There are Two Sides: Ukraine

Sunday 30 January 2022

MSNBC reported this morning that part of the Russian build-up on the Ukrainian border is transporting blood to the front lines.  Yesterday’s reports were a more general “medical supplies.”  This cannot be a good sign.

Aljazeera is reporting that the UK is considering a “major NATO deployment.”  Boris Johnson was quoted as saying “we will not tolerate their (Russian) destabilizing activity, and we will always stand with our NATO allies…”  The important promise, however, is to NATO allies, not to Ukraine.

The Ukrainians are increasingly fearful that the West is planning to fortify NATO allies in order to fulfill their commitments, but leave Ukraine as a “buffer state” or a “no-man’s land.”

The UK is said to be considering doubling the number of UK troops in eastern Europe and sending defensive weapons to Estonia (a member of NATO since 2004).

CNN is reporting on the use of Tucker Carlson as a propaganda tool by Russian TV.  Carlson has been quoted as saying: “NATO exists primarily to torment Vladamir Putin.”   Julie Davis, commenting on CNN noted that Russian TV has described Carlson as one of their “co-hosts.”  She also pointed out that Carlson is inviting on his show as guests people affiliated with the Russian government without revealing their affiliations. 

In another of the growing list of stupid comments by corporate news anchors on the Ukrainian crisis, Brian Slater asserted that Tucker Carlson was only representing millions of Americans who are horrified of the notion that the U.S. could get involved in another conflict.  Why, he asked, is this considered “pro-Putin?”  Well, there are two sides to this conflict, one side is threatening invasion and the other is facing invasion.

There are a number of lines of argument being advanced by surprising people against any military involvement of the U.S. or NATO in the potential take-over of Ukraine.  The one that Slater made is one of them.  The argument is that because the U.S. doesn’t want to get involved in another conflict, we can sit on our hands while Vladimir Putin uses force to take over an independent country. 

A second line of argument is that Russia has a nuclear capability.  This argument is essentially that because there is a threat of a nuclear war, or the use of a nuclear weapon, the west should just allow Putin to take over Europe by force.

A third line of argument I have heard recently from left-of-center people is that military contractors will make billions, trillions off any conflict.  That has been the case for at least half a century, so now, when Russia is threatening to take action against an independent state, we should refuse to become involved because military contractors will make money off it.  I don’t get it.

As a number of people point out repeatedly, this is not just about Ukraine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: