I’ve said this forever. It’s backwards nonsense to claim Trump is antiwar. He’s anti-traditional US alliances and partnerships. He loves violence & domination and wishes to enter an axis of autocrats.

And any "leftist" idiot who tells me that Donny Boy is anti-war is just saying that they don't give a damn whether we go to war with Iran, Venezuela, or Mexico(!). Which really makes me question their whole commitment to "anti-imperialism", to be quite honest.

Wasn't for lack of trying on Trump's part, he bomb assassinated what is like the Iranian equivalent to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or SecDef and but for the cooler heads of the, uh, Ayatollah and other Iranian leaders, that easily could have started a full-on war.

Hence letting their media surrogates repeat Putin’s line about Ukraine being a modern creation/Lenin’s fuckup

It is a 1930s version of peace. We stay peaceful here and if people want to go around invading other countries, doing massacres, toppling sovereign republics, and so on, that is their business, not ours. It isn't our problem and never will be (obviously they didn't get to the 40s in the book).

They are in Russia’s pocket, just like the dump is.

It's Father Coughlin all over again.

it's almost as if they're not serious political operators

This is why they don’t view Trump’s very eager and enthusiastic military support for Israel and Saudi Arabia in their respective conflicts as warmongering. He is supporting the stronger side of the war, which (in their view) will win, thereby creating peace.

Gabbard = Russian asset

How very Neville Chamberlain of them.

there is no need to insult Neville Chamberlain like that

Lindberghers Lindberghering

If we let these ding dongs have their way, by the time Putin invaded Poland, would there be any Republicans with a sufficient grasp of history left to recognize the parallel?

Their paychecks took a hit when the rouble tanked, they need to try to offset that by earning bigger raises from Daddy-P.

They are all failures at being human beings. They tried,but failed miserably at common decency.

yeah. What they object to is the US opposing a tyrant they see as a fellow conservative. And it's not just these guys; you see this same sentiment all over the gonzo element of the Republican Congressional caucuses(see: Marge Green)

Yep, easy to be supposedly "anti-war" and have these useful idiots buy into it, when your buddies and aligned interests are the bad actors.

The person I know who was most vigorously pushing Gabbard in the 2020 primaries was among that class of people who believes that only the United States* can act maliciously on the world stage. Pure Putin exonerationist. *Okay, "and its close allies", but they're probably all bullied into it.

And then Putin just laughs and laughs while he nukes Europe.

They want peace for our time

Peace through submission; every authoritarian's wet dream.

The Weird Phenomena of Useful Idiots for Trump

"It is a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing."

Confused peace with quiet.

More like peace for their time.

I remember reading a few historians who argued Chamberlain agreed to Munich accords because the UK gov't feared they weren't prepared for war in 1938 and needed time to do so. They knew Hitler was going to break the deal, and were quietly stocking up for down the line for the next crisis (Poland)

A golden oldie: www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/o...

Can you imagine having the benefit of the example provided from 20th Century history and determining that Chamberlain and Daladier at Munich in 1938 should be the touchstone of your policy proposals? The parallels could not be closer, only to be surpassed if a non-aggression pact gets signed.

there's also sense I think that a lot of people have that the sort of media-political complex has so thoroughly and effectively made a case for war (and covered up various American war crimes), that they sort of reflexively assume that any military enemy that US politicians identify must be good.

everyone is primed to believe that there's a "real truth" behind anything that looks like American aggression and it's always "no, no, no, that guy wasn't really bad, the media is just trying to manufacture consent!"

yeah, that's the "leftist" tankie position, basically. I'm not sure Gabbard and RFK even qualify as that tbh-RFK's pro Israel, for one thing-but yeah there's a lot of overlap.

well and do not forget Tulsi Gabbard was the only recipient of donations from a Russian agent who violated FARA, hired an alleged Russian agent to work on her campaign and constantly parroted Russian talking points so ...

Nor forget that McCarthy said that Trump works for Putin before he was elected.

I would also add that for gabbard, she does not view drone striking Middle Eastern villages as being opposed to peace.

And that's Putin's propaganda machine in action. Strange times to have political figures in the USA backing a Russian dictator.

ODD? YES, IN THE EXTREME.

A little slice of Turkey, a little spot of Greece...

If you think about it, Neo-cons were pro-peace because after the US invaded Iraq they thought Iraqis should Simply Stop Fighting And Greet Them As Liberators

their view, basically, is that putin is always right, and their bank balances likely reflect this determination.

It’s upside down land

Useful idiots and grifters

Gotta set the casus belli for Canada once the water wars start

They're pro-fascist, and nothing but.

American exceptionalism, in that America on the world stage is exceptionally bad and its interests abroad should always be undermined.

I’ve always thought that Americans think the US is the best country in the world, except when they think it’s the worst. Both views are equally wrongheaded.

