Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Barrister]

War is bad. It doesn't matter whether one side is entirely in the right or not, just not having a war in the first place is a better situation.

Also do remember that meanwhile in the real world its mostly on your side of the divide that Putin has his fans.
I do note you're the only one talking about a Russian victory here...

Good on the congressional Dems for withdrawing the letter, but the context of it was obvious to try and get the US to compel Ukraine to accept some form of settlement.

And while I will not argue Putin has right-wing fans, he certainly does have left-wing fans as well.  "Tankies" are not right-wingers.

[OttoVonBismarck]

FWIW the far left Congressional Dems are some of my least favorite people in politics, but I don't think they are (as a group) pro-Putin or intentionally pro-Russia. I also do not think that was the intention of their letter. Like many things in the progressive political project, it was something high on idealism, but low on practical knowledge of cause/effect. I think they were coming at it from a more pacifist mindset that the war needs to stop, and think the U.S. needs to "do something" to try and get the two sides to agree to peace. This ignored the practical realities everyone else has pointed out, that in present scenario makes such a thing the equivalent of leaning on Ukraine to help Putin.

To their credit once they realized the optics they withdrew it, I don't see any obvious Putin links like I do with say, Tulsi, Rand Paul, Matt Gaetz, Tucker Carlson, Gleen Greenwald etc.

[Admiral Yi]

To their credit once they realized the optics they withdrew it, I don't see any obvious Putin links like I do with say, Tulsi, Rand Paul, Matt Gaetz, Tucker Carlson, Gleen Greenwald etc.

The obvious link is the previous comments by Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky about the aggressiveness of NATO expansion and the need to demilitarize Ukraine for a just peace.

This letter may not be a smoking gun but the optics were bad for a reason, not because evil people spun it unfairly.

[grumbler]

Why did they sign it? Any other reason than just being Putin fanpersons?

Because it is a feel-good nothingburger. 

We agree with the Administration's perspective that it is not America's place to pressure
Ukraine's government regarding sovereign decisions, and with the principle you have enunciated
that there should be "nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine." But as legislators responsible for
the expenditure of tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in military assistance in the conflict,
we believe such involvement in this war also creates a responsibility for the United States to
seriously explore all possible avenues, including direct engagement with Russia, to reduce harm
and support Ukraine in achieving a peaceful settlement.

Nothing to see here.

[grumbler]

War is bad. It doesn't matter whether one side is entirely in the right or not, just not having a war in the first place is a better situation.

Also do remember that meanwhile in the real world its mostly on your side of the divide that Putin has his fans.
I do note you're the only one talking about a Russian victory here...

Good on the congressional Dems for withdrawing the letter, but the context of it was obvious to try and get the US to compel Ukraine to accept some form of settlement.

And while I will not argue Putin has right-wing fans, he certainly does have left-wing fans as well.  "Tankies" are not right-wingers.

Where are you getting from this letter any indication that it was trying to "get the US to compel Ukraine to accept some form of settlement?"  Direct quotes preferable to vague mindreading results.

[Legbiter]

The problem is that right now any solution acceptable to Russia is unacceptable to Ukraine and vice versa. Until that situation changes there is no possibility for peace.

The United States trying to force a solution unacceptable to one side strikes me as a disastrous notion.

The Russians demanded on the eve of war that NATO kick out all members admitted after 1997. Putin scales up his war goals every time he suffers a particularly humiliating setback. There's zero trust from the West and the Ukrainians in anything Putin says or promises. I'm not sure there will ever be a formal treaty ending the war, at some point the Russians will fuck off to the 2014 border and that's that. Maybe a ceasefire like at the end of Korea if Putin is gone.

[grumbler]

FWIW the far left Congressional Dems are some of my least favorite people in politics, but I don't think they are (as a group) pro-Putin or intentionally pro-Russia. I also do not think that was the intention of their letter. Like many things in the progressive political project, it was something high on idealism, but low on practical knowledge of cause/effect. I think they were coming at it from a more pacifist mindset that the war needs to stop, and think the U.S. needs to "do something" to try and get the two sides to agree to peace. This ignored the practical realities everyone else has pointed out, that in present scenario makes such a thing the equivalent of leaning on Ukraine to help Putin.

To their credit once they realized the optics they withdrew it, I don't see any obvious Putin links like I do with say, Tulsi, Rand Paul, Matt Gaetz, Tucker Carlson, Gleen Greenwald etc.

I think that the letter was even more naïve than you do.  I read it as more a "if the US directly tells Putin how to end the war, he will have no choice but to oblige." 

It's interesting that the letter was withheld for reasons that are obvious (it was drafted in May/June and signed late June) but was mysteriously released now, blindsiding its own signers.  Who deciding this timing?

[Admiral Yi]

https://progressives.house.gov/press-releases

The 10/24 press release has a link ("letter") to a PDF.

[Admiral Yi]

Given the destruction created by this war for Ukraine and the world, as well as the risk of
catastrophic escalation, we also believe it is in the interests of Ukraine, the United States, and the
world to avoid a prolonged conflict. For this reason, we urge you to pair the military and
economic support the United States has provided to Ukraine with a proactive diplomatic push,
redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a ceasefire. This is consistent with your
recognition that "there's going to have to be a negotiated settlement here," and
your concern that Vladimir Putin "doesn't have a way out right now, and I'm trying to figure out
what we do about that."
We are under no illusions regarding the difficulties involved in engaging Russia given its
outrageous and illegal invasion of Ukraine and its decision to make additional illegal annexations
of Ukrainian territory. However, if there is a way to end the war while preserving a free and
independent Ukraine, it is America's responsibility to pursue every diplomatic avenue to support
such a solution that is acceptable to the people of Ukraine. Such a framework would presumably
include incentives to end hostilities, including some form of sanctions relief, and bring together
the international community to establish security guarantees for a free and independent Ukraine
that are acceptable for all parties, particularly Ukrainians. The alternative to diplomacy is
protracted war, with both its attendant certainties and catastrophic and unknowable risks.

Putin needs an off ramp and security guarantees acceptable to *all parties* are the problematic parts to me.

[Grey Fox]

It takes time for elected tankies to realize that Russia is not on your side.

[Valmy]

To their credit once they realized the optics they withdrew it, I don't see any obvious Putin links like I do with say, Tulsi, Rand Paul, Matt Gaetz, Tucker Carlson, Gleen Greenwald etc.

The obvious link is the previous comments by Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky about the aggressiveness of NATO expansion and the need to demilitarize Ukraine for a just peace.

This letter may not be a smoking gun but the optics were bad for a reason, not because evil people spun it unfairly.

Yeah ok Ukraine already gave up its nukes hoping for a just peace. That failed when Russia tried to make it its puppet anyway. Ukraine must arm itself, and heavily, to survive. Any suggestion of Ukraine neutrality or a disarmed Ukraine is equivalent to sacrificing Ukraine to Russia. Giving up its nukes was a mistake. Russia just made a huge statement in favor of nuclear proliferation when it invaded Crimea.

If Russia wanted a peaceful and neutral Ukraine well it could have easily had that. It pretty much did. But that wasn't good enough, it wanted a Ukraine under Russian control.

Odd that guys like Chomsky don't mention that very critical issue.

[Valmy]

Given the destruction created by this war for Ukraine and the world, as well as the risk of
catastrophic escalation, we also believe it is in the interests of Ukraine, the United States, and the
world to avoid a prolonged conflict. For this reason, we urge you to pair the military and
economic support the United States has provided to Ukraine with a proactive diplomatic push,
redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a ceasefire. This is consistent with your
recognition that "there's going to have to be a negotiated settlement here," and
your concern that Vladimir Putin "doesn't have a way out right now, and I'm trying to figure out
what we do about that."
We are under no illusions regarding the difficulties involved in engaging Russia given its
outrageous and illegal invasion of Ukraine and its decision to make additional illegal annexations
of Ukrainian territory. However, if there is a way to end the war while preserving a free and
independent Ukraine, it is America's responsibility to pursue every diplomatic avenue to support
such a solution that is acceptable to the people of Ukraine. Such a framework would presumably
include incentives to end hostilities, including some form of sanctions relief, and bring together
the international community to establish security guarantees for a free and independent Ukraine
that are acceptable for all parties, particularly Ukrainians. The alternative to diplomacy is
protracted war, with both its attendant certainties and catastrophic and unknowable risks.

Putin needs an off ramp and security guarantees acceptable to *all parties* are the problematic parts to me.

Security guarantees are not worth the paper they are written on. Only a heavily armed Ukraine with allies able to come to its aid will guarantee its existence as a free and independent state. Deterrence is the only defense. That is why Sweden and Finland are in NATO.

Twice the Russians have signed agreements guaranteeing Ukrainian borders and twice they have found excuses to break those agreements. There are no such thing as security guarantees in this situation besides raw force.

I just want to remind everybody that Vladimir Putin said that it was Poland's fault the USSR invaded in 1939. The Russians will come up with some bullshit story about how the victim is the real aggressor every time. They claim today that it was actually Ukraine that broke those agreements, not them. So what good is an agreement for Ukraine? None. It doesn't exist.

[The Brain]

Well, that's why Sweden and Finland hope to join NATO.

[Jacob]

I generally am pretty on board with the House progressives, but standing firm against Russian evil is one of my top "don't compromise" issues. So yeah, the letter was a mistake and reflects poorly on the folks involved, IMO.

[Josquius]

War is bad. It doesn't matter whether one side is entirely in the right or not, just not having a war in the first place is a better situation.

Also do remember that meanwhile in the real world its mostly on your side of the divide that Putin has his fans.
I do note you're the only one talking about a Russian victory here...

Good on the congressional Dems for withdrawing the letter, but the context of it was obvious to try and get the US to compel Ukraine to accept some form of settlement.

And while I will not argue Putin has right-wing fans, he certainly does have left-wing fans as well.  "Tankies" are not right-wingers.

Yes. Tankies exist.
The thing with Tankies is there are few examples of them around in any sort of position of power. Even Corbyn and the like fall short of being full Tankies.
They're fringe nuts with zero representation, especially in the US.
On the right however.... The fringe has become far more normalised. Beyond the pale far right views get full representation.
Here we have some on the left being a bit naiive and saying the US should make peace and they're getting called out for being pro Putin whilst on the right you've people outright opposing aid to Ukraine and with some dodgy links to his regime in the not too distant past.