(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Bogus Intellectual Justification for GOP Support for Russia in War on Ukraine [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags'] Date: 2022-11-05 While the real reason for so many GOPers’ support for Putin may be his money in their pockets, some feel the need for some intellectual window-dressing beyond Tucker Carlson’s latest rant. So this is where Claremont Institute’s Christopher Caldwell comes in. On October 4, he gave a speech at Hillsdale College called “Complications of the Ukraine War.” The speech made its way into Hillsdale’s monthly newsletter Imprimis, which is how I saw it. (Remember that Ron DeSantis has asked Hillsdale to help him “reform” Florida’s K-12 curriculum.) The argument is dishonest on so many levels and lies by omission massively, but if support for Ukraine falters next year, you may hear these arguments in Congress. https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/complications-of-the-ukraine-war/ Caldwell starts by denigrating the arguments for supporting Ukraine, deploying some conspiracy- minded language: Now, whenever people in power tell you something is a no-brainer, there’s a good chance that it’s a brainer. But gosh darn, the war in Ukraine is really SUPER complex, “full of paradoxes and optical illusions.” Nevertheless, he gives a simple monocausal explanation for the invasion: Putin invaded Ukraine after the U.S. rejected his demand for a guarantee that Ukraine not join NATO. Implied—it’s our fault. So I guess he and Noam Chomsky agree on something. There’s no mention of Chomsky, though. Instead Caldwell cites John Mearsheimer’s argument against the “idealist” position in US foreign policy. He quickly goes through Ukraine’s history since 1991, charaterizing it as “nominally independent” but “bound to Russia in a number of informal ways.” Ukraine couldn’t break free because, unlike other post-Soviet republics, it remained culturally Russian. He omits any reference to Soviet population transfers, such as the expulsion of Crimean Tatars, or the banning of the Ukrainian language from schools. The Holodomor never happened in Caldwell’s world. For all the promised complexity, it turns out that “what this Ukraine war is about” is “Crimea.” Ukraine only got Crimea in 1954; it was and is culturally Russian. He mentions a couple of Crimea-autonomy votes in 1991 and 1994 but not the fake referendum in 2014, which “remains controversial.” Implied--Russia should keep Crimea. He then turns to Ukraine’s tumultuous history from 2004 on, where apparently the U.S. “sponsored” the Orange Revolution and “backed” the 2014 Maidan protests. Stunningly lacking in this analysis is any agency for the Ukrainians—what they want and did is irrelevant, not worth mentioning. Instead, we get this: That the U.S. would meddle with Russia’s vital interests this way created problems almost immediately. The Russians “took over” Crimea—he doesn’t like the word “invaded.” You can call this a brutal and unprovoked invasion or a reaction to American crowding….it would not be evidence of insincerity or insanity if Putin considered the Ukrainian coup—or uprising—a threat. Implied—Putin acted in self-defense. Did Caldwell not read Putin’s Dugin-esque speech last year denying Ukraine’s right to self-determination, his denigration of the Ukrainian people and language as lesser? Maybe he needs to watch Julia Davis’ fantastic subtitled excerpts from Russian State TV. Caldwell praises the non-response of the Obama and Trump administrations to the annexation of Crimea. The critical mistake, in his view, came in November 2021, when Tony Blinken signed a “strategic partnership” with Ukraine and underscored U.S. support for Ukraine’s claim on Crimea. Finally, he gets to the current war, where he notes “the high cost in weapons for the U.S. and a high cost in lives for Ukraine.” (Note the order.) He does not make any reference to Russian atrocities, nuclear threats, etc. In fact, if Ukraine wins gets Crimea back, and joins NATO, that would be a BAD result: The U.S.--for the first time—will have expanded NATO by conquest, occupying territories (Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine) that don’t want it there. Again, there is no agency for Ukrainians—except for the few who like Russia I guess. There’s only bad U.S. imperialism. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/11/5/2133890/-Bogus-Intellectual-Justification-for-GOP-Support-for-Russia-in-War-on-Ukraine Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/