Biden has been meddling in Ukraine since the Maidan back in '14. He was basically in charge of the country after Maidan under Obama. Not enough has been written about this, but there's enough including a French documentary released back in 2018 or 2019.
I have friends from the "wrong side" of Ukraine and their family has been shelled by Kiev since Maidan.
As to Gaza, I see Trump and Kamala tied. I have to project Biden's admin onto her because otherwise she is completely devoid of content to judge her with. And this admin's record is that of Bibi bandolier.
So on the bloodshed in Gaza they're tied. On the blood spilt in Ukraine Trump's ahead. Advantage Trump.
Which leads me to Dr. Stein. A courageous Jewish woman who has the backbone to stand up to Bibi.
EDIT: if you want to know more about it Stephen F Cohen, a lifelong liberal married to the editor of "The Nation" wrote a book about it "War with Russia?". It came out in '19 based on his weekly interviews by John Batchelor. Prof. Cohen died in '20 ('21?)
It's not a tie for Gaza. Trump is the one who provoked and moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. With his SIL being jewish, and his love for authoritarian regime like Bibi's - in what world do you think he gives a flying F about Palestinians? The left disappointed us for Gaza, but Trump will be much worse.
With regards to Ukraine - how do you judge the accuracy of the French documentary you watched? Who financed it?
Even in a far fetched scenario where you believe Putin felt threaten with NATO closer to his borders - does that suddenly make it ok for him to invade a sovereign state? Especially given they made an agreement to respect their territory in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nukes?
Oh right - Russia's word means sh!t.
PS: Stein is fully in Putin's pocket. Don't buy the Green Party BS who only exists for a few months every 4 years.
"The left disappointed us for Gaza, but Trump will be much worse."
The left "disappointed" you? That's a quaint way to describe material, personnel, logistical and diplomatic cover for a genocide. Real cute.
By contrast, all we have on Trump are mean tweets and executing a (stupid) decision by Congress to move the embassy.
"how do you judge the accuracy of the French documentary you watched? Who financed it?"
It's one of a vast volume of data that have definitively proven Biden's role. It is coherent other sources in a way that the narrative we're fed by the likes of The Economist isn't. The French made an easily digestible documentary for those who want to wade into a complicated story. It's a starting point. Prof. Cohen's another.
Btw, Hunter Biden's laptop - now validated in court - acknowledges Biden's culpability and form part of the whole of evidence.
"Even in a far fetched scenario where you believe Putin felt threaten with NATO closer to his borders - does that suddenly make it ok for him to invade a sovereign state?"
Do we really need to list the countries Democrat and GOP presidents have invaded for BS reasons? And Putin invaded for the genocide Banderites were committing in Donetsk. I have friends in Donetsk, so I have primary sources.
"Especially given they made an agreement to respect their territory in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nukes?"
The agreement also required Ukrainian neutrality,m. Meanwhile, Zelensky publicly declared in late '21 he wanted nukes. Anyway, there were the Minsk II accords that the Ukr. were in violation of.
"PS: Stein is fully in Putin's pocket. Don't buy the Green Party BS who only exists for a few months every 4 years."
Im not afraid of Putin. I'm afraid of the Lobby class in DC.
And Putin invaded for the genocide Banderites were committing in Donetsk.
So how do you think it's possible that this "genocide" was taking place at the time, when even now, several years later -- you will not be able to find a single reliable report of any kind documenting it?
It is all about NATO expansion into Ukraine and entirely avoidable. After hot debate, NATO declared that Ukraine would eventually become part of NATO in 2014. This led to Russia taking Crimea to send a message.
NATO funded the expansion and upgrade of Ukrainian army for the next 6 years, and then reaffirmed the Ukraine would become a member in 2020, leading to the boarder buildup. Russia demanded Biden to disavow membership or face invasion, and Biden refused.
From the Biden administration perspective it was a win win situation. Ukraine falls and NATO support grows. Russia fails, and Russia is weaker.
> It is all about NATO expansion into Ukraine and entirely avoidable.
No, its not.
> After hot debate, NATO declared that Ukraine would eventually become part of NATO in 2014. This led to Russia taking Crimea to send a message.
That’s a very nice theory, except it has nothing to do with the facts. The declaration that Ukraine would “eventually” become part of NATO was not made in 2014, it was made at the 2008 NATO Summit in Bucharest when NATO also bowed to Russian pressure and declined to offer Ukraine and George Membership Action Plans to serve as near-term on-ramps to membership. After that:
1. In 2010 Ukraine adopted a law prohibiting joining any military bloc, abandoning efforts to join NATO
2. Russia invades Crimea in March 2014
3. Russia invades eastern Ukraine in August 2014
4. In response to (2) and (3), Ukraine’s government in 2014 announced it would seek to have the non-bloc status law repealed and restart efforts to join NATO
.
.
.
n. At the NATO Brussels Summit in 2021, while again not granting Ukraine a MAP, NATO “recalled” the 2008 statement that Ukraine would eventually be a member.
