Current Events > Cornel West blames US, NATO for 'provoking' Russian invasion of Ukraine

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jesus...Like RIGHT from Putin's mouth. Dude, maybe North Korea has an opening for their national news anchor. You would be a perfect pick.

Yeah he's been doing nothing but pretty obvious baiting ITT, not worth engaging

Nato is a part of us hegemony and has played roles in destroying both Afghanistan and Iraq. They're all the same side, so they take credit in destroying Libya, and the current settler colonial project in israel.

Really being pro nato is just being pro the same kind of oppressor as russia is, but it's because it's your side, and those are your people, your race, your culture, etc.

This is a weird distinction to make

"Oh and before you even say it, Iraq and Afghanistan don't count." lol

Again, aggressive wars of expansion have been universally frowned upon since at least WWII and have been condemned at every attempted instance of it.

And yes, American boondoggles have had disastrous consequences, but at their core the US never said any country in question didn't have a right to exist like Putin has repeatedly said nor was a core goal of any recent campaign been an expansion in our physical territory.

They absolutely did say that. Look at israel, it's the most blatant settler colonial project in the world today, and is absolutely the arm of the US in that region, used to exert US control, and its settler colonial apartheid ethnostate actions are 100% backed by the US and fully endorsed.

And the US doesn't need to expand its physical territory. When it destroys these countries, its elites and rich people get to keep the pillaged resources and its military industrial complex gets to make billions at literally the expense of the entire world, including the US' own citizens.

Other counties having done bad things isn't an excuse for Russia to do worse things.

What country are you saying that the US doesn't have a right to exist? The United States recognizes the Palestinian National Authority and merely doesn't approve of breaking up Israel without its consent, which I might remind you was a nation founded with Russian support as well.

That's not remotely the same as Putin on many occassions outright saying that Ukraine's existance was a mistake.

Yes, American foreign policy has been bad in many areas.

But to remotely be critical of that and yet not more critical of a blatantly worse expansion of territory at the expense of a sovereign nation? That's ridiculous and why people call Russia supporters shills and tankies.

Other counties having done bad things isn't an excuse for Russia to do worse things.

He's anti-war. Provide an alternative means of ending the war quickly if you disagree with his.

Every time I hear of refugees dying trying to flee their countries in a boat, I remember the root cause of that.

Here's the thing, there's nothing wrong with being against both American neocolonalism and Russian colonialism. But being against only the former and not the latter as well is blatantly obtuse.

Plus, you open the door for all sorts of whataboutisms - which Russia loves to engage in (the term itself comes from Russian diplomatic strategy).

Wholeheartedly agree!

Thing is, I don't particularly trust US criticism of Russia's invasion. It's very clear that it's not a stance based on some principled moral values, it just serves the political goals of the US. Like, yes, they're absolutely correct in condemning Putin, but they aren't really interested in the freedom and prosperity if Ukrainian civilians. It's just the politically sound stance to take.

Wholeheartedly agree!

Thing is, I don't particularly trust US criticism of Russia's invasion. It's very clear that it's not a stance based on some principled moral values, it just serves the political goals of the US. Like, yes, they're absolutely correct in condemning Putin, but they aren't really interested in the freedom and prosperity if Ukrainian civilians. It's just the politically sound stance to take.

ooh, the bastards.
they're standing up against a massmurderer, but not for completely 100% charity, goodness of their hearts reasons? how dastardly evil of them,

?

Wholeheartedly agree!

Thing is, I don't particularly trust US criticism of Russia's invasion. It's very clear that it's not a stance based on some principled moral values, it just serves the political goals of the US. Like, yes, they're absolutely correct in condemning Putin, but they aren't really interested in the freedom and prosperity if Ukrainian civilians. It's just the politically sound stance to take.

Oh no, the US might be doing a good thing for selfish reasons to make ourselves look good.

... and? Who cares why we're opposed to an aggressive and factually genocidal (UN convention recognizes that wholesale kidnapping of children as genocide) war of aggression?

NATO did provoke Russia, yes.

I think NATO should have made an attempt to draft an agreement not to expand for 5 years in exchange for Putin leaving Ukraine alone, subject to regular renewals. Probably wouldn't have worked but the effort would have been there for everyone to see.

Oh no, the US might be doing a good thing for selfish reasons to make ourselves look good.

... and? Who cares why we're opposed to an aggressive and factually genocidal (UN convention recognizes that wholesale kidnapping of children as genocide) war of aggression?

They're doing a good thing now. Because it serves their political interests.

They're doing a good thing now. Because it serves their political interests. I'm not particularly convinced that they were very interested in avoiding the conflict to begin with.

Again, so what? If a billionaire donated a hundred million dollars to a good cause for good press, does that undo the good the money will do?

Many leftists would say yes.

Again, so what? If a billionaire donated a hundred million dollars to a good cause for good press, does that undo the good the money will do?

I don't care if USA is only supporting Ukraine to weaken an adversary. That's still a net good to defend Ukraine in particular and Europe in general.

Again, so what? If a billionaire donated a hundred million dollars to a good cause for good press, does that undo the good the money will do?

I don't care if USA is only supporting Ukraine to weaken an adversary. That's still a net good to defend Ukraine in particular and Europe in general.

Sure. But I think it's pretty obvious that the US were stringing Ukraine along with empty promises of NATO membership for quite some time. Which may have contributed to the mess they're currently in.

US were stringing Ukraine along with empty promises of NATO membership for quite some time. Which may have contributed to the mess they're currently in.

Again, aggressive wars of expansion have been universally frowned upon since at least WWII and have been condemned at every attempted instance of it.

And yes, American boondoggles have had disastrous consequences, but at their core the US never said any country in question didn't have a right to exist like Putin has repeatedly said nor was a core goal of any recent campaign been an expansion in our physical territory.

Not at all. Wars of expansion are universally condemned. It's not the 1800s anymore.

Not at all. I even said you could complain all you wanted about them.

But those are a world apart from actual wars of expansion to the literal entire world. Seems odd to be mad about American neocolonialism while giving a pass to Russian actual colonialism.

What the United States said isnt, to me anyway, as important as what it did. Would you seriously argue that the Russian invasion of Ukraine wouldnt be as bad if their rhetoric wasnt so harsh? I sincerely hope not.

At any rate, invading a country, overthrowing the government (the brutality of which was no big deal until they got uppity with you), and replacing it with one more favorable to your interests isnt all that different from territorial expansion, at least as far as the morality of it is concerned.

This argument works a lot better for things other than military alliances headed by the chief political and economic power/powers of the time. We've seen how powers who did a legitimately good thing can then go on to do horrible things, and use the clout they got from the good thing as cover for doing bad things. See most Western governments and militaries after defeating fascism.

When?

when they wrote either one or both of the Ukraine-Russia peace agreements before, Russia just turned aroudn and said "well, that doesn't actually apply to us, though" and continued anyway
what makes you think they would stick to a deal like that?

NATO did provoke Russia, yes

i really don't understand this. how did NATO provoke Russia to start the war?
was it NATOs fault that all the ex-Soviet states hated being Soviet states and wanted protection from being turned into Soviet states 2.0?

saying NATO was wrong for letting the Baltics join a defensive alliance to protect themselves against Russia, is like saying the police is wrong for protecting a woman who's a victim of domestic abuse

just that both sides in the Cold War never stopped provoking each other

When part of said rhetoric opens the door for forced annexation and genocide? Yes. That makes it worse.

Again, fault the US all you want for past wars. That's not an argument in favor of Putin's war or against NATO supporting Ukraine under any stretch of the imagination.

I didn't say that last part at all, just that both sides in the Cold War never stopped provoking each other so it's silly to say NATO didn't provoke Russia by enlarging in the 90s.

Russia still regularly sends military jets poking towards Alaska, Finland, sometimes Sweden, probably others
does NATO do the same?

Countries joining NATO doesnt provoke Russia unless Russia was intending on invading those countries and you view defense as provocation.

Provocation isn't really a matter of opinion, though. You and I may think they shouldn't be provoked because there's huge justification for former satelite countries to want security but foreign militarization of neighboring states provokes the U.S., Russia, China, whoever. That's just geopolitics.

Provocation isn't really a matter of opinion, though. You and I may think they shouldn't be provoked because there's huge justification for former satelite countries to want security but foreign militarization of neighboring states provokes the U.S., Russia, China, whoever. That's just geopolitics.

Provocation isn't really a matter of opinion, though. You and I may think they shouldn't be provoked because there's huge justification for former satelite countries to want security but foreign militarization of neighboring states provokes the U.S., Russia, China, whoever. That's just geopolitics.

They shouldn't be provoked because a defensive alliance is made. If you aren't planning on expanding there, they could have a pact with the entire planet sans you. It's a defensive pact. When NATO starts conquering places and purging the inhabitants, then I'll be alarmed.

Do you believe the USA, China, the UK, France, Germany etc would take this stance in reality if it actually happened to them? I heavily doubt it.

They shouldn't be provoked because a defensive alliance is made.

So defense isnt a provocation, and Russia was not provoked. Got it