[barrysteve]

It was well before the Trump election. Colbert told him that the authorities would come after him in his 2007 appearance on the Colbert Report.

The minute he published Collateral Murder, a video maximizing publicity on a fatal error in America's war effort, that was it for Assange and Wikileaks.

[wazoox]

A "fatal error" in a totally unjustified and illegal war of aggression.

[psychphysic]

This video is likely to be the highlight of the decade for me.

https://youtu.be/s1kwq52NKmo

[f6v]

I like how the audience laughs at the expense of a million ruined lives.

[barrysteve]

Can hardly believe the audience is laughing at dead Americans. Even Bushites are not that callous.

They're laughing at his implied admission of guilt and the idea that Putin's unjustified wars are in George Bush's shadow.

[f6v]

> Can hardly believe the audience is laughing at dead Americans.

They’re not the victims who died by thousands.

[croes]

Error is quite an understatement

[starkd]

And notice how these fatal errors are still occurring. The moment you question the proxy war in Ukraine, you are immediately labelled a Putin apologist. No calls for diplomacy. Meanwhile, 200,000 Ukrainians have been led to their deaths.

[chpatrick]

And yet only one belligerent invaded the other. There aren't two sides to this.

[starkd]

I am not denying the Russian invasion is unlawful. Reread what I wrote. You are proving my point.

[ethbr0]

Calling for diplomacy in a war of aggression where the aggressor has claimed annexation of the defender's territory means... what?

What is there to negotiate?

[beebmam]

The US is regularly engaged in diplomacy with Russia. Our secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs just met with their Russian counterparts.

Diplomacy is happening. That doesn't mean peace can be negotiated yet. Unless the commenter thinks Ukraine should surrender, it is unlikely peace is going to be realistic anytime soon.

[pessimizer]

You're all for diplomacy, except during wars.

[CamperBob2]

Ok, I re-read it. It was just as violently stupid the second time around.

"Diplomacy" doesn't mean "I break into your house and agree to take only 10% of your stuff if you don't fight back." And when the cops show up, that's not a "proxy war."

[yucky]

Are you referring to the US invasion of Iraq or the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It's impossible to tell the difference anymore.

[AutumnCurtain]

Thank God no Russians have died in this "proxy war" they were so unable to avoid

[starkd]

I didn't say no Russians have died. There have been horrible deaths on both sides. No one is winning in this war.

[Eumenes]

US imperialism and the defense companies are winning this war

[starkd]

Exactly. I don't think they are being fairly open about that. They aren't even hiding it.

[mindslight]

It's not due to "questioning" what's going on in Ukraine, but rather repeating Kremlin talking points.

Dragging it into the "both sides" empire-vs-empire context is exactly what Russia wants, as it justifies their naked imperialism while making it so their goal of Ukraine ceasing to exist could be some diplomatic middleground rather than the maximalist goal that it is.

In reality Ukraine wants to be part of the West, as it's a whole lot nicer than the Russian empire that seems to still be running on the playbook from the 1940's. So talking about this as if it's two empires divvying up a country is nonsensical - rather it's the cold truth that world powers exist, and to defend a war against one you have to align yourself with a different one.

And just so we're clear here, I say this as someone who wholeheartedly opposed invading Iraq.

[rendall]

> No calls for diplomacy.

Because calls for diplomacy benefit only Russia. Instead, issue calls for Russia to leave Ukraine.

> Meanwhile, 200,000 Ukrainians have been led to their deaths.

Leaving aside your dubious stat, here "Meanwhile, Russia killed x Ukrainian civilians and soldiers in an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation." There. Fixed it for you.

Your passive voice there betrays your pro-Russian sympathies, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. In other words, pro-Putin statements gets you labeled pro-Putin apologist. Stop doing that, and the problem goes away.

[mock-possum]

Wait what do you mean - the first fatal error was American soldiers murdering people - the second equivalent fatal error in the Russian invasion of Ukraine is?

[gWPVhyxPHqvk]

If your homeland gets invaded one day, I hope to be an apologist for your invaders.

[ramchip]

I... what? Around me, questioning the war gets you labelled as Putin critic, not an apologist. He literally started the war.

[yucky]

  > He literally started the war.

When do you think the war started?

[caskstrength]

> When do you think the war started?

When do _you_ think the war started? Annexation of Crimea was ordered by Putin.

[yucky]

Do you remember what happened right before he annexed Crimea?

[dragonwriter]

The invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine by Russian “little green men”?

[caskstrength]

No. What? Ukrainian nazis invaded Belgorod or something?

[mrighele]

Or notice how those that are pissed off when they are called Putinists call the Russian invasion of Ukraine a “proxy war” and blame the death of all those Ukrainian people on anybody except the culprit, I.e. Putin

[starkd]

Not what I said. You can blame Putin AND recognize this thing could have been avoided. The prime minister of Israel said they had a deal but the US said no.

