Musk on USAID: ‘Time for it to die’

[ThatRobGuy]

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).

So Biden suggesting that NATO membership for Ukraine was a possibility shouldn't be viewed a provocation then?

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.)

The "egging on" was in reference to Biden dangling the NATO carrot.

To your other part...
Not all of the obsession with Russia, but a decent sized chunk of it, and when that thought process wasn't resonating as well with people and US support for aid was lessening across the board, they injected some new talking points for why "it's a good thing" to re-rally the democratic base around the idea.


The proof is in the pudding... Progressives seem to have a distinct track record of almost-blindly supporting whichever entity is opposing the faction they see to be ideologically aligned with the conservatives.

The US convervatives back Guaido over Maduro, the progressives labelled it as a "US backed coup".
Conservatives back Israel, the progressive wing busts out their Palestinian flags
...that pattern goes back to Vietnam.

Given that they've already listed some ulterior motives, why should anyone take it in good faith that they have a sincere desire to "help Ukraine", as opposed to this just being another iteration of a long-time pattern?

 

[Hans Blaster]

So Biden suggesting that NATO membership for Ukraine was a possibility shouldn't be viewed a provocation then?

It is at most a convenient "apologetic" to use after the fact for the expansionist dictator that had already decided to invade.

Our job is to not fall for it.

 

[rjs330]

we're not talking about recreational reading or general news reading (like you or I would do), but specific news reporting needed to do their jobs.

Why would a subscription to Politico be essential to USAID jobs?

 

[DaisyDay]

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.

Stop?

 

[DaisyDay]

Why would a subscription to Politico be essential to USAID jobs?

Don't confuse regular Politico with its sister Politico Pro. Among other things, PP aggregates new policies and programs in listings easily referenced.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Stop?

Maybe it was just a lack of it being current events. In the late cold war we had to deal with M.A.D. even if it wasn't as bad as dr. stragelove days.

 

[rjs330]

Don't confuse regular Politico with its sister Politico Pro. Among other things, PP aggregates new policies and programs in listings easily referenced.

But why is it essential? Why do they need it to do thier jobs?

 

[Bradskii]

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"

This is desperate stuff you're now making up. Here's a tip: If you want to put something in quotes then assume that we'd like to see who said it. Don't make them up as if they represent actual positions of anyone. You can add links to support what you said to your next post. I especially want to know who suggested that the US decided that they could improve their image by backing Ukraine because Russia restricts freedoms to gay people. I want to know so that I can tell him he's an idiot.

Thanks in advance.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is desperate stuff you're now making up. Here's a tip: If you want to put something in quotes then assume that we'd like to see who said it. Don't make them up as if they represent actual positions of anyone. You can add links to support what you said to your next post. I especially want to know who suggested that the US decided that they could improve their image by backing Ukraine because Russia restricts freedoms to gay people. I want to know so that I can tell him he's an idiot.

Thanks in advance.

It's in the articles I linked in the post you quoted, did you not read them?

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

I'm not making those up, look through these links I provided earlier, each of those 3 reasons is listed.

So, when you hop on the phone to call the writers and think-tank members at the Wilson Center and American Progress to tell them they're idiots, can you conference me in so I can listen? lol ...just give me enough time to make some popcorn ahead of time.

The section of the piece you're looking for (when you call to criticize them) is the one listed under the section "To improve the image of the United States"

Specifically, paragraph 3 of that section.

You're welcome... you asked that I "add links to support what you said to your next post". I've done that now (even though they were links I had posted before), so we're good right?

 

[Bradskii]

It's in the articles I linked in the post you quoted, did you not read them?

Nonsense. It most certainly did not say anything like the 'quotes' you used. Which was 'improve our image by supporting the side that allows more LGBTQ freedoms'. The author was talking about the concept of a just war. The good guys v the bad ones. It's comparing a democratic society to an authoritative one and an example of an adherence to human rights in the case of the Ukraine - where gay rights was mentioned as an example.

If you'd have said' The US should support countries that support human rights and democratic ideals' then no-one would have argued. For Syzov to say that it would 'improve the image of the US' by doing so is something that he might think is a plus point but it wouldn't even get on my list. It's like saying that you should stop your neighbour from beating his wife because it'll make you look good. Really? But if you think that's a plus then you be you. Just make sure that they spell your name right in the local paper.

And then you mangling his opinion to say that it'll improve the US's image because 'they're supporting a side that allows more gay freedom' is, as I said, nonsensical.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Don't confuse regular Politico with its sister Politico Pro. Among other things, PP aggregates new policies and programs in listings easily referenced.

To be fair, that's like saying "Don't confuse ExxonMobile with The Heartland Institute"

One feeds money to the other.

An apolitical entity can have subsidiaries or partner organizations (that are certainly political) and under those big corporate umbrellas, money becomes fungible.

That's the issue with Politico. While "Politico Pro" may be a mostly apolitical entity offering enhanced toolsets to subscribers, if that money ends up getting used to fund/supplement "regular politico" (an organization that certainly has a bias), then that's where the issue arises.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Nonsense. It most certainly did not say anything like the 'quotes' you used. Which was 'improve our image by supporting the side that allows more LGBTQ freedoms'.

Let's review the 3 paraphrased quotes 1 by 1 in comparison to the articles and let the readers decide shall we...


"Strengthen our international position so we can swoop in on potential trading partners while Russia is busy/distracted with Ukraine"

"Improve our image by supporting the side that allows more LGBTQ freedoms"

"Nudges other countries to pivot away from Russia's fossil fuels and create more urgency for nations to start on clean energy transitions"

So, you were saying the pieces "didn't say anything like that"?

I'll wait lol

 

[Bradskii]

So, you were saying the pieces "didn't say anything like that"?

The way that you put it? Correct, it didn't.