(My surely politically winning stance: Sometimes we get it right, and sometimes we get it wrong.)

How the heck am I supposed to write a flaming hot take about this position?!"

"Peace for our time," innit.

I've gotten into some heated arguments with people who should know better, but who insist that Ukraine is a fiction and that Russia should get it back.

And by people who should know better, I mean other professional historians employed by universities.

“Might makes right” for thee but not for me ass morons

the ol "negative peace" strikes again, literally in this case

It is appeasement but simply because Putin has something on Trump. Trump doesn’t give a crap about Ukraine or any other country

I was at an event last night with Molly Jong-Fast and Rick Wilson, & Wilson joked about Putin finding himself going out of a window should the Ukraine war fail for Russia (as a consequence of a Harris election win). I don’t know that I fully buy that, but I’ve been thinking about it quite a bit.

Putin thinks it. History teaches that in Russia, Lost wars lead to revolutions. Not all succeed (1906) but it’s a huge problem for the Tsar.

The John Mearsheimer school of abandoning Ukraine and the invasion was really our fault anyway

We used to call this appeasement

Also tends to ignore that Trump has called for invading Mexico

I also think our chances of war with Iran go way up under Trump.

I mean, didn't he pay them plenty of money for it?

The peace they offer is the peace of the grave.

Something tells me that they gladly would turn around and fight Iran though, or pretend they want to fight china, so .... 🤷🏽‍♀️

The argument, incoherent as it is, essentially reads as follows: "Sure, Ukraine is successfully fending off a Russian invasion... but doing anything to oppose Russia will start World War 3... even if they're already fighting... and losing. We should give up and let their piss-poor efforts succeed."

Gabbard and Kennedy are also Israel hawks.

The same thing was said about him in 2016.

Yeah, Sauron wanted peace, too.

Also if they can't be president then only the worst person in the world can be

Something something “NATO expansion” something something

I think a more charitable read is "it's not our problem," not that I agree with that

Its been amazing how durable that is even as the reasoning that its inevitable that Russia has the overwhelming military might and will obviously eventually win has curdled and gone away, like there are Ukrainians in Kursk still I believe

Bad faith is durable as hell.

The thing about having incredible military, demographic, and economic advantages on paper that should make your victory inevitable and yet managing to squander them consistently, again and again, is that it means your victory is not inevitable. Klepto-kakistocracies are bad at war, too!

This.

The DoD has reported dud rates of Russian cluster bombs of up to 40% and cruise missiles ranging from 20-60% depending on the salvo. Our comparable rates are under 3% for each

The Battle of Kyiv was still a near-run thing. The Ukrainian army didn't believe the US intelligence assessment and were caught with their pants down. Kyiv was saved by a lot of Russian stupidity and failure to plan and a lot of heroics by citizen soldiers.

Tbf, Ukrainian intelligence had correctly assessed that the Russian units in Belarus had no idea they were going to invade Ukraine in a few days. The fact that it was a surprise for the attackers too explains why it went so badly.

It's Mercator brain. See also Trump's desire to buy Greenland

Some of us will forever think of Greenland as an enormous ice continent. There's just no way to erase that from permanent storage.

This is a great map. Saving it

... I think "Ukraine will run out of soldiers" is plausible. They're also losing ground near Kharkiv. Not a war knower so I don't know how to project the range of possible outcomes. I sort of thought after this winter Ukraine would make more gains and then if Dems won Putin would fold. Now IDK.

Ukraine needs a casualty ratio of like 3.6 to one, but that’s only if Russia is willing to pull troops from the imperial core as much as it is from the imperial core, and for at least a significant period of time the ratio was holding.

as it is from provinces, rather

Plus it’s a lot easier to recruit if it’s for actual flat out national defense, etc

And they are getting such ratios so far.

They’re in Kursk almost certainly as a hedge against a Trump peace plan that would freeze conflict on current lines. The “useful splendor” of rolling a winter offensive into a summer offensive without break was great for Russia’s self image and propaganda, now they have to hold onto US election.

and that peace doesn't extend to immigrants trying to assimilate here under our ancient immigration system that they also won't fix.

I believe that Trump doesn't care either way about Ukraine, but rather that he sees Ukraine as weak and Russia as strong and he only likes strength. But what Russia signed (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapes...) is clear and the implication is that Trump doesn't consider past treaties binding at all :(

Tankies gonna tank.

Genuinely think this is part of their world view. Russia = Great Power, sort of like USA but smaller, been on the map forever. Ukraine 9and 1st of CEE) = minor nation, maybe not a proper nation at all, borders are at very least up for negotiation. It's a colonialist/imperialist mindset.

Really. They just agree with Russias fascist model of government.

it's crazy the extent to which The Libs Are Right about ukraine, democracy, trump and putin