[raverbashing]

Yes Russia invades a country but somehow it's a "proxy war"

I don't know why you question the Putin apologist moniker, the alternatives are way worse. At least own it up

[starkd]

I think its pretty obvious this is a proxy war. Many legislators (both republican and democrat) are openly admitting it. See Dan Crenshaw-TX openly claim the benefits to the Ukraine war being able to fight a major geopolitical rival (Russia) with no American casualties by supplying weapons to Ukraine. That is a proxy war by definition. Looks at comments from Victoria Nuland (state dept officials from both parties) being glad the Nordstream pipeline being blown up.

[mindslight]

I had thought there was some merit to the term "proxy war" here. But actually no, it's just another bit of specious nonsense. Thank you for making me look it up!

Wikipedia: A proxy war is an armed conflict between two states or non-state actors, one or both of which act at the instigation or on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities

Calling this a proxy war ignores the part of the defintion about motivation. The only instigator here is Russia, and Ukraine is mainly fighting for its own interest of not being liquidated by Russia. Supplying allies does not make a country a combatant, nor does it make the supplied party a "proxy".

[starkd]

Its a proxy war because US is using Ukraine as an convenient excuse to take Russia down a few pegs militarily. US Rep. Dan Crenshaw-TX admitted it, saying that its a way to fight Russia on the cheap with no American casualties. Of course, that compeletely minimizes the Ukrainian casualties that it would take. Its not being done in the interest of Ukraine so much as the interest of fighting Russia. Ukraine is being used here, and they are likely to lose anyway. And even if they do win, and Russia is defeated, they will be so ravaged it, it will be little better than a pyrrhic victory. But BlackRock will have a great place to invest. Too bad for those who died.

[mindslight]

The motivations of the US are independent of the motivations of Ukraine. Ukraine is not fighting to benefit the US by taking down Russia, but rather to preserve their own independence. This is why it is not a "proxy war" - the US acting to help its own interests does not make it into one. Otherwise every single war would be a "proxy war", making the term useless.

You continue to conflate the actions of Ukraine with the actions of its allies, by using the passive voice to remove Ukraine's agency. This is directly in line with the Russian imperial propaganda narrative that wants to brush aside the idea that Ukraine is an independent country.

Also, appealing to the tyrannical nature of the US-led financial system is fallacious here, as being economically oppressed is much nicer than being militarily oppressed. You keep throwing out these "deaths" as if they've only occurred due to Ukraine not surrendering, while Russia's liquidations in the occupied areas demonstrate that Ukrainians are actually fighting for their own lives.

[JediLuke]

In this case it seems very clear cut, the Russian army invaded and attacked the civilian populace.

[driscoll42]

Strange how you don't comment on the many more Russians that Putin has murdered by his unprovoked war of aggression as well.

[starkd]

Strange how you automatically feel the need to support one side and can't see the horrible outcome this has been for all parties. This could have been resolved through diplomacy. You never see the term even mentioned anymore.

[misnome]

One side could unilaterally end the war in one word.

Strange that it’s only in the interests of that side that people call for this.

[starkd]

that's not how the world works. Peace deals can happen, but everyone has to put everything on the table. When people dig in and are stubborn, that's when we get hundreds of thousands of deaths.

[jcranmer]

> When people dig in and are stubborn

Such as when you decide to announce a rushed annexation of your enemy's lands after your army suffers the biggest rout of the 21st century? While claiming that this war isn't about trying to annex your enemy's lands, after all...

[mindslight]

Please explain exactly what you think the Ukrainians have "dug into".

[seattle_spring]

Just curious, what are your primary sources of information that have shaped your opinions and perspectives shown in this thread?

[starkd]

Quite a few. I try to listen to what everyone is saying. It always makes me nervous when the media seem to march in lockstep.

Looks into what David Sacks has been saying. He got into it on the ALL-in podcast a couple of weeks ago, but you can find him on Twitter. He says the corruption in Ukraine right now is off the charts. Higher than anything in any corrupt Latin American country. Its difficult to decipher what is going on in Ukraine right now, because there's so much propaganda from all sides.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> Quite a few.

name a top three then, or can we assume that this is "random forwards on FaceBook or twitter" ?

[luckylion]

> This could have been resolved through diplomacy.

Yes, by giving Ukraine to Russia.

We know how it works if you try to appease fascists, come on.

[starkd]

This is a more complex than that. I don't like the invasion, but its not like Russia has no vital interests in the area that is right on their border. And they have occupied Crimea in the past going back to 1776. I'm just saying they have as much national interest as the West does. Israel Prime Minister claims they had a deal that was agreed to but Biden administration turned it down.

It's also the responsible thing to do to look at the prospects of forcing a war though, when the Urkainians are so heavily outgunned. 200,000 Ukrainians have died in this fight. Maybe 50,000 Russians have died (its hard to find out specifics). The US wants to fight this war on the cheap with the Ukrainians taking all the casualties so that Americans won't have to. That is pretty deplorable to me.

[CamperBob2]

Your casualty figures don't seem to line up with most other sources. Any citations?

