Ukraine - From a Trump Voter Who Has Been There

[starbuck_archer]

Hello fellow warriors fighting against the Marxist destruction of the West!

I am an Iraq/Afghanistan veteran who spent 6 months in 2022 doing humanitarian aid work in Ukraine, ranging from moving supplies to moving refugees to supporting medical and other war-effort support projects.  I voted against Hillary Clinton (and ergo for Donald Trump) in 2016 and for Donald Trump in 2020.

I can understand where much of the anti-Ukraine sentiment on the right is coming from: Vladimir Putin is fighting against the World Economic Forum Davos elites now plotting to destroy the freedom of every American (including the left-liberals who still delusion-ally support the Left).  The enemies of Putin include the deep state and the WEF.  I can see why social conservatives would be attracted to some of his policies on homosexuality.

There are three main arguments put forth by the right against Ukraine:

-Ukraine is corrupt

-Ukraine has Neo-Nazi Support

-The United States has no strategic interest in Ukraine not becoming a Russian oblast

1.  Ukraine Is Corrupt
I would say that this is mostly true.  In the 6 months I spent in Ukraine, corruption in the post-Soviet era is a major problem that every Ukrainian I met says is a major problem.  I applaud Volodomyr Zelenskyy for firing top officials, including some of his political allies (https://nypost.com/2022/07/18/zelensky-fires-top-officials-over-alleged-treason), for corruption.

Since I am not a leftist, I will be up front and honest: probably about 20% to 40% of the "aid" (from weapons to cash to loans) will probably be lost to "corruption."  The Ukrainians are aware of the corruption problem, and earnestly want to fix it.  I recall that Zelenskyy told Trump he ran on a "drain the swamp" platform (https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html yeah, its CNN, but its a transcript)

I don't think we can hold a country that was under the objectively evil regime of Communism until 1991 to the same ethical standards as nations like the US: one had to do "back room deals" just to bleep survive under Communism.

2.  The Azov Battalion


There is a lot to  unpack here: Ihor Kolomoyski is an Israeli citizen who was one of the biggest donors to the Azov battalion.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ihor_Kolomoyskyi)

First, let us start off with the fact that in 1933, Communism had already murdered millions of Ukrainians in the Holodomor.  In other words, Communism was a mass-murderer to the Ukrainians long before Hitler would start the Holocaust.

The Nazis were merely a different interpretation of Socialism: they were Nationalist Socialism as opposed to Marxist Socialism.  Marxist Socialism seeks to redistribute the means of production on the basis of class.  Nationalist Socialism seeks to redistribute the means of production on the basis of race..  Thus, they became blood enemies (yet Allies when it meant opposing Western Capitalism, see the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact).

As I have said before, "Anachro-capitalists hate min-archists more than they hate Communists": the Nazis hated the the apostates to their version of "true socialism" as much as the socialists of today when confronted with anytime socialism that failed catastrophically.

When the Germans invaded Ukraine in 1941, it wasn't Hitler who had starved 8 million of their people to death.  Sadly, this caused some Ukrainians (including Bandera) to side with anyone willing to oppose the people who starved their loved ones to death.

Thus, some of the Nazi imagery/sympathy we see in parts of Ukraine.  I think it is wrong, but I don't hold it to the same standard as the tiny number of actual neo-nazis in the US: the US neo-Nazis didn't grow up with stories about how "grandma died because the Communists starved her to death".

3.  The United States has no Strategic Interest In Ukraine


-Ukraine has some of the largest natural gas reserves in Europe (https://www.worldometers.info/gas/#gas-reserves).  Putin controlling these would cause the Russians to control even more of the European energy market than they do.

Okay, so the Libertarians among us will ask "why do I care?" (and the anachro-capitalists will never agree to any organized foreign policy action that has the hint of "government").

I will address this at the end, but nothing in Putin's agenda supports Making America Great Again.  A stronger America is the opposite of what Putin wants.  An America with a strong manufacturing base with a robust, stable and dominant economy with a domestic government that respects the rights of its citizens is not in line with Russian strategic aims: they do not seek to work within the international system, they seek to supplant and replace the US-led international system with one that is far more favorable to Russia than the US.

-The China Factor.

Simply put, if the United States is seen by our enemies to have failed in Ukraine, the number of wars we will have to fight will only increase.

