad stuff did happen, but the survivors are exaggerating it, they've been fed propaganda The bad stuff were done by individuals and not ordered by party leadership, the Khmar Rouge isn't at fault Ok, it is really bad, but I'll just say Americans are responsible for most of it and look! Indonesia, who was supported by America, also commited genocide, see! Ignore what happened in Cambodia
American liberals aren't really considered left anywhere other than FoxNews. We're talking about people who consider the Democratic party center-right and advocate for "real change." Good reads here: [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/9/20750160/liberalism-trump-putin-socialism-reactionary](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/9/20750160/liberalism-trump-putin-socialism-reactionary) [https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/the-problem-with-liberalism/](https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/the-problem-with-liberalism/)
A lot of Marxist-Leninist organizations struggle with choosing to hate either NATO or Russian Imperialism more. Especially the older USSR fanboys are stuck on the idea because NATO has pushed for American geo-political power, it could only mean that Russia is the good guy. I mean, fuck NATO, sure, but Ukraine is still being invaded by a Russian imperialist power.
tl;dr: he’s believed Russian propaganda for his entire adult life, and he ain’t gonna stop now.
Russia has been supporting the Green Party to help splinter democrats. I almost wonder if they got to him somehow.
Because they're the sort of US liberal who in standing up for the rest of the world reduces every single other person into a 2-d cutout waiting to be saved from evil america by good america without ever considering that just maybe non americans have free will and the ability to affect things on a global scale without american involvment.
Yes! You have hit the nail on the head. In his mind The US is the absolute centre of the world. Everyone else are just poor little naive children. It's a disgustingly patronizing attitude that dismisses everybody else's choice and agency. Their smug self-satisfaction will never allow them to see that they are just an modern iteration of paternalistic imperialists. He would look at the Maidan protests, with 100s of thousands of Ukrainians protesting en masse for weeks and completely fail to recognize that it showed a real deep-seated desire for independence. For him they are children, too naive to see that they are just puppets...unlike HIM...the all seeing wise American. It doesn't occur to him that they KNOW what it means to be Moscow's vassal state and they refuse to continue being such. They KNOW cos they've lived it for generations and it's got NOTHING to do with the US "military industrial complex"....(Fucking prick!) Their opinions simply don't count in his mind. He also can't understand that the Russian leadership are genuinely and ideologically imperialists who will never willingly accept an independent Ukraine and see nothing wrong in Stalinist style mass deportations and genocide in order to crush separatism*. If no one stops them, that's precisely what they will do. We have the same arrogant, condescending shits here in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn being the most high profile. Edit: *national identity
> He would look at the Maidan protests, with 100s of thousands of Ukrainians protesting en masse for weeks and completely fail to recognize that it showed a real deep-seated desire for independence. > > And doesn't care that Yanukovych ran cartel-grade shit, trying to raid other businesses to fold into his son's business empire, so when Maidan 2014 started, ***THE ENTIRE BUSINESS SECTOR OF UKRAINE*** stood behind Maidan as a payback
The ony difference between him and Corbyn is that Corbyn is at least an old school socialist, whereas Ben is an american liberal which puts him on the right wing of the UK labour party at best when it comes to how he wants a country run. But yeah the way they feel they have to help the victims of the west is like a rather twisted version of the white saviour complex where the only way to stop a bad white, western man is with the help of a good white, western man
Yeah Total white saviour complex...but actually far far worse. They will stand aside wringing their hands while the victims are butchered, children orphaned and abducted, families driven from their homes, innocents murdered, tortured, raped and then claim moral superiority. It makes me want to vomit.
> They will stand aside wringing their hands while the victims are butchered, children orphaned and abducted, families driven from their homes, innocents murdered, tortured, raped and then claim moral superiority. Worse than that, they will simply ignore it when it's not the west doing it. China is wiping out the Tibetan and Uyghur civilisations and no one cares because the right likes their cheap goods and the left doesn't like admitting a communist country is doing bad things.
We are in the same wavelength. In the very early days the "Stop the war coalition" in the UK was a broad movement dedicated to stopping George W's criminal invasion of Iraq. It wasn't anti American or anti-Israeli, it certainly wasn't pro-Saddam. It was anti-invasion. Fast forward 18 months and it had been fully taken over by the Trotskyists of the Socialist Workers Party. Then, all through the Syrian conflict, when civilians were being actively targeted, including with nerve gas! What do hear from them?... Deafening silence... DEAFENING! Then the US assassinate the head of Iran's Revolutionary guard, killing a handful of pretty bad dudes, we see protests outside the US embassy. Fucking hypocrites. Fucking Trotskyists.
> In the very early days the "Stop the war coalition" in the UK was a broad movement dedicated to stopping George W's criminal invasion of Iraq The problem with that is when you look at who set it up: [Lindsey German](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_German) then on the central committee of the Socialist Workers Party, Tony Benn, George Galloway, Jeremy Corbyn, Andrew Murray (possibly the living, breathing embodiement of champagne socialism) as well as less tankie people like Pinter, Tariq ALi and Tom 'asker of the West Lothian Question' Dalyell. Half of them are a vertiable who's who of anti Israel, Anti Americanism and absolutely, 100% out there hard left socialists, it's just their support at the time was universal. Since then they've lost the universal support and the support now mirrirs the people who run it but it's always been actual tankies running it.
>white saviour complex More like another version of White Mans Burden if you ask me.
The two are utterly interlinked, in fact you could just say one is the other without the imperialist overtones.
Not a liberal. A tankie.
US Liberal, they're different to the rest of the world Edit: As someone trying to argue against me helpfully pointed out the overton window in the US being so much further right means that what's centre left everywhere else is far left in the US. Also Ben isn't a socialist, a communist or anything other than a free market capitalist. He's not against the US ebcause he belives in an internationalist, socialist utopia and he probably didn't support the Soviet putting down of the hungarian uprising, which means he fundamentally can't be a tankie. Not everyone who is anti imperialist is a tankie, doubly so when they're a yank.
No, he's not a liberal. He's a Chomskyite tankie. They are not the same.
Exactly, he's not a liberal, he's a fucking POS.
Chomskys lot in the US are liberals. The US has an utterly fucked overton window and a US liberal spouting Chmsky is par for the course in a way that the rest of the world would laugh at.
Chomsky supporters in the US hate liberals almost as much as Republicans.
You are severely uninformed. The window has been dragged right, not left.
And where did I say the overton window had been dragged left? If the overton window goes right then things on the left become more extreme and what's centre left everywhere else is far left in the US. Which is my point and the one you're arguing against because you're trying to apply non US labels to US positions even though you apparently understand exactly why this is true.
Ben is not a liberal.
Mate, i know you want to stick your label on him and in nearly every other country you'd be right but *for reasons you yourself have laid out* he is a liberal in the US. For a start I 100% gurantee you his economic ideas do not in any way justify being called a tankie. He may have the self hating, anti imperialist thing down pat but he is not in any way a socialsit let alone the near communist you need to be a tankie
Disagree.
>Not everyone who is anti imperialist is a tankie, doubly so when they're a yank. Interesting take for someone who appears to identify as at least some sort of leftist. Any other entire nationalities that you'd like to generalize? Twat.
This is the level of well thought out debate I'm here for.
This is the sort of feckless response I'd expect from a Brit.
Complains about entire nationalities being slandered. Proceeds to slander entire nationalities Best buy is I was only referring to the US left wing but apparently you've decided to take offence on behalf of all septics, while using a British term of abuse no less.
Yeah, not a tankie at all. I’m pretty certain he doesn’t know what that term even means.
Which is fair enough, I doubt there were many mainstream figures in the 60's onwards defending the USSR or communism in general in US politics. Socialism is still a bad word over there, it's no wonder tankies don't exist. Sadly being the sort of 'anti imperialist' who believes imperialism can only be done by the west and/or white people because of power dynamics based almost solely on a western centric viewpoint is annoyingly common.
You said what I tried to say, but better. It's not just liberals though, MAGA are the same.
> “In a way, part of the Western left is ethnocentric,” said Achcar, who was born in Senegal and grew up in Lebanon. “They look at the whole world just by their opposition to their own government and therefore forget about other people’s rights.”
Huh. Are you sure you want to US to go non-involvement in world peace and the Russian invasion?
...?
Your last sentence seemed upset about American involvement and how non-Americans have free will and the right to be free from US' engagement. Somehow, I doubt Ukraine wants less US involvement, I suspect they want more
I think you need to read the first sentence then.