[schuyler2d]

What about Ukraine's national interest? Where does that fit in?

What about the Eastern European countries' interests whose combined economies eclipses Russia?

[luckylion]

Of course Russia has vital interests all around it: everyone does. But it doesn't follow that "therefore Russia should be allowed to annex everything around it".

Again, we know that playbook, it has played out before in Europe. Today it's Ukraine, tomorrow it's Poland, and your arguments will still be exactly the same: Russia has vital interests in Poland, Russia has occupied Poland before, Poland is outgunned, and why would we care about Poland, really?

And then it's Germany, at which point, again, nothing has changed. Britain and France might use their nuclear deterrence when it's their turn, but if they listened to you, they'd probably say "do we want to end humanity just because we don't like Russia to rule over us? Surely not, humanity is too important to be destroyed over Russia's vital interest to annex whatever is next to Russia" and roll over.

It would end only when Russia invades the US or China, because neither will allow it if their nuclear weapons are still available by then.

[mopsi]

> The moment you question the proxy war in Ukraine, you are immediately labelled a Putin apologist.

Because the insistence of calling it a proxy war to make the war appear larger than it is comes from Kremlin's PR canon. They can't bring themselves to admit that they are losing to Ukraine and hence emphasise how they are "acktshually fighting against the whole NATO". Allies have given a lot of support, but mainly in the form of obsolete military surplus equipment and equipment alone doesn't fight; see Afghanistan.

> No calls for diplomacy.

April 1945 was too late for peace offerings.

[dragonwriter]

> Because the insistence of calling it a proxy war to make the war appear larger than it is comes from Kremlin's PR canon.

The point of calling it a proxy war by the Kremlin is not to make it seem larger than it, as the largest post-WW2 European war, is. It is to invert the responsibility for aggression. (Secondarily, it’s to deny Ukrainian agency and make its existence and sovereignty an irrelevancy in discussing a war where that is the entire issue.)

There is a sense in which calling it now a proxy war between NATO and some other affiliated states on one side and, say, Iran, China, and North Korea on the other, is not entirely inaccurate. (Russia prefers to look to external sponsors of the direct belligerents only on one side though.) But, even to the extent that’s accurate it doesn’t change that the war (which started in 2014) was initiated by Russian aggression, and the 2022 escalation was a major upswing in Russian aggression, and the outside assistance (whether or not it also has ulterior geopolitical motives) for the other side is in line with the right of collective self-defense enshrined in the UN Charter.

[mopsi]

> The point of calling it a proxy war by the Kremlin is not to make it seem larger than it, as the largest post-WW2 European war, is. It is to invert the responsibility fot aggression. (Secondarily, it’s to deny Ukrainian agency and make the existence and sovereignty an irrelevancy in discussing a war where that is the entire issue.)

Yes, that's what I meant. The purpose of this talking point is to diminish Ukrainian achievements by leaving an impression that Russia is under attack and fighting the whole "collective West" (as they call it) and that the war is much larger in scope than it actually is: Russia vs Ukraine.

Foreign military aid to Ukraine has so far barely sustained defense and I wouldn't call aiding countries belligerents in this war.

[starkd]

Many us legislators are openly admitting it is a proxy war. See Rep. Dan Crenshaw-TX comments on Ukrain support. He calls it a good deal that we get to fight a major geo-political adversary without any American deaths by just supplying Ukraine with weapons. He is not the only one. That is by definition a proxy war. Fighting a war on the cheap that isn't designed to ultimately win anything, meanwhile sending 200,000 of those Ukrainians to their deaths is despicable in my opinion.

I am not on Putin's side on this, but this is not 1945. Russia does have some vital national interests in the reason, since its right on their border and they have a long historical relationship with Crimea. The prime minister of Israel claims they had a deal worked out, but the Biden administration nixed it. This is a result of strategic planning within the State Dept. to have this fight.

[mopsi]

> The prime minister of Israel claims they had a deal worked out, but the Biden administration nixed it.

No he doesn't. https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-bennett-walks-back-cl...

[starkd]

Yeah, noticed "walks back". He just said he is now "unsure". Why did he say it in the first place? Sounds like the US put the squeeze on him, so he "walked it back". Nevertheless, there was SOMETHING on the table that could have been the basis for talks. They ruled it out of hand.

Business Insider is a rag, not credible.

[mopsi]

His words were initially taken out of context; he meant that allies stopped pressuring Ukraine into a peace deal after mass graves were uncovered in Bucha. That's the only source for this conspiracy theory.

It goes against your whole narrative of how the US is forcing Ukraine into a war.

[cynicalsecurity]

Britain has historical roots to the US territory, going back to centuries ago. According to your logic, a British invasion and occupation of US would be justified.

[starkd]

I will also note that the cash burn rate for this war in Ukraine is now exceeding that of Afghanistan in the early years. It is more money after nothing, because they won't even define what victory means. Just more war slogans.

[Zak]

I think the Ukrainian government has defined victory as driving the Russian military out of all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea.