What DU has here (when it comes to Ukraine) is a failure to communicate.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

In Camp A, you have people rightfully wary of any US military intervention claiming that people who want to recognize Russia's invasion of Crimea as a condemnable act of aggression, are arguing for US military intervention in Ukraine.

In Camp B, you have people claiming that people in Camp A are supporters of Vladimir Putin or Putin apologists.*

It's Strawman versus Strawman.

In reality, I would say very few here at DU are arguing for US military intervention in Ukraine, and most people should understand that real solutions to a foreign crisis can be effectively forged by means other than military force.

And very few people here at DU like or admire Vladimir Putin, because face it, he's just a horrible, horrible, all around despicable person with very few admirable traits about him. Enough said.

Can there at least be a consensus that an invasion of one country's sovereign territory by military force of another country--even when that second country may have sizable ethnic representation in that territory--is the wrong course of action and should not be supported? When putting aside all questions of US military intervention (which I maintain won't happen), is that really so hard?

*And then you have the smaller Camps C and D. Camp C being those who don't take any position on the situation in Ukraine because they feel the US somehow lacks moral authority after Iraq--which I just don't get. And Camp D being those who insist the current Ukrainian government is illegitimate and ultranationalist and have "outlawed Russian" in the country. And those folks are way too gone to save.

[independentpiney]

1. There's also alot of opinions in all the camps you mention formed out of ignorance

of Russian and Eastern European history, and without that the current crisis can't really be put into context. There's really nothing I can think of analogous in the American experience, or the Western European experience after the early 19th century. I'm no expert historian, but I sure feel like one on DU sometimes.

[Nay]

7. +1000. There are too many people who don't know shit about the history,

including myself, which is why I have not spent one second commenting on Ukraine threads. I think that if you are ignorant of the history, you need to STFU.

Now, I may have an opinion about what the US should do about this situation (IMO, diplomatic solutions), but that's because I don't want the US to be bogged down in more war unless it's absolutely necessary. And it usually isn't necessary, except for the 1% who want to make a killing.

[bemildred]

2. Maybe the number of times we've been lied into a war before has something to do with it. nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

3. Well, thankfully, there's a new administration in charge.

And while the new folks are far from ideal, they're still more apt to utilize diplomacy and non-military solutions than the last bunch.

My guess is that a Republican administration would probably have us involved militarily in either Syria or Iran right now, and we may have sent ground troops into Libya.

[bemildred]

4. I'm not out after Obama.

He does exercise some restraint, that's why the war lovers don't like him. And he has pissed of the Neocons.

Nevertheless, if he wants to right his ship, he needs to get rid of the war hawks, they are all delusional, and they aren't working to help, they create trouble, and they make it worse when they find it.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

5. There won't be any military intervention in Ukraine by the US.

Trust me on that.

Too much fire to be played with.

[bemildred]

6. I am well aware of that. Putin is well aware of that.

Empty threats just make you look weak. We have plenty of leverage, we need to negotiate, with respect.

[socialist_n_TN]

8. From the Socialist Progressives group on DU.........

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10244182

This provides some nuance to a complicated situation. The long article from the League for a Fifth International is good, but I think that TBF's posting from Trotsky in the late 30s leads to even more understanding because it talks about the exact same things and exact same divides that we're talking about today, but from 80 years ago. This is something that has ALWAYS been with Ukraine, the tug-of-war between fascism and internationalism, top-down power as opposed to bottom-up, and even more importantly and more apt, the competitions between empires.

I also liked the part in the League's article about the Bosnian uprising and it's bottom-up stand AGAINST nationalism and fascism.

[Fumesucker]

9. Shock and awe was a fucking debacle from before it ever started

If we had somehow managed to *competently* invade Iraq we might have room to talk about Ukraine now.

We couldn't even perform an illegal invasion based on lies and pull it off. We sucked at it from the very planning stage.

Our politicians need to shut the fuck up about this shit because the whole damn world is rolling their eyes and snickering at the morans.

Eleven years ago might be ancient history to Americans but plenty of the world is not afflicted with our cultural ADD and remembers what we did quite clearly.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14890.htm

09/08/06 "Daily Press" -- -FORT EUSTIS -- Months before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday.

In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan.

Rumsfeld did replace Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff in 2003, after Shinseki told Congress that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure post-war Iraq.