A war with China will cost probably $5 trillion - $40 trillion: wars are damn expensive, and they are more expensive when the US has to fight them directly.  Adjusted for inflation, it cost the US $4 trillion to win WWII, against two relatively resource poor nations that never stood a chance against the industrial/economic might of the US.  I expect that when the world's two largest economies go head-to-head the cost will be significantly higher.

All of this can be avoided if China can be deterred from any military action.  If the US is seen to fail in Ukraine, or back down, China will see that as a green-light to start WWIII.  If you're worried about the $100 billion we have sent to Ukraine, I am worried about the $5 trillion+ we will have to spend if actual war breaks out between the US and China.

Minor Points

-The population of Ukraine is overwhelmingly socially conservative.  If the left knew how right-wing most Ukrainians are on homosexuality and gender roles, they might start hailing Mother Russia.

-The Ukrainians want to fight, although there is an East-West divide.  Support for the war tends to be greater in the West.  In fact, I actually met a couple when I was near the front lines in the east where the husband was a patriotic Ukrainian soldier and the wife was pro-Putin.  Even in the eastern areas like Kharkiv, a slim majority supports Ukraine over Russia, and the matter is by no means agreed upon by all locals.

-Putin does not want to Make America Great Again.  He wants to see a weakened America: I can see why some on the right would be tempted by this, as he wants to make the corrupt Nazis currently at the World Economic Forum dis-empowered as much as we do.

What needs to replace the vaccuum created when we are able to get rid of the corrupt deep state is a pro-American "deep state" based on the Constitution instead of Ibrahim X. Kendi.

The thing is that even if Ronald Reagan (or some other libertarian or an-cap dude/gal you want) were president right now, Putin would be against them because he wants Russia to become the new international order instead of the  US.  Do not buy the whole "we just want a non-unipolar world".

Yeah, I bet you "don't want to put anyone in the shade, but Russia too must have its place in the sun!"...shortly before you invade Belgium, on your way to invade France in order to defend yourself from Russia, like that Kaiser in 1914.

Russia does not seek a "bi-polar international order" (or maybe it does, lol), but it seeks to become the international order, which is not in the US interest, due to many factors, but the petrodollar being important among them.

In summary, while Ukraine has corruption problems, its people are very self-aware of it and have been taking measures to crackdown on it for the past 3 years.  While Russia hates the deep state and WEF almost as much as we do, Putin himself is the Russian deep state, running the country as the Clintons would run America if they could.  A broken clock is correct twice a day, and thus Biden, the woke and the deep state find themselves on the same side as those of us who care about objective facts.

And if the US is seen to fail in Ukraine even 10% as badly as we did in Afghanistan, we will have to spend a lot more than $200 billion.

[Kamaji]

[starbuck_archer]

The best response ever.  Thank you for your thoughtful, well-worded and utterly devastating rebuttal arguments.  Aristotle would be proud.

[Kamaji]

The best response ever.  Thank you for your thoughtful, well-worded and utterly devastating rebuttal arguments.  Aristotle would be proud.

And even then, it's a better response than that drivel deserves.

[DB]

Ukraine may be the only reason China hasn't tried to take Taiwan.

Seeing what happened to Russia was a serious setback for them.

[Free Vulcan]

The arguments are somewhat boilerplate, and pretty speculative in it's conclusions. The things that supposedly follow if X is or is not done, may or may not happen.

[starbuck_archer]

The arguments are completely valid.

Do you honestly believe that if the US is seen to do an Afghanistan-level fail in Ukraine that China won't take that as a massive sign of weakness?

[starbuck_archer]

And even then, it's a better response than that drivel deserves.

In other words, you have no response so you resort to juvenile emoticons.  Come back when you have a substantive argument to make.  "you're wrong, nah nah nah" is the summation of your argument, at this point.  That may seem like a valid rebuttal to you, and it may very well be.  But I was hoping for something more along the lines of "I disagree for reasons x, y and z."

[Free Vulcan]

The arguments are completely valid.

They are based on the assumption that you know the psychology of the players, among many other factors. You have simply leapt to conclusions based on an American perspective. I guarantee you Russia and China don't think like us, and you simply can't assume how they will think.

