[Marxism] Using the Russian bogey to cement the US/EU/Ukraine alliance

Clay Claiborne clayclai at gmail.com
Fri Apr 11 14:30:10 MDT 2014


On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Marv Gandall <marvgand2 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > Marv,
> > Are you saying that Russian didn't just annex a part of Ukraine and
> doesn't
> > have tens of thousands of troops on Ukraine's borders?
>
> I don't think we'll be able to agree, Clay, whether Russia's actions were
> aggressive or defensive in nature.
>
I can understand that, after all Hitler argued that he took Poland for
defensive reasons.

Perspectives differ, the white man who shot a black man because the latter
came to his door looking for assistance when his car broke down, most
certainly thought he was taking a defensive measure. Oscar Pistorius is in
a SA court room right now telling "my lady" that his actions were 100%
defensive. Sometimes the best defense is a claim of self-defense. Also
aggressive and defensive aren't necessarily exclusive. Ever hear the saying
"The best defense is an offense"? It's even true. Clearly invading another
country and annexing its territory is aggressive even when done for truly
defensive reasons.

But that wasn't even my point. You used the phrase "Russian bogey man"
implying the Russian threat to Ukraine is not real. That is what I
challenge above, and you're trying to change the subject. In the example I
gave above, clearly the white man was a very real threat to the black man,
i.e. no bogey man, even if, in his own mind, he was acting defensively.
Just as clearly, the current Russian threat to Ukraine is very real,
regardless of Russia's motivation but you try to blow it off with "Russian
bogey man."

Now could you respond to my point without trying to muddy the waters with
other issues like defensive vs. aggressive?

> The great thing about America is that everybody gets to run their trap.
> > James Stavridis is a four-star A hole with no say in NATO or Obama
> policy.
> > In point of fact, you are using him as a boggie man.
>
> Nor do I think we'll be able to agree whether Stavridis' recital of the
> military and other options available to assist Ukraine, short of it
> integrating it into NATO, reflects the outlook of the US defence and
> foreign policy establishment and Obama administration, or is at variance
> with it.
>
What is his position in the present administration again?

It is convenient for some to say the F. Michael Maloof speaks for the
"intelligence community" and James Stavridis speaks for Obama, but since
you are presenting him on this list as doing just that, the burden of proof
is on you.



More information about the Marxism mailing list