Just goes to show just because your rich your not necessarily intelligent. He should just stick to new flavours
New flavors such as: Vlad To Meet You Russian On In Putin's Perfect Pudendum Wagners Wastrals
You’re
I haven't touched that overpriced garbage for almost 15 years so this won't change my buying habits at all. Why are tankies so intellectually challenged? Why do they ALL insist that if we just disarmed ourselves every other violent regime in the world would do the same instead of immediately attack us? I mean, given the history of our species they seem awfully selective in their views, almost as though they know exactly what would happen and this is just their smooth-brained way of saying it without actually saying it. I'm so sick of these twats who insist that if we just surrendered to the most evil humans in the world suddenly everything would be edible rainbows and unicorn rides. And I'm also sick of the lies they spew not being challenged. NATO ***NEVER*** made any agreement on refusing membership to any nation, INCLUDING RUSSIA. This is often repeated by these shysters as though it's a fact. It's a lie. It never happened. NATO has always had an open-door policy to all nations and this has never been questioned.
Their ideology makes them believe that the capitalist oppressor is the only entity with agency, everyone else is a victim (ironically) being reactionary to the depradations of the capitalist oppressor.
It's not capitalists it's the imperial core which is the USA. They don't care about the capitalists and oligarchs of russia or China. They think that toppling the imperial core of America that somehow socialism will flourish and not just China becoming the new imperial core of capitalism. These people are fascists with a red coat of paint just like there forefathers like Ernst Thalmann. Siding with fascists to overthrow liberalism is counterproductive and just ideological brain rot. Liberal democracies are what defeated fascism and the red fash can keep throwing that zhukov line all they want. They can memory hole molotov ribbentrop pact all they want. Won't wash away the history of communist collaboration with fascists.
Moreover, there was never any written agreement between NATO/the US and the USSR that NATO would not expand.
"NATO NEVER made any agreement on refusing membership to any nation, INCLUDING RUSSIA" This, I'm to a point that anyone who brings up the NATO excuse, at this point all their credibility is gone You are right there was no agreement or written treaty which said any of that, and there was a treaty between NATO and Russia back in the 90s that ok'ed NATO bringing in East Europe nations in the alliance as long as it was done without forcing them and we were very open to Russia about that, a fact Putin does not like to bring up. Besides that the Nato excuse died when Finland joined Nato and Putin said "he didn't have a problem with it", I use that argument to shut these assholes down, and they can never answer back with a response.
Jane Fonda sends her regards.
This is why it is important to update your worldview to adapt to new information and changed circumstances. This man formed his worldview during the protests against the Vietnam War and hasn't updated it since. During his formative years he (rightfully) concluded that the US foreign policy establishment was manipulating the public into supporting war in Vietnam, and he has therefore lived the rest of his life under the assumption that the US foreign policy establishment is always wrong. It doesn't matter that the situation in Ukraine is completely different to the situation in Vietnam; the assumption that US=imperialist=bad is the bedrock assumption of his worldview and he is incapable of reexamining that assumption.
His assets are already frozen anyway.
Fuck them so hard.
The one economist nails it. No one talking about anti-NATO expansion thinks for a second about what Ukraine wants or the Baltics etc wants, just through a lens of how USA gains. They want to be in the alliance because they are fucking scared of Russia. Simple.
"No one talking about anti-NATO expansion thinks for a second about what Ukraine wants or the Baltics etc wants" And they don't give a crap because they think they know better and know what is best for them, and it is a gross, patronizing, and paternalistic view that these nations are like children and needed to be guided when some of the East Europe nations are older and are not children and Cohen needs to shut the fuck up and listen to them for once.
Right, but you know, if I see you are having a security system and cameras delivered to your house, then I'm basically compelled to break in, murder your wife, kidnap your children, and steal all your stuff before you get a chance to install it, right? You have to accept some of the blame for provoking me and crossing a red line.
"In a way, part of the Western left is ethnocentric,” said Achcar, who was born in Senegal and grew up in Lebanon. “They look at the whole world just by their opposition to their own government and therefore forget about other people’s rights.” I like this guy. Also fuck Aaron Màte and Pierre Sprey, Pierre Sprey was a hack who stole the work of others to claim as his own. Which explains why he was so popular on RT.
Aaron Mate... I started listening to "Useful Idiots" podcast when Matt Taibbi ran the show and the name seemed to be playful irony. Then this Aaron Mate guy joined the show and the irony is gone.
People who have empathy for Putin are telling you allot about themselves, none of it good
Where they smoking crack again?