Do you honestly believe that if the US is seen to do an Afghanistan-level fail in Ukraine that China won't take that as a massive sign of weakness?

Completely presumptuous and an analogy that may not hold water give the multiple variables and factors at work here.

[starbuck_archer]

They are based on the assumption that you know the psychology of the players, among many other factors. You have simply leapt to conclusions based on an American perspective. I guarantee you Russia and China don't think like us, and you simply can't assume how they will think.

Completely presumptuous and an analogy that may not hold water give the multiple variables and factors at work here.

Okay, so China will react differently.

What will they do different from my analysis?

Why is your analysis correct ?

[Kamaji]

In other words, you have no response so you resort to juvenile emoticons.  Come back when you have a substantive argument to make.  "you're wrong, nah nah nah" is the summation of your argument, at this point.  That may seem like a valid rebuttal to you, and it may very well be.  But I was hoping for something more along the lines of "I disagree for reasons x, y and z."

In other words, this tripe has been gone over on another thread in excruciating detail, shown to be either B.S. or Russian propaganda, generally, and not worth the time of day for anyone with half a brain to waste their time on.

If you have some desperate desire to continue to hash this silliness, then take it to the Ukraine 3 thread in World News, where you can properly have your intellectual tuckus handed to you by those who wish to do so.

[starbuck_archer]

In other words, this tripe has been gone over on another thread in excruciating detail, shown to be either B.S. or Russian propaganda, generally, and not worth the time of day for anyone with half a brain to waste their time on.

If you have some desperate desire to continue to hash this silliness, then take it to the Ukraine 3 thread in World News, where you can properly have your intellectual tuckus handed to you by those who wish to do so.

So, you are too afraid to present an argument here.  I have no respect for a man who tells others to "go somewhere else so others can argue my point for me.""

Pathetic.  If you have a rebuttal, rebut.  Otherwise, go to your echo chamber that is your other thread.

[Kamaji]

So, you are too afraid to present an argument here.  I have no respect for a man who tells others to "go somewhere else so others can argue my point for me.""

Pathetic.  If you have a rebuttal, rebut.  Otherwise, go to your echo chamber that is your other thread.

You have posted nothing that is worth wasting the time to rebut.  Your presentation is like that of a flat-earther who comes in, says "well, nobody has ever fallen off the face of the Earth, so it must be flat" and then demands a detailed intellectual rebuttal.

You want a rebuttal?  Fine.  You posted garbage and tripe, none of which is true.  And if you bothered to do some actual research, and perhaps peruse the Ukraine 3 thread here, you'd know that.  Since you haven't, you're either an ignoramus, a sock puppet for the lone Russian agit-propper here, or a Russian tool yourself.

Steer or queer, take your pick.

[starbuck_archer]

You have posted nothing that is worth wasting the time to rebut.  Your presentation is like that of a flat-earther who comes in, says "well, nobody has ever fallen off the face of the Earth, so it must be flat" and then demands a detailed intellectual rebuttal.

You want a rebuttal?  Fine.  You posted garbage and tripe, none of which is true.  And if you bothered to do some actual research, and perhaps peruse the Ukraine 3 thread here, you'd know that.  Since you haven't, you're either an ignoramus, a sock puppet for the lone Russian agit-propper here, or a Russian tool yourself.

Steer or queer, take your pick.

I read your Ukraine3 thread and its basically you posting a bunch of Deep State news sites (like Daily Mail) and getting shot down by people who know more than you.

You are a jester.

[Kamaji]

I read your Ukraine3 thread and its basically you posting a bunch of Deep State news sites (like Daily Mail) and getting shot down by people who know more than you.

You are a jester.

No, actually, it's not.  It's not "my" thread, and most of the posts are not mine.  Read the posts by everyone else, including @Hoodat

But then, you're just a Russian mole, so we all know you won't.

[Kamaji]

Ukraine 3 thread:  https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,478214.0.html

Ukraine 2 thread (locked): https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,468874.0.html

Ukraine thread (locked): https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,462610.0.html

[starbuck_archer]

No, actually, it's not.  It's not "my" thread, and most of the posts are not mine.  Read the posts by everyone else, including @Hoodat

But then, you're just a Russian mole, so we all know you won't.

