Musk on USAID: ‘Time for it to die’

[Hans Blaster]

In order for actions like arming Ukraine or intervening by funding them to be considered "the good thing" for the US, one would first have to explain how that's the "good thing" with respect to the stated reasons we were given for why people in the US were supposed to want to support the involvement.

I thought our (side) topic was about identifying russian propagandists (and using USAID money to call them out or publicize that ID in other countries that are also under attack by russia).

If you want reasons to back Ukraine's defense against invasion, that's a different question to which we could talk about standard geopolitical issues, etc., but this isn't the place for it. (This thread is about *non*-military aid.)

If Russia presents a clear and present threat to the integrity of our elections by various meddling, and various forms of propaganda dissemination (done via agents, unwitting people parroting stuff back, or otherwise), how does arming Ukraine stop that?

Who said it did? (No one.) (This is that conflation/what-about bit I was talking about.)

Unless someone was gullible enough to believe that Ukraine could actually beat the Russian Federation into non-existence, or Ukraine was going to damage them in such a way that it would cut off Russia's internet access and lines of communication so that they could no longer disseminate their propaganda to the outside world, then I fail to see what issue this is solving with respect to US interests.

This makes no sense at all.

Even if by some miracle, Ukraine could fight back hard enough that Putin says "okay, y'know what, this isn't worth anymore, you win, we're quitting and going home now", Russia still has internet access correct?

What? Are you suggesting that the way to stop russian propaganda was to cut russia from the internet?

If the stated "US interests" that were given for intervention are true, then why don't we just bomb them directly?

Search "nuclear triad" and "mutually assured destruction". After 3 years of war are you *that* unaware of the situation?

In what other situation would a similar problem be approached as "Wow, this other country is a major threat to Western Nations and threatens our democracies and usurps our elections.... boy I hope they attack one of their neighbors so we have an excuse to arm the people fighting against them"

Maybe you could write a PHP script that sorts this out.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Consider the mass of the Russian army, plus their nuclear missiles right on Poland's border. Do you think think that wouldn't have any affect on Europe?

I suppose we could split Poland as part of the deal. As long as peace is the goal. Russia gets Ukraine and half of Poland so they don't invade the rest of Europe.

 

[stevil]

That used to be the standard position of the US-Democrats

"We shouldn't be injecting ourselves in military conflicts abroad if they don't negatively impact us"

Again, what changed? (apart from the prevailing thought that Russia helped Trump win)

You'd have to ask Democrats. Weird question really.

So I assume our check from New Zealand is in the mail then?

There's a bit of a dichotomy between this post and your previous one.

Before it was "it's not all about the US", now it's "the US has a duty to be the world police, because if they don't things will destabilize"

Which is it? Is the US military "special/better" or is it not?

USA needs to be a team player. It isn't all about USA.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well, OK. I guess you're not interested in the moral aspect of it.

Neither are the progressive democrats; they've been beating the "anti-war" drum for decades about almost every conflict we've involved ourselves in going back to Vietnam. They didn't seem to get interested in interventionism until it was perceived that one particular country helped the guy, they despise the most, win.

You'd rather not consider whether a large country run by a thug can simply invade another country is morally acceptable or not.

There are plenty of big countries run by thugs that flex their power and exploit other countries, why is this one different in terms of the left-wing response to it?

Any argument you can make about Russia, can be equally applied to Iran. Are we ready to start sending money and guns to anyone who wants to fight against Iran?

You'd not want to think about the ethics of the matter. And you'd skip on any responsibility that you might have to countries which are members of an organisation of which you are a founder member, an organisation which has pledged to support each other should any suffer aggression from an enemy.

I've acknowledged what the practical solution is. If Russia is the threat they claim it is, we bomb that hell hole known as Russia tomorrow (which has been a thorn in our side since the days of those commies Lenin and Stalin, turn it into a parking lot, and call it a day. You in for that?

If no, then why not?

Obviously, I'm exaggerating for effect there.

There's any number of global conflicts we could involve ourselves in for reasons that can be portrayed as "moral". The underlying motivations matter because they can have ripple effects.


Are you familiar with the "racist kills a rapist" parable/analogy?

