Progressives urge Biden to shift strategy on Ukraine (withdrawn)

[Dennis 8,391]

1 hour ago, StarstruckIllusion said:

All this letter is asking is for Biden to reconsider America’s role in sending endless weapon packages bc that’s not free and is not forcing them to hash it out over peace talks. 

The 60B$ the U.S gave (most of which stayed in the U.S economy by the way) is nothing compared to the losses Ukrainians have suffered and also european economies. We have nothing to complain about compared to others.

And you want such aid to be used to "force" Ukraine to negotiate a settlement with Russia? Mind you, Russia just last month, annexed 4 regions of Ukraine and declared they'll remain russian forever.

So what do you mean by the weapon packages are not forcing them to hash it out over peace talks? You want the aid to be leveraged or reduced so that Ukraine is forced to negotiate an acceptance of the illegal annexations?

Did you hear of a single Russian proposal that you thought is satisfactory but Ukraine rejected? Did Russia give any signal that it's willing to negotiate the return of Ukrainian lands or did they just publicly declare that the annexation is irreversible. And if so, what choice did they leave Ukraine but to retake it by force?

Everyone wants an end to this war. Everyone wants diplomacy. But diplomacy requires two willing sides. If the other side constantly says that it's not willing to budge on the issue of annexation, what is there to negotiate?

[StarstruckIllusion 53,579]

13 minutes ago, Dennis said:

The 60B$ the U.S gave (most of which stayed in the U.S economy by the way) is nothing compared to the losses Ukrainians have suffered and also european economies. We have nothing to complain about compared to others.

And you want such aid to be used to "force" Ukraine to negotiate a settlement with Russia? Mind you, Russia just last month, annexed 4 regions of Ukraine and declared they'll remain russian forever.

So what do you mean by the weapon packages are not forcing them to hash it out over peace talks? You want the aid to be leveraged or reduced so that Ukraine is forced to negotiate an acceptance of the illegal annexations?

Did you hear of a single Russian proposal that you thought is satisfactory but Ukraine rejected? Did Russia give any signal that it's willing to negotiate the return of Ukrainian lands or did they just publicly declare that the annexation is irreversible. And if so, what choice did they leave Ukraine but to retake it by force?

Everyone wants an end to this war. Everyone wants diplomacy. But diplomacy requires two willing sides. If the other side constantly says that it's not willing to budge on the issue of annexation, what is there to negotiate?

The congress people are not making a moral comparison, bc obviously their morals like with supporting Ukraine and peace. They’re making an American interest case, which yes most of it overlaps with Ukraine and is why they helped in the first place and was obviously right to do so. However, it’s bad enough the US wasted like trillions on war in the middle east all for it to tank, so avoiding another multi-trillion dollar, years long war is worth pursuing.

And yes I see what annexation Russia is doing. I dont want Ukraine to accept any lost land, if they don’t want to. I want Russia and them to at least be talking again… Im not seeing serious signs of anything bc they’re not talking to each other. You act like Ukraine giving up land is a 100% certain thing in a negotiation, but what if it’s not? 

Obviously you know these leaders are not gonna have the same tone publicly and privately, right? Not all signs have to be public. If land loss does happen, are you equipped to deal with that? If they talk and nothing happens, then try again in several more months when things have changed, and then again. 

Putin is surrounded by yes men… the only no men who can get thru to him are his enemy.

I get the appeal of beating Russia into a pulp until they surrender or Putin dies (he will not be replaced with any, but even Biden said Putin’s nuke threats are serious and Ive heard he’s also trying to urge them to start talking again.

Also, serious question: Do you see any possibility of nukes being used in the future of this war? Why won’t anyone address this? I hate to ask this but isn’t mass nukes flying everywhere, worse than any annexation Russia gets away with in the end? No? Obviously the history books will look kindly to the unfathomably brave efforts of Ukrainians for fighting this well for this long…

[NightStar 313]

There can be no peace talks now. Kremlin unquestionable pre-qualification condition for starting these "peace talks" is the recognition of all the annexations committed in 2014-2022 and the dramatic reduction of Ukraine's defensive military capabilities as well as the constitutional ban on joining any military unions such as NATO. That's not negotiations, that's an ultimatum. The only matter the Kremlin is actually ready to discuss are the security guarantees for Ukraine, namely what countries will provide them should the Ukraine accept the ultimatum. 

Having said, I think it's also necessary to mention that it would be wrong to treat this war as a lame world war. The  "expansionist" capabilities of Russian army are highly exaggerated. This war in its most active iteration has been going on for over 8 months now, and not a single Russian missile or aircraft has dared to cross a NATO-country territory and attack, for instance, the routes of western military aid supplies or critical military bases where some Ukrainian troops undergo training.

The Kremlin is extremely cautious and wary of everything related to NATO and wouldn't risk confronting NATO except if their armies collided somewhere. They will most likely target those post-Soviet countries who haven't had the luxury to jump under the Article 5 NATO umbrella; however, what's also worth mentioning is that there are countries like Moldova, Georgia and Azerbaijan who all have some regions occupied by Russian troops or pro-Russian "separatists", and who have managed to avoid the war with Kremlin after the initial conflict so far, and some of them - for decades, which could possibly signal for some parties a way for co-existing. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dennis 8,391]

8 hours ago, StarstruckIllusion said:

The congress people are not making a moral comparison, bc obviously their morals like with supporting Ukraine and peace. They’re making an American interest case, which yes most of it overlaps with Ukraine and is why they helped in the first place and was obviously right to do so. However, it’s bad enough the US wasted like trillions on war in the middle east all for it to tank, so avoiding another multi-trillion dollar, years long war is worth pursuing.

And yes I see what annexation Russia is doing. I dont want Ukraine to accept any lost land, if they don’t want to. I want Russia and them to at least be talking again… Im not seeing serious signs of anything bc they’re not talking to each other. You act like Ukraine giving up land is a 100% certain thing in a negotiation, but what if it’s not? 

Obviously you know these leaders are not gonna have the same tone publicly and privately, right? Not all signs have to be public. If land loss does happen, are you equipped to deal with that? If they talk and nothing happens, then try again in several more months when things have changed, and then again. 

Putin is surrounded by yes men… the only no men who can get thru to him are his enemy.

I get the appeal of beating Russia into a pulp until they surrender or Putin dies (he will not be replaced with any, but even Biden said Putin’s nuke threats are serious and Ive heard he’s also trying to urge them to start talking again.

Also, serious question: Do you see any possibility of nukes being used in the future of this war? Why won’t anyone address this? I hate to ask this but isn’t mass nukes flying everywhere, worse than any annexation Russia gets away with in the end? No? Obviously the history books will look kindly to the unfathomably brave efforts of Ukrainians for fighting this well for this long…

You keep saying you want them to talk, talk about what? Russia has refused every reasonable peace proposal out there. They repeatedly say even recently, that any peace can only be achieved based on russia's conditions which require the annexation of land. They are already talking about prison swaps and grain deal, and there was success where there were agreeable terms. But for peace talks, Russia has put in place pre-conditions that are simply not acceptable for Ukraine. So why you're blaming Ukraine instead? If Putin wanted peace, he wouldn't have annexed 4 regions of Ukraine before even fully conquering them. 

You keep claiming that in private they'll change their tone. They didn't in the last rounds of negotiations, and you have no evidence that they will this time. And they could've signaled that to the West in private channels/calls. Scholz, Macron and many others held phone calls with Putin. What results did it yield?

And you asked about the nukes. No I don't believe Russia will be suicidal enough to destroy its entire country and a portion of the world over the Donbas. However, they are smart enough to blackmail you with it, so that you get scared and give them what they want. We're dealing with nuclear blackmail, you have to always take it seriously, but you also can't give in because it'd create a terrible precedent that will only be used again and again to grab more land.

You say now annexation of territories isn't as bad as "nuclear war". Well, where does it end then? If you've showed them that it works, where does it end? What happens if they want to take the baltics next using the same strategy, or Poland? Where do you draw the line? And if you draw a line, I guess by that you admit that at one point you won't accept such nuclear blackmail anymore, and if so why not reject it from the start?

[Dennis 8,391]

Update:

Many congress members who signed on this letter are now distancing themselves. They claim the letter was written in June/July, before the annexation of the land by Russia. It seems that the progressive caucus leadership is being dishonest, which is causing some backlash from caucus members
 

 

[StarstruckIllusion 53,579]

5 minutes ago, Dennis said:

You keep saying you want them to talk, talk about what? Russia has refused every reasonable peace proposal out there. They repeatedly say even recently, that any peace can only be achieved based on russia's conditions which require the annexation of land.