You need to get your story straight:  I am a Russian mole advocating for Ukraine?  Or a deep state shill being paid to infiltrate GOP Briefing Room?  Or a Ukrainian Agent working with the Biden family to corruptly funnel money through Ukraine?

I need to be clear: I am a Russian mole advcating against Russia and in favor of the Ukrainian cause?

[Mod2]

Moved to appropriate category

[Free Vulcan]

Okay, so China will react differently.

What will they do different from my analysis?

Why is your analysis correct ?

First of all, let's back up the truck because I've made no analysis whatsoever. Nice try though.

China will take in a wide array of considerations before they make a move on Taiwan, and what kind if they do.

If American weakness alone was the issue, they already got that signal in Afghanistan and Africa, as in both places they have advanced their interests because we've left doors wide open. If that was the only factor they would be in Taiwan right now.

But they will take into consideration that we have been at arms length in the Ukraine conflict. We have committed none of our forces directly, we haven't given Ukraine any serious weapons systems, and at least half that money is going down corrupt rabbit holes.

Yet, it's blunted the Russian offensive. Putin wrongly assumed we'd do nothing as we did in the Crimea, but he miscalculated. The Chinese have taken note of that.

China knows if they try and occupy Taiwan there will most likely be direct American military action, unless they have Sniffy so paid off he demurs. But again if they did, they would already be there. They talk a big game, but their forces are relatively untested.

I say relatively because they've have tested them in skirmishes against India, and that came out mostly a draw. That will give them pause against the US, because while they may have all the new shiny toys from the weapons systems they stole from us, they don't have our experience.

Which is key, because Taiwan is 100 miles away, and China hasn't proven that it can project force at all. We can do so still, half way around the world. Which is why they need to be careful because they don't want to pull a Pearl Harbor type scenario on us - they know the consequences of that.

That leaves them pretty boxed in.

But we are forgetting the irrational. China may go after Taiwan anyway, not because of US weakness, but because they are cocky to the point of crazy. I suspect though they are going to try other ways that don't involve a direct confrontation but that will completely undermine us.

The reality is we simply don't know what they're going to do or what they're thinking. They want to dominate the world so badly that they may simply overreach, or worse go scorched earth regardless of anything having to do with the US.

That is the far more dangerous scenario, is an anarchic, asymmetric and unilateral response that burns the whole damn thing down.

[starbuck_archer]

First of all, let's back up the truck because I've made no analysis whatsoever. Nice try though.

China will take in a wide array of considerations before they make a move on Taiwan, and what kind if they do.

If American weakness alone was the issue, they already got that signal in Afghanistan and Africa, as in both places they have advanced their interests because we've left doors wide open. If that was the only factor they would be in Taiwan right now.

But they will take into consideration that we have been at arms length in the Ukraine conflict. We have committed none of our forces directly, we haven't given Ukraine any serious weapons systems, and at least half that money is going down corrupt rabbit holes.

Yet, it's blunted the Russian offensive. Putin wrongly assumed we'd do nothing as we did in the Crimea, but he miscalculated. The Chinese have taken note of that.

China knows if they try and occupy Taiwan there will most likely be direct American military action, unless they have Sniffy so paid off he demurs. But again if they did, they would already be there. They talk a big game, but their forces are relatively untested.

I say relatively because they've have tested them in skirmishes against India, and that came out mostly a draw. That will give them pause against the US, because while they may have all the new shiny toys from the weapons systems they stole from us, they don't have our experience.

Which is key, because Taiwan is 100 miles away, and China hasn't proven that it can project force at all. We can do so still, half way around the world. Which is why they need to be careful because they don't want to pull a Pearl Harbor type scenario on us - they know the consequences of that.

That leaves them pretty boxed in.

But we are forgetting the irrational. China may go after Taiwan anyway, not because of US weakness, but because they are cocky to the point of crazy. I suspect though they are going to try other ways that don't involve a direct confrontation but that will completely undermine us.

The reality is we simply don't know what they're going to do or what they're thinking. They want to dominate the world so badly that they may simply overreach, or worse go scorched earth regardless of anything having to do with the US.

That is the far more dangerous scenario, is an anarchic, asymmetric and unilateral response that burns the whole damn thing down.