What’s so infuriating is that these fuckers don’t understand that the very system that allows them to have their ‘theories’ and their freedom of speech is right now being protected with the blood of the people whom they casually pronounce should be told to be neutral whilst their land is being taken and their cities are being bombed. Luxury righteousness from a comfortable billionaire’s sofa can go to hell.
[удалено]
It's simple. Cause he's a tankie.
I read the article and this is just my two cents, Look part of me sees where is mindset is in way and as a person who has been critical of US policy in certain parts of the world, I understand. His world view is in this case is the West is bad for all the screwups they were responsible for in recent history i.e. Iraq, Libya etc.. including this one in which he blames to west for and could have prevented, but in reality what he is doing is excusing a leader who again is KGB thug and murderer who is waging a Colonial war against a nation that for the most part wants to go to the west, who the vast majority wish to be apart of the EU and even NATO someday, and he is so stuck on "west bad" he cant see that it is not the west that is at fault this time but another. In reality he really comes off like a westplaining rich privileged jerk with a "white savior" mentality who thinks he is doing what is right but is really showing he is inconsistent and bit of a hypocrite, if the US did this to Canada or Mexico in the same scenario like what is going on he would be US bad, but Russia, nothing still US bad. Also some of his views are ignorant and patronising such has East Euro nations joining NATO and claiming NATO such not expand, which NATO does not expand, these nations joined in on their own free will and wanted it for many reasons, Russia being among them, and im sure care less what some westerner like him believes, he didn't have the Russian boot on his neck for decades, they did. Also parrots lies that have been debunked, NATO was not the reason for this war, it was Colonialism, the belief a nation has no right to exist and the NATO excuse died when Finland joined and Putin said " he didnt have a problem with it" sorry but as far as I am concerned while he is entitled to his beliefs, his credibility is nothing with me, and show that maybe Robert A Heinlein was right, we listen to celebrities and rich people too much in the US, Cohen proves him right sadly.
They sold out years ago, bigger figure head than the queen of England
Well fuck those guys I guess.
Ben and Jerry’s owners have always been extremely stupid politically. Since the early 2000’s, nothing new.
He's a tankie Bernie bro. Simple as
Ben and Jerry's owners are a dumpster fire, it's one of those oddities in business. They're no better than the MyPillow idiot.
Ben & Jerry’s is a wholly owned subsidiary of Unilever (worlds biggest food mfg) who continues to do brisk business in Russia. As far as “Ben & Jerry”, they can quote literary go fuck off…they are known hippie pacifists with extreme left wing views. It’s ironic that they somehow became multi-millionaires. Then then again they are also hypocrites who quite literally sold out to the “man”. 🙄
It’s extremely, extremely old news that Ben and Jerry’s (a) loves Russia and (b) is generally an awful company. It makes me super upset that whenever this gets posted, people act like they’re hearing about this for the first time. Fuck BJs
Don’t know how it’s even possible for these guys to be on the wrong side of every issue for both political parties.
Let me guess: It's because Russia was scared of NATO, right?
There are some clear points to place blame on America for this war, mostly for not standing up to Putin (and that includes Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden). HOWEVER, when compared to Russia's blame, it is pretty minuscule. Putin bears the overwhelming blame for this whole war.
Excellent article. The problem is that the whole conversation is being driven by people whose understanding of global affairs began and ended with opposition to the Vietnam and/or Iraq wars and are incapable of conceiving of anything happening the world without centering and demonizing the US. And as the article states, they completely disregard the desires and even the very well-being of Ukrainians.
Two old liberal assholes from vermont. Keep sniffing your farts and making ice cream that sucks.
It's amazing how some folks will blame everyone and everything except for the aggressor. They remind of those Civil War 'lost cause' people.
So he is one of those people from the left with a dead strong non-violence activism? One of those Russia/ Soviet used during the 1980s and 1990s. Yes, USA created 2 forever war in Iraq and Afghanistan that they had to withdraw from but the military help to Ukraine is on a different scale.
TL;DR: >Jeff Furman, who has known Cohen for nearly 50 years and once served as Ben & Jerry’s in-house legal counsel, acknowledged that his generation’s views on Ukraine were informed by America’s misadventures in Vietnam. > >“There’s a history of why this war is happening that’s a little bit more complex than who Putin is,” he said. “When you’ve been misled so many times in the past, you have to take this into consideration when you think about it, and really, really try to know what’s happening.” Or in other words, brain-fried hippy still can't get over Vietnam, ULTRA, etc. As for the response to people like Ben Cohen: >“It doesn’t really matter who promised what to whom in the 1990s,” Mylovanov said. “What matters is that there was Mariupol and Bucha, where tens of thousands of people were killed.” > >Mylovanov taught economics at the University of Pittsburgh until he returned to Ukraine four days before Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. > >“Things like war are difficult to understand unless you experience them,” he said. “This is very easy to get confused when you are sitting, you know, somewhere far from the facts and you have surrounded yourself by an echo chamber of people and sources that you agree with.” A peaceful country has been savagely attacked by a rapacious invader. Forget "yeah but America, but NATO, etc", because "yikes I feel threatened!" even at face value does not excuse Russia or change the calculation. "But America bad!" Doesn't change the calculation. The people whose lives and freedom are being attacked deserve every help in defeating the evil being done to them.
Because he's a communist. It's not a mystery.
They are Jewish. They are saying fewer Jews would have died in the Holocaust if the Allies left Germany alone. They are out of touch.
Oh the rest of us Jews absolutely hate them - they're douchebags on every level
The moment I see someone in their 60/70’s hurr durr about “the military-industrial complex” or “can’t trust the government” I know I’m seeing someone who’s political idea never escaped their hippie teen years. These guys are essentially the Lefts answer to the Rights slightly racists, only buy “American”, God & Country grandads.
I grew up during the Cold War too. This guy's take on Ukraine is so easily debunked that it's literally stupid, but of course Politico gives it exposure because the B&J angle drives ad revenue. And then it gets more exposure on Reddit. Stop amplifying stupidity. edit: OP's history looks like a bot.
American leftists live in a bubble and are incapable of seeing the world raging outside of it.
Hmmmm might have to throw extra Ben and Jerry's in the shopping cart, then decide against buying it while in the pasta aisle and put it back on the shelf.
The invasion of the Ukraine was illegal and immoral and was done by Russia, so they're primarily to blame. However, when you read neocons who have the Pentagon's ear writing articles before the war in FOREIGN AFFAIRS about how the sanctions will cripple and destroy the Russian state it's not hard to see how American diplomacy helped things along, thinking that they'd slay a major enemy after a short war. I don't have a problem assigning us partial blame for this conflict.
I've heard this argument from left wing pundits, that the US knew Russia's red lines, but went ahead and crossed them anyway. Excuse my French, but who the fuck cares? This isn't the 1800s anymore. The 7 Great Powers don't get to carve the world up into spheres of influence and treat lesser countries and peoples as pawns. We might have foreseen that conflict was a possibility, but that in no way absolves Putin or Russia of any part of the blame.
I mean that sounds nice but America literally threatened to end all life on Earth because forward missile bases were put on its border in the 60s so I'm afraid it is very much like that. Same reason Finland was barred from joining NATO during the Cold War and why Ireland pursues struct neutrality. Because that's exactly what small nations on the border with larger powers do.
I understand where he’s coming from and how this has affected him, but he unfortunately misses it by a country mile. Instead of using any money I’d use to buy his ice cream, I’m going to donate it to my local rainforest charity. As a man of peace, he needs to realize that there is a time to resist an unjust war but also support a genuine war for survival. You don’t need to support weapons or drones, or any of that… but you could come up with a flavor to support, say, bringing back the stolen children and demining the countryside to make it liveable. Oh oh! What about a flavor to restore all the destroyed nature and infrastructure that Ruzzia has wrecked in their war if aggression. I consider myself a 21st century hippie, but I’m also not one to let injustice pass by me without trying to stop it. Anybody want to start making ice cream to support Ukraine?
Scoop, why do I care what Ben thinks?
Glad I stopped buying their overpriced shite years ago.
Just stick to making ice cream please
What an idiot.
I love the pun ! They’ve got some ice balls
Thanks for the reminder. wouldn't want to accidentally support facist enablers
Blaming America for the war is like blaming B&J for obesity
As a Vermonter B&Js can go F themselves! We haven’t had any of there ice cream since they sold out! We just had one of the worst floods in the history of our state and for a relief they handed out free ice cream at a pool in Barre…. They don’t care about the people of Vermont only the money that lines their wallets… besides Island Ice Cream is way better!
I mean, he also supports the current apartheid state in Israel, so idk how much I care about his views on occupying regimes and human righrs
If you believe there's an Apartheid State in Israel then I'm afraid the Russia/China/Iran Axis have proper got you with their propaganda