[Peace-discuss] Common Misconceptions in the US About Ukraine

[J.B. Nicholson]

As much as this is a vastly improved set of statements over what Noam Chomsky, Medea 
Benjamin, and others commonly associated with peace movements have said about this 
war, I still find some problems with it. There are important details being left out 
which could well change how we see Russia in this conflict.

Quoting "How to Respond to Common Misconceptions in the US About Ukraine" by Marcy 
Winograd 
(https://scheerpost.com/2022/09/08/how-to-respond-to-common-misconceptions-in-the-us-about-ukraine/)

> Statement: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was unjustified AND unprovoked.
> 
> Response: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an unjustified war that violates the UN 
> Charter requiring UN member states to refrain from the “use of force against the 
> territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The United States, 
> however, provoked the Russian invasion of Ukraine by supporting the expansion of 
> NATO, a hostile military alliance, backing a coup to overthrow a democratically 
> elected President, and sending arms to Ukraine since 2014. This made Ukraine, in 
> the eyes of Russia, an armed camp and existential threat.
The response appears inconsistent and even a little self-contradictory to me. 
Russia's repeated attempts at peace (including the Minsk accord which gets no mention 
in this response and the ongoing US-backed shelling of the Donbas) are getting little 
to no credit. The US's Ukrainian bio labs (which Nuland admitted exist) get no 
coverage in establishment media but threaten people in and around Ukraine most 
directly (the rest of the world indirectly). The "unjustified" remark at the top of 
the response is itself not clearly justified.

Complainers need to make it clear what a country should do when another country 
creates an existential threat and what to do when those measures fail to stop the 
threat. I'm reminded of Aaron Maté's repeated response about this conflict where he 
says that he thinks that Russia should have taken a different action than invading 
Ukraine but he never states (1) what Russia should have done instead, and (2) what 
Russia did prior to invading Ukraine that was wrong or in some way bad. There's also 
no accounting for how Russia has handled the Ukrainian territory and how that differs 
from Iraqi territory after the US/UK-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.


> Statement: You can’t negotiate with Putin. Negotiations will never lead anywhere.
There's no specific issue being raised with negotiating with Putin here. I suspect 
this is about something else that pro-war agitators can't bring up without being 
called anti-capitalist. This line reads to me as 'Putin is a madman' with no backing 
in facts.

Rising energy costs hit people hard -- gas costs in the US have caused some of my 
friends and family to stay home, skyrocketing energy bills in European countries 
apparently result in bill-burning demonstrations (like what recently happened in 
Italy[1]). Americans aren't taking to the streets over this, but Europeans are.

[1] https://odysee.com/@RT:fd/bills_burn_0509:1 or 
https://rumble.com/v1isn4x-italians-burn-energy-bills-in-protest-over-government-inaction-as-prices-so.html 
for RT's report, 
https://rumble.com/v1j5u1f-italians-burn-energy-bills-in-protest.html or 
https://youtube.com/watch?v=L1TXqeBKOCE for Jimmy Dore's report.

Consider the recent proposal to Russia that they cap the price on their fuel while 
still being sanctioned. Liberals apparently don't like that Russia might behave in 
accordance with (1) market forces on energy (when a good becomes more scarce, it 
usually costs more to obtain) and (2) Russia's lack of obligation to supply fuel 
outside of a contract to supply fuel.

According to Ursula von der Leyen, "We must cut Russia's revenues which Putin uses to 
finance this atrocious war against Ukraine"[1]. That means that not only are the US 
and EU committing economic suicide now but the US and EU also funding both sides of 
this regime change war against Russia via Ukraine. See 
https://odysee.com/@RT:fd/us-benefit-energy-crisis:5 or 
https://rumble.com/v1j7ruv-us-to-benefit-most-from-high-prices-in-europe-energy-tycoon.html 


[1] https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/08/business/liz-truss-energy-price-cap-europe/index.html

As Rachel Marsden (RT commentator) has rightly pointed out, Russia has been secretly 
supplying fuel to the EU -- secretly in that EU leaders are virtue signaling over 
eliminating Russian fuel sources while taking in Russian fuel by the tanker. See 
https://rumble.com/v1j20qn-not-immoral-if-no-one-knows-eu-keeps-getting-russian-oil-via-hidden-routes.html 
and https://odysee.com/@RT:fd/shady-oil:b for more on this based on the Nikkei report 
that oil from Russia is reaching Europe by hidden routes.


> (S) This is a war between autocracy and democracy, and we must defend democracy
> around the world.
> 
> (R) While it’s true we have some semblance of democracy–some people can vote–in
> the United States, the fight to defend democracy must begin at home, where
> neo-fascists legislate to limit voting rights, storm the capitol, spread race
> hatred and back abortion bans to deny women control over their own bodies and send
> doctors who assist them to prison for life. [...]
So much of this is exaggeration ("storm[ing] the capitol"? A bunch of unarmed people 
were let into the Capitol by what appears to be a purposefully understaffed police 
contingent on Jan. 6 and it's still not clear that the Biden DOJ can defend 
allegations of insurrection as Jan. 6 protestors are widely labeled) and typical 
liberal bad organizing.

Why not leave abortion out of this and work with those who don't see abortion the way 
you see it? What should matter is that you both agree on opposing war with Russia.

It's not even clear that abortion policy change in the US is not democratic: One 
might view the change in national abortion policy as moving abortion policy from 
declaring abortion policy one way nationwide back to the states.