 

[wing2000]

Something can be spontaneous but based misguided reasoning. Speaking personally, all of my friends/family that are staunchly 'pro-Ukraine against Russia' didn't seem to have that 'come to Jesus' moment until after it was already well-implanted in their psyche that 'Russia is the reason why Trump won in 2016'. They've definitely expressed the notion that "It's important to help Ukraine beat Russia, because Russia meddled in our 2016 election and helped Trump beat Hillary"

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.

he proof is in the pudding... Progressives seem to have a distinct track record of almost-blindly supporting whichever entity is opposing the faction they see to be ideologically aligned with the conservatives.

The US convervatives back Guaido over Maduro, the progressives labelled it as a "US backed coup".
Conservatives back Israel, the progressive wing busts out their Palestinian flags
...that pattern goes back to Vietnam.

Or maybe some of us simply believe that other countries should have the right to self determination and should be supported in defending their territory. Has the US been consistent on this point? Certainly not. However, I think most Americans, even today, do not want to return to the days of powerful nations invading the weaker neighbor....

 

[Pommer]

Or maybe some of us simply believe that other countries should have the right to self determination and should be supported in defending their territory. Has the US been consistent on this point? Certainly not. However, I think most Americans, even today, do not want to return to the days of powerful nations invading the weaker neighbor....

Mitt Romney was the last Republican* who didn’t like Putin.


*hyperbole

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Mitt Romney was the last Republican* who didn’t like Putin.


*hyperbole

I remember when it was the Republicans who didn't like the "Putin's" of the world. Now we invite them to dvide the spoils of war.

 

[Gene2memE]

So Biden suggesting that NATO membership for Ukraine was a possibility shouldn't be viewed a provocation then?

No. Ukraine has been a candidate for NATO membership since the late 1990s. In 2017 Ukraine formally adopted - by parliamentary decree - a goal of admission into NATO. In 2019, that ambition was included in the country's constitution.

Conservatives back Israel, the progressive wing busts out their Palestinian flags

I think most of the Palestinian flag waving in recent months might have been due to the saturation bombing campaign against Gaza.

Given that they've already listed some ulterior motives, why should anyone take it in good faith that they have a sincere desire to "help Ukraine", as opposed to this just being another iteration of a long-time pattern?

The US has a national policy of supporting democracies (provided they're the 'right kind of democracies' [looking at you Monroe Doctrine]).n Sometimes it tries to create democracies were there were none - Afghanistan and Iraq being recent examples.

The policy is in its national interest - democracies tend to be stable, generally follow the international rule of law and their citizens buy lots of the goods and services that the US sells.

That's the 'ulterior motive' here - a stable Ukraine is a ally and trading partner and it keeps that part of the world stable. A destablised Ukraine (say one partly occupied by Russia and unable to afford to re-build after the war) is going to destablise that region further.

 

[SimplyMe]

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.

Your first is a German Chancellor opining on what NATO "should" do, it wasn't a promise made to the Soviets. The second comment about the British Foreign Minister appears to be comments made in a meeting to determine what should be offered to the Soviets, not any type of promise made. Last, Baker appears to be making points in February that might be discussed in a treaty that ended up being signed in September. Again that did not make it into the treaty that was signed half a year later -- it was never a promise, just a point of discussion for the negotiators to talk about and one the Soviets never discussed, nor asked to be included in the treaty.

Last, just to note that all of this talks about the USSR -- about the security interests of the Soviets, of separating the USSR with their Warsaw Pact countries. Russia is not the USSR, Russia does not have a Warsaw Pact or had any similar agreement with those Eastern European countries. Instead, what Russia has done is repeatedly attack former Warsaw Pact nations (Georgia -- which Russia has attacked multiple times, Romania, Tajikistan, and Ukraine; and that doesn't include the various actions taken by Russia, using the SVR and GRU, in those countries to destabilize them and/or push closer ties with the Russian Federation. So Russia does not have similar security interests as the Soviet Union, they've actually attacked former Soviet allied nations making the other Eastern European nations nervous and anxious to have the security of NATO protection, in case Russia decided to attack them.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Your first is a German Chancellor opining on what NATO "should" do, it wasn't a promise made to the Soviets. The second comment about the British Foreign Minister appears to be comments made in a meeting to determine what should be offered to the Soviets, not any type of promise made. Last, Baker appears to be making points in February that might be discussed in a treaty that ended up being signed in September. Again that did not make it into the treaty that was signed half a year later -- it was never a promise, just a point of discussion for the negotiators to talk about and one the Soviets never discussed, nor asked to be included in the treaty.

Last, just to note that all of this talks about the USSR -- about the security interests of the Soviets, of separating the USSR with their Warsaw Pact countries. Russia is not the USSR, Russia does not have a Warsaw Pact or had any similar agreement with those Eastern European countries. Instead, what Russia has done is repeatedly attack former Warsaw Pact nations (Georgia -- which Russia has attacked multiple times, Romania, Tajikistan, and Ukraine; and that doesn't include the various actions taken by Russia, using the SVR and GRU, in those countries to destabilize them and/or push closer ties with the Russian Federation. So Russia does not have similar security interests as the Soviet Union, they've actually attacked former Soviet allied nations making the other Eastern European nations nervous and anxious to have the security of NATO protection, in case Russia decided to attack them.

Russia never attacked Belarus.

 

[DaisyDay]

Maybe it was just a lack of it being current events. In the late cold war we had to deal with M.A.D. even if it wasn't as bad as dr. stragelove days.

Yeah, I remember my third grade class (60s) had a guest speaker who told us about the horrors of Soviet life. Specifically, I remember being told how awful it was that women had to work while children went to daycare. I also learned that "when" I got married, i would be expected to stay home and do all the housework. Ironic.