This is a very well-written and well-considered piece, so my objections don’t necessarily reflect a broad disagreement on my part. However some of the positions described and figures discussed have been given the short shrift that I think require some pushback.
In terms of the more minor stuff, I thought calling Jimmy Dore a sex pest was kind of a low blow when he has denied the allegations and provided pretty compelling testimony that the allegations were a petty politically motivated lie by his old employer and now competitor, the Young Turks. I think Dore’s positions on Ukraine are, at best, silly and tiresome, but using the pseudo-metoo controversy that hit him a couple years ago isn’t really relevant.
More importantly though I think the position painted of those on the right opposing the war as simply being fascists who admire Putin’s socially conservative stances and strongman persona are somewhat caricatured and fail to fully capture why many on the right in the United States are so opposed to our involvement in the war (which for the average right winger generally just has more to do with being anti-whatever Biden does). Now there IS some truth in being pro-Russia from a cultural standpoint (Tucker Carlson has flirted with that), but the figures on the right (and even far right) that I follow and know have a much more intellectually rigorous, if still extremely flawed, position on the war that is largely informed by John Mearshimer and the school of thought known as geopolitical realism (Kissinger is a big fan of this school); this is the school of thought from which the argument of NATO expansion acting as an incentive for Putin’s actions comes from. While one can debate whether or not this is just a pretext for right wingers to be pro-Putin, we can’t read their minds. The point is that both left and right anti-war agitators are coming from the same place: isolationism and masochistic nationalism (see Swedish sociologist Goran Adamson’s excellent book on that latter phenom). It’s informed by different priorities on either side, but there is more intellectual heft to the right wing position than I think the author gives credit.
Even more broadly there is something worth considering when it comes to popular lack of support for Ukraine (or at least US involvement in Ukraine) and I think it was left out of this otherwise great analysis. And that is war (and war propaganda) fatigue. As I’m to understand, the author is from Sweden, and while clearly very knowledgeable of American culture war dynamics (and some of our more embarrassing figures....oh Michael Tracey...gag), there are two very major conflicts that loom large in many Americans’ psyches: Iraq and Afghanistan. The casualty numbers for us may be relatively small but those two conflicts took up so much space in the minds of Americans for well over a decade (really until Trump came along and became the new villain of American culture). Those wars loom large because of just how pointless and wasteful they were, something millennials in particular are VERY sensitive to, even for those of us that may have had some sympathy for our so-called War on Terror’s aims (as I did, for a very long time). And on top of that wastefulness, it was always sold in almost exactly the same terms as Ukraine has been sold (and to an extent is being sold here in this essay). “Protecting democracy” is no different than “making the world safe for democracy” in the eyes of millions of Americans. Those of us who pay attention and understand differences can see that Ukraine IS different than Iraq, for example, but this is a very real “boy who cried wolf” situation for a lot of Americans. Nothing is going to change that attitude unless Putin started to, I dunno, going out of his way to have American airliners shot from the sky a la Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare in WWI (or to continue using WWI as an analogy, sent a telegram to Mexico saying he’d guarantee them our southwestern states if they invaded us to keep us distracted). And I must say, as much as I support Ukraine in spirit in its fight against imperialist expansion, I can’t even fathom a world like that, because that IS WWIII. And in the end, not wanting WWIII is what animates the serious among the dissent against US involvement. I won’t grant the figures the author cited that level of charity but I think it’s important to avoid caricaturing the opposing position on Ukraine as much as possible.
IN ANY EVENT, I enjoyed this essay. Very well-reasoned overall and obviously got me thinking. Cheers!
I read the piece looking forward to a rationale for why Americans should care about the outcome in Ukraine, but the reasons are all so abstract to me so it still feels like a European security problem for Europeans to handle on their own.
I understand why Europe needs America’s assistance. It’s not clear what benefit there is for America to get involved. Economic benefit? Maybe some arms deals. Security? Far from US assets or borders. Technology transfers? Not really. At best it’s an interesting exercise to test weapons technologies against a formidable competitor. What am I missing?
This is a very well-written and well-considered piece, so my objections don’t necessarily reflect a broad disagreement on my part. However some of the positions described and figures discussed have been given the short shrift that I think require some pushback.
In terms of the more minor stuff, I thought calling Jimmy Dore a sex pest was kind of a low blow when he has denied the allegations and provided pretty compelling testimony that the allegations were a petty politically motivated lie by his old employer and now competitor, the Young Turks. I think Dore’s positions on Ukraine are, at best, silly and tiresome, but using the pseudo-metoo controversy that hit him a couple years ago isn’t really relevant.
More importantly though I think the position painted of those on the right opposing the war as simply being fascists who admire Putin’s socially conservative stances and strongman persona are somewhat caricatured and fail to fully capture why many on the right in the United States are so opposed to our involvement in the war (which for the average right winger generally just has more to do with being anti-whatever Biden does). Now there IS some truth in being pro-Russia from a cultural standpoint (Tucker Carlson has flirted with that), but the figures on the right (and even far right) that I follow and know have a much more intellectually rigorous, if still extremely flawed, position on the war that is largely informed by John Mearshimer and the school of thought known as geopolitical realism (Kissinger is a big fan of this school); this is the school of thought from which the argument of NATO expansion acting as an incentive for Putin’s actions comes from. While one can debate whether or not this is just a pretext for right wingers to be pro-Putin, we can’t read their minds. The point is that both left and right anti-war agitators are coming from the same place: isolationism and masochistic nationalism (see Swedish sociologist Goran Adamson’s excellent book on that latter phenom). It’s informed by different priorities on either side, but there is more intellectual heft to the right wing position than I think the author gives credit.
Even more broadly there is something worth considering when it comes to popular lack of support for Ukraine (or at least US involvement in Ukraine) and I think it was left out of this otherwise great analysis. And that is war (and war propaganda) fatigue. As I’m to understand, the author is from Sweden, and while clearly very knowledgeable of American culture war dynamics (and some of our more embarrassing figures....oh Michael Tracey...gag), there are two very major conflicts that loom large in many Americans’ psyches: Iraq and Afghanistan. The casualty numbers for us may be relatively small but those two conflicts took up so much space in the minds of Americans for well over a decade (really until Trump came along and became the new villain of American culture). Those wars loom large because of just how pointless and wasteful they were, something millennials in particular are VERY sensitive to, even for those of us that may have had some sympathy for our so-called War on Terror’s aims (as I did, for a very long time). And on top of that wastefulness, it was always sold in almost exactly the same terms as Ukraine has been sold (and to an extent is being sold here in this essay). “Protecting democracy” is no different than “making the world safe for democracy” in the eyes of millions of Americans. Those of us who pay attention and understand differences can see that Ukraine IS different than Iraq, for example, but this is a very real “boy who cried wolf” situation for a lot of Americans. Nothing is going to change that attitude unless Putin started to, I dunno, going out of his way to have American airliners shot from the sky a la Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare in WWI (or to continue using WWI as an analogy, sent a telegram to Mexico saying he’d guarantee them our southwestern states if they invaded us to keep us distracted). And I must say, as much as I support Ukraine in spirit in its fight against imperialist expansion, I can’t even fathom a world like that, because that IS WWIII. And in the end, not wanting WWIII is what animates the serious among the dissent against US involvement. I won’t grant the figures the author cited that level of charity but I think it’s important to avoid caricaturing the opposing position on Ukraine as much as possible.
IN ANY EVENT, I enjoyed this essay. Very well-reasoned overall and obviously got me thinking. Cheers!
I read the piece looking forward to a rationale for why Americans should care about the outcome in Ukraine, but the reasons are all so abstract to me so it still feels like a European security problem for Europeans to handle on their own.
I understand why Europe needs America’s assistance. It’s not clear what benefit there is for America to get involved. Economic benefit? Maybe some arms deals. Security? Far from US assets or borders. Technology transfers? Not really. At best it’s an interesting exercise to test weapons technologies against a formidable competitor. What am I missing?