On Lex Friedman's show, he hosted a Psychology professor, and now for the life of me, I can't remember if the psychologist in question was Jonathan Haidt, or Don Hoffman...but it was one of those two.

They explained in detail how a seemingly moral act, can actually fuel immorality, depending on the motives of the person engaging in the act.

(I'm paraphrasing a bit here)

The gist of it was:

There's a black man attempting to rape a woman in an alley.

The act of physically killing that guy so that the woman is saved is a moral act in terms of the outcome (the bad guy is dead, and woman is spared the trauma of being raped)

However... If "Dave" did it because he was a racist, and just looking for a justifiable excuse to kill a black guy... And "Mike" did it because he sincerely emphasized with that woman, the implications are very different.

If Dave is the guy who does it, it lends credibility to the racist narratives he was propagating, and may inspire other people to "look for reasons to kill black people". (which is a bad thing)

If Mike is the guy who does it, it may inspire others to be braver when it comes to stepping in to protect the vulnerable. (which is a good thing)



I would suggest that the same dynamic is in question here. There may be some here in the US who are sincerely concerned about the well-being of Ukrainians, and just want to see them have a happy, prosperous, and free country. However, there are others who really don't give a damn about Ukraine, and merely see them as a "tool" to fight against the entity they perceive to be the ones that cost their team an election.

 

[stevil]

I've acknowledged what the practical solution is. If Russia is the threat they claim it is, we bomb that hell hole known as Russia tomorrow (which has been a thorn in our side since the days of those commies Lenin and Stalin, turn it into a parking lot, and call it a day. You in for that?

If no, then why not?

Anyone with even half a brain would know that USA would not win that war.
USA would be nuked. It would be mutually assured.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I thought our (side) topic was about identifying russian propagandists (and using USAID money to call them out or publicize that ID in other countries that are also under attack by russia).

If you want reasons to back Ukraine's defense against invasion, that's a different question to which we could talk about standard geopolitical issues, etc., but this isn't the place for it. (This thread is about *non*-military aid.)

Who said it did? (No one.) (This is that conflation/what-about bit I was talking about.)

This makes no sense at all.

What? Are you suggesting that the way to stop russian propaganda was to cut russia from the internet?

Search "nuclear triad" and "mutually assured destruction". After 3 years of war are you *that* unaware of the situation?

Maybe you could write a PHP script that sorts this out.

Lol, I'll consolidate these into one reply to try to get the debate back to "manageable"


If Russia is the threat people are saying it is, why don't we handle it personally instead of outsourcing it to Ukraine?


With all due respect to the Ukrainians that have been fighting for their homeland...

If Microsoft thought another entity was a serious threat, would they handle things themselves, or outsource their efforts (via resources) to the Best Buy "GeekSquad".

 

[Bradskii]

I suppose we could split Poland as part of the deal. As long as peace is the goal. Russia gets Ukraine and half of Poland so they don't invade the rest of Europe.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that that might be an offer that Trump will make Putin.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Anyone with even half a brain would know that USA would not win that war.
USA would be nuked. It would be mutually assured.

But you're willing to provoke them in other ways...

"Hey, we're not going to bomb you personally, but will give billions to this other country that's sending bombs your way, and we'll make supporting them a virtue signal among half of our population"

Do you really think there's a huge difference there?

 

[Bradskii]

Neither are the progressive democrats;

Good to know that you are admitting your position.

There are plenty of big countries run by thugs that flex their power and exploit other countries, why is this one different in terms of the left-wing response to it?

Exploit doesn't equal invade.

Any argument you can make about Russia, can be equally applied to Iran. Are we ready to start sending money and guns to anyone who wants to fight against Iran?

You already do.

I've acknowledged what the practical solution is.

No, you haven't. Apart from nonsensically suggesting that a nuclear war would be a solution.

Nothing else worth responding to.

 

[Bradskii]

But you're willing to provoke them in other ways...

Maybe you don't see the difference in helping a country defend itself from an aggressor by sending arms and munitions and physically attacking that aggressor yourself. Actually, I'm sure you do see it. So why you'd use that argument is completely beyond me.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Maybe you don't see the difference in helping a country defend itself from an aggressor by sending arms and munitions and physically attacking that aggressor yourself. Actually, I'm sure you do see it. So why you'd use that argument is completely beyond me.