You keep claiming that in private they'll change their tone. They didn't in the last rounds of negotiations, and you have no evidence that they will this time. And they could've signaled that to the West in private channels/calls. Scholz, Macron and many others held phone calls with Putin. What results did it yield?

And you asked about the nukes. No I don't believe Russia will be suicidal enough to destroy its entire country and a portion of the world over the Donbas. However, they are smart enough to blackmail you with it, so that you get scared and give them what they want. We're dealing with nuclear blackmail, you have to always take it seriously, but you also can't give in because it'd create a terrible precedent that will only be used again and again to grab more land.

You say now annexation of territories isn't as bad as "nuclear war". Well, where does it end then? If you've showed them that it works, where does it end? What happens if they want to take the baltics next using the same strategy, or Poland? Where do you draw the line? And if you draw a line, I guess by that you admit that at one point you won't accept such nuclear blackmail anymore, and if so why not reject it from the start?

I hope you’re right that Russia isn’t suicidal enough to use nukes (tho this war is suicidal enough for them), but a lot of people said there’s no way he’d invade the whole of Ukraine (until right up before he did) so idrk.

I’m definitely not pro-“cut off ukraine completely” bc russia’s losing bad rn. I was gonna bring up the point that nuked-land is useless land, but after more research and thinking deeper, that  applies to both Ukraine and Russia. So if Putin’s goal is land expansion, that is pretty dumb.

Just hope that stays their goal, bc of their goal becomes wiping out Ukraine, then they would’nt be afraid to use nukes (like America did with Japan). Like, if they nuke, it’d probably not be enough to permanently cancel the land.

Russia may not even have the resources to rebuild Ukraine years or decades later (thank you sanctions) like Japan did with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I’m just scared hundreds of thousands may die… but again, if their goal is cultural influence, that literally won’t work. 

I don’t have much evidence, for changed renewed talks, but I do have hope. Ukraine is winning right now so I hope they’ll beat Russia into peace talks that result in a surrender, or whatever Ukrainians want.

The sanctions are key. Russia can destroy and take over the world if we heed their nuclear warnings, but if they don’t have the resources to rebuild… what is the point then? Defunding Russia even further is a good top priority.

Thanks for taking the time to chat and talking about your POV. You’ve changed my mind and I no longer think scaling back away packages at this time is the best way to bring Russia to peace talks. It’s not ideal but there’s still other ways to fund needed domestic changes tbf

-

On another note, the House progressives also completely backtracked on their statements (like lmao wtf pick a stance). Which… isn’t acceptable bc they’re supposed to be the experts on this, not me. Yikes. I guess there’s no more weight in discussing this anymore lmao

 

[Dennis 8,391]

6 minutes ago, StarstruckIllusion said:

 

On another note, the House progressives also completely backtracked on their statements (like lmao wtf pick a stance). Which… isn’t acceptable bc they’re supposed to be the experts on this, not me. Yikes. I guess there’s no more weight in discussing this anymore lmao

 

Glenn is an idiot, pro-russia larping as social justice leftist

But they didn't backtrack per say. Many memebrs were angry with the leadership dishonesty. This statement was signed in June 2022, before the annexation of territory. So timing is very suspicious, why did the leadership release it now.

[StarstruckIllusion 53,579]

1 minute ago, Dennis said:

Glenn is an idiot, pro-russia larping as social justice leftist

But they didn't backtrack per say. Many memebrs were angry with the leadership dishonesty. This statement was signed in June 2022, before the annexation of territory. So timing is very suspicious, why did the leadership release it now.

Glenn Greenwald is so weird for a lot of other reasons. His work on Brazil is stellar but I don’t follow him. His tweet just appeared on my timeline for no reason. 

I am absolutely disappointed and confused as to why a 4 month old letter was released on this ever-changing matter. Was it sabotage? 

This is now beyond embarrassing and kind of heartbreaking as the caucus is one of my most respected groups, we don’t need more scandals…

[Dennis 8,391]

Update:
They have withdrawn this terrible letter. Good move.