I like your analysis, and I think it has a lot of merit: the Chinese are students of Tsun Tsu, and the Communists have been able to exercise patience in achieving their goals (see: the Chinese Civil war and the CBI theater in WWII).  They don't think like Westerners: this was shown in the massive cultural gap between Japan and the US in WWII: even men like Isoroku Yamanoto who attended Harvard didn't have a firm grasp of American culture.

The thing I fear about China is the same thing I feared about Putin: Before the war, it was common for me to say "I don't worry if Putin acts smart: he knows a general European war is bad for Russia, and WWIII even worse."

The problem is that Putin miscalculated in Ukraine.  Badly.  Putin was not a big threat to the US when he was acting rationally.  When he makes mistakes in his judgement is when he is dangerous (edit).

I should have been more clear: A US defeat in Ukraine is no catastrophic defeat like 1905 was for Russia.  However, my concern is that given the current relative instability in China (which usually...usually..comes to nothing) coupled with a US failure in Ukraine that is *perceived* to be a greater weakness than it already is.  China makes mistakes, just like Republicans do in mid terms.

To address your point on Africa and Afghanistan directly: those were colonial conflicts that weren't in Europe.  Losing those is like the British losing Isandlwana or Elphinstone's expedition to Afghanistan: bad, but not catastrophic to the British Empire.

Russia's loss to Japan in 1905 however was nearly catastropic, and indirectly led to events in 1917.  Losing in Europe just isn't the same as losing in Asia or Africa.

[Hoodat]

There are three main arguments put forth by the right against Ukraine:

-Ukraine is corrupt

-Ukraine has Neo-Nazi Support

-The United States has no strategic interest in Ukraine not becoming a Russian oblast

Нет!

1.  Ukraine Is Corrupt

So is the United States.

2.  The Azov Battalion

The Azov Battalion was disbanded over eight years ago.  This coincided with the ouster of Andriy Biletsky who was given a choice of being a soldier or being a politician.  He chose politics.  Yet for some reason, people keep pushing this same old disproved Azov Battalion lie.

3.  The United States has no Strategic Interest In Ukraine

The United States most certainly does have a strategic interest in stopping Russian aggression, specifically the takeover of Ukrainian oil and gas fields as well as the entire Ukrainian Azov coastline and the Crimean Black Sea ports.  Russia's objective here is to annex the entirety of Ukraine and restore it into a Soviet State which will openly threaten our NATO allies.

[Hoodat]

Moved to appropriate category

We have a Bullshit category?

[Hoodat]

I read your Ukraine3 thread and its basically you posting a bunch of Deep State news sites (like Daily Mail) and getting shot down by people who know more than you.

I'd like to see an example of that.  Can you be so kind as to provide links?  Especially to the 'shot down' posts.  Thanks in advance.

[starbuck_archer]

Нет!


So is the United States.


The Azov Battalion was disbanded over eight years ago.  This coincided with the ouster of Andriy Biletsky who was given a choice of being a soldier or being a politician.  He chose politics.  Yet for some reason, people keep pushing this same old disproved Azov Battalion lie.


The United States most certainly does have a strategic interest in stopping Russian aggression, specifically the takeover of Ukrainian oil and gas fields as well as the entire Ukrainian Azov coastline and the Crimean Black Sea ports.  Russia's objective here is to annex the entirety of Ukraine and restore it into a Soviet State which will openly threaten our NATO allies.

Where are people getting the idea that I am arguing against Ukraine?  I think I made it pretty clear in my post which side I am supporting in this, and all you've done is agree with me that the criticisms of Ukraine by the right are mostly bullshit.

I think I indicated I was in Ukraine, actively assisting in the war effort for the Ukrainian side.

My OP is being misunderstood: I am illustrating the arguments I see all too often in places like Breitbart and explaining *why the anti-Ukraine, pro-Russian arguments are wrong*, and explaining why they are convincing to some because a few of them have a few grains of truth accompanying the lie.

I am even debating another member here who is questioning my rationale for supporting Ukraine.  I think someone misunderstands the OP.

[Hoodat]

Where are people getting the idea that I am arguing against Ukraine?  I think I made it pretty clear in my post which side I am supporting in this, and all you've done is agree with me that the criticisms of Ukraine by the right are mostly bullshit.

I think I indicated I was in Ukraine, actively assisting in the war effort for the Ukrainian side.

My apologies, @starbuck_archer .  Been fighting those lies for a long time here.