But Putin said the Ukrainians were NAZI's.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that that might be an offer that Trump will make Putin.

We could have co prosperity spheres!

 

[SimplyMe]

With regards to "mirroring narratives", isn't that to be expected when you have two factions fighting each other, and people all the way over here in the US are picking which side they want to support?

For instance, if you look at the Israel/Palestine conflict.

You'll undoubtedly find instances where people here in the US are mirroring some of the narratives of either Netanyahu or Hamas (depending on which side of the conflict they align with)

So with regards to this conflict:
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University

The narrative of "Russia was provoked by Western leaders going back on their word" isn't merely "Kremlin propaganda", it's a reasonable theory.

Pekka Kallioniemi, a professor who has no background in international politics and is a member of the NAFO - an online poop-posting group (I can't say the actual term) and meming group aimed at gaining online support for Ukraine and calling out who they feel are Russian sympathizers (which basically includes everyone who takes the "we should stay out of it position", shouldn't be viewed as "the" expert on this.

If we're going use the "mirroring narratives" standard, then by that standard the members of "NAFO" are mirroring the same sentiments said by Senator Lindsey Graham. Does that mean Pekka is either an "agent of the military industrial complex" or a "useful idiot for Neo-con war hawks"?

That's a very naive take on it.

NATO has proven themselves to be "a little more aggressive" than you describe on a number of incidents.


- NATO intervened in the Kosovo conflict without United Nations Security Council (UNSC) approval, launching a 78-day bombing campaign against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)

- Under a UN mandate to impose a no-fly zone to protect civilians, NATO launched extensive airstrikes against Muammar Gaddafi’s forces. However, NATO went beyond the resolution’s scope by actively aiding rebel forces and contributing to regime change.

- Although NATO promised in the 1990s not to expand eastward after the Cold War, it has since admitted several former Soviet-aligned states.

- NATO had prolonged involvement in nation-building and counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, which raised some questions about whether it had exceeded its defensive-only mandate.


NATO has a history of, under the guise of "providing reactionary defense forces", going beyond that scope, and trying to convert the non-westernized counties they're operating in, to westernized ones aligned with North American and Western Euro interests.

Let me be clear on this, NATO never promised not to expand into Eastern Europe -- that is a Russian talking point that has no basis in truth.

Yes, James Baker mentioned it as a possibility but ultimately the USSR (who the agreement was with, not the Russians) decided they didn't care about it and the idea was dropped. It isn't in any signed agreement between the US and the USSR, or even with Russia. Even Gorbachev, who is the one that signed the finalized deal, has stated that no such promise was ever made, "“The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years."

Instead, what was discusses was that US forces would not be increased in Germany and none would be placed in what had been East Germany, that only German NATO forces would be stationed in what had been East Germany. To continue with what Gorbachev said in that interview, "Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

It is propaganda by Putin that NATO promised not to expand into former Warsaw Block countries. At the same time, it is worth noting that (at least until Russia invaded Ukraine) that no US troops had been stationed in those former Warsaw Pact countries. I doubt any will remain stationed after the Russia-Ukraine war ends.

It is also worth noting that Ukraine has been trying to join NATO, on and off, for over a decade -- and NATO has consistently stated that they cannot, that they don't yet meet the standards for NATO membership. While Ukraine might have eventually joined NATO, it was a decade or more off (the time it would take for Ukraine to be eligible for NATO membership) -- so there was no real NATO threat posed by Ukraine.

And, last, if the war was (at least in part) started over NATO, as Putin has tried claiming, it was stupid and one of the biggest self owns that Putin could have done. He had to have known that Finland and Sweden had been thinking about joining NATO but that the majority in those countries (to include the politicians) were not wanting to join. So, he had to have suspected that, when he attacked Ukraine -- and with Russia's history of aggression against both Finland and Sweden -- that it would push both countries to join NATO. So, if NATO was a reason for the war it backfired, as Russia now has added almost 1,000 miles of extra borders with NATO countries.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Anyone with even half a brain would know that USA would not win that war.
USA would be nuked. It would be mutually assured.