You are absolutely right that I misremembered the Bucharest summit as 2014, not 2008, and it was Georgia that Russia invaded 4 months after the NATO secretary-General said the two countries would have eventual membership.
I think it would be only fair to include serval things on your timeline. Between 1 and 2 of your list you have the revolution ousting of the pro-Russian government that passed the 2010 NATO laws.
You also have a number of escalations following #4. In 2016, Ukraine was granted the Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP), comprising the advisory mission at the NATO Representation to Ukraine as well as 16 capacity-building programmes and Trust Funds. In 2018, Ukraine was officially given an aspiring member status. In 2020 Ukraine was given the Enhanced Opportunities Partner status, Which is that status formerly held by Finland and Sweden, and currently held by Australia.
>> It is all about NATO expansion into Ukraine and entirely avoidable.
> No, its not.
Do you seriously think that we would be in the current situation had NATO flat out told Ukraine "no", or if the US had backtracked in the 2020s, instead of pushing forward?
> Do you seriously think that we would be in the current situation had NATO flat out told Ukraine "no", or if the US had backtracked in the 2020s, instead of pushing forward?
No, we’d be in a situation where Russia was firmly in control of Georgia, Ukraine, and probably Moldova, and was actively pressuring, e.g., the Baltic republics.
The way we’d be in a better situation is if NATO had told Russia to take a flying fuck in 2008 and extended MAPs and interim security guarantees to Georgia and Ukraine, and backed those guarantees up with forward deployed forces.
>The way we’d be in a better situation is if NATO had told Russia to take a flying fuck in 2008 and extended MAPs and interim security guarantees to Georgia and Ukraine, and backed those guarantees up with forward deployed forces.
I agree that MAPs and security guarantees in 2008 could have prevented Russian expansionism.
I agree that Russia would have significantly more control and influence in Ukraine with a "No" answer from NAT0, and be forced into many Pro-Russian positions.
I think better situation is relative to objectives. I think generally from the military strategic perspective, the current state of war is close to optimal for the USA, and far superior to either Ukraine in NATO or Ukraine in Russian control. It drains and isolates Russia, increases NATO spending, and spreads NATO influence. It does so for a tiny economic cost and no US military lives lost. It is a military strategists wet dream. However, I also think the current outcome is abhorrent from the moral, philosophical, and humanitarian perspective.
My main criticism is that I truly believe that US chose to take action to bring about this outcome over the much more humanitarian outcomes. It is easy to play chicken with Russia when the US has nothing to lose and everything to gain from a collision.
My ideal outcome from a moral perspective would have been a militarily neutral Ukraine (because I do not support extension of NATO for the sake of expansion) and some sort of autonomous Crimea and Donbas as Russian clients (because I support political self determination).
What criteria do you use to judge hypothetical outcomes, and what do you think should be optimized for? I suppose this is ultimately the crux of these disputes, and the historical chain of events is just window dressing.
Do you seriously think that we would be in the current situation had NATO flat out told Ukraine "no"
They did in fact give a flat "no" to both George and Ukraine, and that was the key outcome of the 2008 Bucharest Summit. What you seem to be missing here is that despite the nice-sounding press release you shared in the other comment, their formal application, in the form of their requests for what's known as a Membership Application Plan, was denied:
From 2008, Russia began stating its opposition to Ukraine's membership. That March, Ukraine applied for a Membership Action Plan (MAP), the first step in joining NATO. At the April 2008 Bucharest summit, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer declared that Ukraine and Georgia would someday join NATO, but neither would begin Membership Action Plans.
One can read those various press releases ("communiqués") that came later as hedges / equivocations -- but that's all secondary. At the time, it was crystal clear that their applications had been rejected, and this was really quite a bit deal at the time.
As to whether we would be in the current situation right now: that gets into hypotheticals of course, but the main point is that Putin definitely did not launch those invasions simply "because NATO", but because his disappointment with the change of government in Kyiv in 2014 (and at least one of Putin's insiders has said there had been plans to at least re-take the Crimea since way back in the early 2000s). And as a way of perpetuating the regime's power, and cementing his own legacy.
That's why the whole NATO encroachment line is basically a foil -- it's just something Putin says, but it's not the reason he launched those invasions.
Im not making the argument that Ukraine became a member in 2008. They were told not only that they could become a member in the future, but that they would become a member in the future, and NATO would help them get there.
After hot debate, NATO declared that Ukraine would eventually become part of NATO in 2014.
It did no such thing. NATO formally rejected Ukraine's membership application in 2008. And there it has sat, in the doghouse, ever since.
This led to Russia taking Crimea to send a message.
Russia's regime invaded the Crimea and Donbas on the 2014 on its own initiative, out of its own ideological motivations; nothing "led" it to take that action.
>We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process[1]
That's just word salad, and doesn't change the central fact:
NATO formally rejected Ukraine's membership application in 2008
It's exactly the same as when you get rejected by Google - of course you get a nice email (months later) saying that you're welcome to apply again. That's all that "aspirational" statement was. It wasn't a proclamation of anything of substance.
Similarly, I'm aghast with the war in Gaza, so I was on the fence on Trump.