Did they stop teaching Cold War geopolitics at some point in the US schools or something? This is BASIC knowledge. I don't get this exchange that is going on.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Lol, I'll consolidate these into one reply to try to get the debate back to "manageable"


If Russia is the threat people are saying it is, why don't we handle it personally instead of outsourcing it to Ukraine?

We didn't "outsource to Ukraine". russia BEGAN A FULL SCALE INVASION of the country.

With all due respect to the Ukrainians that have been fighting for their homeland...

If Microsoft thought another entity was a serious threat, would they handle things themselves, or outsource their efforts (via resources) to the Best Buy "GeekSquad".

If they didn't provide my email I'd not even know that MS was still a thing.

Tech support analogies are basically worthless. Try reading a history of the Cold War.

 

[stevil]

But you're willing to provoke them in other ways...

"Hey, we're not going to bomb you personally, but will give billions to this other country that's sending bombs your way,

The international community absolutely should be trying to stop countries from invading other countries. This behaviour is not to be tolerated.
Sanctions should be implemented. we should seek to stop doing trade with the invading countries.
We should be supporting the country being invaded however we can, be that supplying intel, weaponry or whatever possible.

and we'll make supporting them a virtue signal among half of our population"

Virtue signalling? Oh boy, get a clue.

Do you really think there's a huge difference there?

Yes,if you send your people, then they will die on the battlefield. If you do direct combat with a nuclear nation, you risk nuclear war.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Let me be clear on this, NATO never promised not to expand into Eastern Europe -- that is a Russian talking point that has no basis in truth.

Yes, James Baker mentioned it as a possibility but ultimately the USSR (who the agreement was with, not the Russians) decided they didn't care about it and the idea was dropped. It isn't in any signed agreement between the US and the USSR, or even with Russia. Even Gorbachev, who is the one that signed the finalized deal, has stated that no such promise was ever made, "“The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years."

Instead, what was discusses was that US forces would not be increased in Germany and none would be placed in what had been East Germany, that only German NATO forces would be stationed in what had been East Germany. To continue with what Gorbachev said in that interview, "Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

It is propaganda by Putin that NATO promised not to expand into former Warsaw Block countries. At the same time, it is worth noting that (at least until Russia invaded Ukraine) that no US troops had been stationed in those former Warsaw Pact countries. I doubt any will remain stationed after the Russia-Ukraine war ends.

It is also worth noting that Ukraine has been trying to join NATO, on and off, for over a decade -- and NATO has consistently stated that they cannot, that they don't yet meet the standards for NATO membership. While Ukraine might have eventually joined NATO, it was a decade or more off (the time it would take for Ukraine to be eligible for NATO membership) -- so there was no real NATO threat posed by Ukraine.

And, last, if the war was (at least in part) started over NATO, as Putin has tried claiming, it was stupid and one of the biggest self owns that Putin could have done. He had to have known that Finland and Sweden had been thinking about joining NATO but that the majority in those countries (to include the politicians) were not wanting to join. So, he had to have suspected that, when he attacked Ukraine -- and with Russia's history of aggression against both Finland and Sweden -- that it would push both countries to join NATO. So, if NATO was a reason for the war it backfired, as Russia now has added almost 1,000 miles of extra borders with NATO countries.

It wasn't just the James Baker comment...

Many world leaders made certain assurances:

The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”

The conversations before Kohl’s assurance involved explicit discussion of NATO expansion, the Central and East European countries, and how to convince the Soviets to accept unification. For example, on February 6, 1990, when Genscher met with British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd, the British record showed Genscher saying, “The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example, the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next.”

Baker said it again, directly to Gorbachev on May 18, 1990 in Moscow, giving Gorbachev his “nine points,” which included the transformation of NATO, strengthening European structures, keeping Germany non-nuclear, and taking Soviet security interests into account. Baker started off his remarks, “Before saying a few words about the German issue, I wanted to emphasize that our policies are not aimed at separating Eastern Europe from the Soviet Union. We had that policy before. But today we are interested in building a stable Europe, and doing it together with you.”

The documents show that Gorbachev agreed to German unification in NATO as the result of this cascade of assurances, and on the basis of his own analysis that the future of the Soviet Union depended on its integration into Europe, for which Germany would be the decisive actor. He and most of his allies believed that some version of the common European home was still possible and would develop alongside the transformation of NATO to lead to a more inclusive and integrated European space, that the post-Cold War settlement would take account of the Soviet security interests. The alliance with Germany would not only overcome the Cold War but also turn on its head the legacy of the Great Patriotic War.

But inside the U.S. government, a different discussion continued, a debate about relations between NATO and Eastern Europe. Opinions differed, but the suggestion from the Defense Department as of October 25, 1990 was to leave “the door ajar” for East European membership in NATO.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We didn't "outsource to Ukraine". russia BEGAN A FULL SCALE INVASION of the country.

Sure we did.
Make some public statements that destabilize the situation

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/

...wait for them to get froggy, and then try to intervene.

It's like needling two guys into a bar fight. If I didn't like "Joe", and he and "Dave" are on the verge of coming to blows. If I needle them into fighting and then hand Dave a pocketknife to stab Joe with, and claim "What?? I'm just defending Dave! Joe started that fight!"



We're trying to use them to "weaken Russia's position" economically via some "war of financial attrition" approach.

Look at the reasons being given by certain progressive think tanks.

Four Reasons Why Supporting Ukraine Is a Good Investment

www.wilsoncenter.org

Why the United States Must Stay the Course on Ukraine

The United States must maintain its course on Ukraine because it is essential to America’s national security interests and democratic values. A Ukraine defeat would create a more dangerous and unstable world.

www.americanprogress.org

If you notice, "We need to help the poor Ukrainians, not because there's anything in it for us, but just because it's the right thing to do" doesn't seem to be a prevailing talking point.

Reasons ranging from
"strengthen our international position so we can swoop in on potential trading partners while Russia is busy/distracted with Ukraine"
to
"improve our image by supporting the side that allows more LGBTQ freedoms"
to
"nudges other countries to pivot away from Russia's fossil fuels and create more urgency for nations to start on clean energy transitions"

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sure we did.
Make some public statements that destabilize the situation

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/

...wait for them to get froggy, and then try to intervene.

It's like needling two guys into a bar fight. If I didn't like "Joe", and he and "Dave" are on the verge of coming to blows. If I needle them into fighting and then hand Dave a pocketknife to stab Joe with, and claim "What?? I'm just defending Dave! Joe started that fight!"

There is no such thing in that article. It does, however, include Ukraine's accusation that russia was massing troops near the border (which they were and it would only accelerate in the 10 weeks that remained before the full-on invasion).

We're trying to use them to "weaken Russia's position" economically via some "war of financial attrition" approach.

Look at the reasons being given by certain progressive think tanks.

Four Reasons Why Supporting Ukraine Is a Good Investment

www.wilsoncenter.org

Why the United States Must Stay the Course on Ukraine

The United States must maintain its course on Ukraine because it is essential to America’s national security interests and democratic values. A Ukraine defeat would create a more dangerous and unstable world.

www.americanprogress.org

If you notice, "We need to help the poor Ukrainians, not because there's anything in it for us, but just because it's the right thing to do" doesn't seem to be a prevailing talking point.

Reasons ranging from
"strengthen our international position so we can swoop in on potential trading partners while Russia is busy/distracted with Ukraine"
to
"improve our image by supporting the side that allows more LGBTQ freedoms"
to
"nudges other countries to pivot away from Russia's fossil fuels and create more urgency for nations to start on clean energy transitions"

Both of which were written about 1 year *AFTER* the invasion started. There is a HUGE difference between "egging-on" your opponent into a fight with someone else and giving the other guy brass knuckles after it starts.

(And let's be frank, you've maneuvered yourself into this position to maintain a claim that all of the "obsession with russia" is just some Democrats being wounded by the 2016/russia election interference claims. SMH.)

 

[essentialsaltes]

USAID official says 'changes' to system have delayed payments to some staffers​

Peter Marocco said the agency is "working diligently to address these delays."

Whoops!

Peter Marocco, a Trump loyalist and the architect of efforts to slash USAID as part of President Donald Trump's massive federal cuts, wrote in his eight-page affidavit that the agency is "working diligently to address these delays," which he said included "routine payments to employees" stationed overseas.

Trump 2.0: transforming the routine into the challenging.