No matter how they feel about the war in Ukraine, Americans tend to talk about it as an apocalyptic battle between two sides — one good, the other evil. Either Vladimir Putin is the evil aggressor — a genocidal maniac bent on conquering Ukraine, then perhaps the world; or else NATO — which is to say the United States, which is to say the U.S. foreign policy and military establishment — was the evil pre-aggressor, having gathered much of Eastern Europe under its nuclear umbrella and supported pro-Western elements in Ukraine since at least 2014, all with the goal of isolating and perhaps destroying the Russian Federation.
Grassley is past having to worry about getting re-elected, and I expect Graham will fall into line when he does have to worry about it, if Putin's war against Ukraine is still a thing at that point. I suspect most Republican voters - not politicians, necessarily, but voters - are inclined to oppose going further "in" for Ukraine, for at least three reasons: (1) many Democrats are inclined to support it, which is now reason enough to oppose it, for many Republicans; (2) Ukraine is way over there on the far side of the world, and it's full of foreigners who don't even speak English - in other words, classic American parochialism, which never really went away; (3) unlike its Soviet predecessors, the Putin regime has never presented itself as leading a movement to take over the world, nor has American propaganda depicted it as such - no "international communist conspiracy" for today's paranoiacs to work themselves up about (or at least not one orchestrated by the Kremlin). It's also worth remembering that before the invasion, some Republicans were vocal admirers of Putin, seeing in him the kind of "strongman" they yearned for in the USA. So I judge that DeSantis has gauged the dominant inclination of the Republican electorate correctly.
A determined propaganda campaign, engaging all the resources of the Murdoch empire, Sinclair, etc., probably could change that, but at present, I see little reason to expect such a campaign.
Putin announced to the world some years ago that war was obsolete. His plans involve using all the stolen riches of his country to subvert, bribe both very poor and very rich to act in His best interests.
Remember what he did /is doing to Syrian population. Initiate refugee crisis to other country's borders is another Putin tactic. The destruction is occurring in Ukraine because we're afraid of his temper tantrums and some powerful industries see money to be made.
Someone in Putin's circle persuaded him ground wars are a quicker means to an end. So we're left with Crosses row upon row. A prosperous and educated population is Putin's greatest enemy.
First off, let's be real here: comparing the Gulf War to the current conflict is dumb. Iraq was a regional power with limited international support and no nuclear weapons. Russia is a world power with more nuclear weapons than any other country in the world AND sits on some of the world's most important energy reserves (and more power to control world energy markets). So Europe providing aid in that conflict has almost no geopolitical cost. The stakes of that conflict were far lower.
Second, your assumption that the ICC has any impact on what Brazil or India will do is unconvincing. I don't think anyone doubts Russia's war crimes. Going to the ICC isn't going to move Brazil and South Africa to go against their own national interest (which is why they're supporting Russia in the first place). The ICC decision (while wrong and infuriating on its own terms) says nothing about America's desire for Russia to lose.
Contrary to the picture you paint: it's entirely possible for countries to want many things at once. The US has provided an immense amount of military aid to Ukraine, has placed unprecedented sanctions on Russia, and has pressed other nations to oppose them as well. The US also has to factor in that we can't push Russia TOO far otherwise we risk thermonuclear conflict. It's also possible that the DOD doesn't want the ICC to be investigating Americans as well. Pretending the only way a policy makes sense is if you toss all caution to the winds just...isn't convincing.
So of course, on of your final thoughts "that there is no single mover of world affairs" is of course right, but that doesn't mean that the US/Europe aren't REALLY interested in Russia losing, and aren't REALLY interested in Ukraine winning is just dumb.
As for this...interesting opinion:
"an empire as colossal as the United States. NATO probably shouldn’t have acceded so willingly to former Soviet neighbors and SSRs who wanted to join in the 1990s and 2000s. (In fact, NATO should have disbanded, and nuclear weapons should have been outlawed, in 1991 with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact."
Wow, just wow. You are so off base here it's hard to know where to start.
Behind EVERYTHING going on in the world right now is the CLIMATE CRISIS.
The RATE of WARMING accelerated around 2015. It's now 0.36C PER DECADE.
We will hit 4C of warming by 2075 at that rate.
It won't stop until we get to THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM.
WE ARE ABOUT TO HAVE A CLIMATE SHOCK. IT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.
I am forecasting famine deaths of 800 million to 1.2 Billion over the next 4-6 years.
PUTIN AND XI know this is happening. Their Climate Models are better than ours because they don't have the Fossil Fuel Industry throwing sand in the gears like we do.
China doesn't want to be in an American dominated world during the Climate Crisis. Considering Trump went to war with them and DeSantis is a full on Fascist can you blame them?
Russia and China are allied in this and have been from day one. Ukraine is a coordinated project towards a common goal. Realignment of the existing American Dominated world order to a Chinese Dominated world order.
China is bleeding us in Ukraine the way Wellington bled Napoleon in Spain. We are going through our stock of smart weapons faster than we can replace them. And, the place that makes 90% of the world's computer chips is just off the coast of China.
Do you see the "strategic peril" we are in?
Also, we have now spent more on Ukraine in ONE YEAR than we did in NINE YEARS in Afghanistan. The last time we had a similar "burn rate" per year was Korea.
Grassley is past having to worry about getting re-elected, and I expect Graham will fall into line when he does have to worry about it, if Putin's war against Ukraine is still a thing at that point. I suspect most Republican voters - not politicians, necessarily, but voters - are inclined to oppose going further "in" for Ukraine, for at least three reasons: (1) many Democrats are inclined to support it, which is now reason enough to oppose it, for many Republicans; (2) Ukraine is way over there on the far side of the world, and it's full of foreigners who don't even speak English - in other words, classic American parochialism, which never really went away; (3) unlike its Soviet predecessors, the Putin regime has never presented itself as leading a movement to take over the world, nor has American propaganda depicted it as such - no "international communist conspiracy" for today's paranoiacs to work themselves up about (or at least not one orchestrated by the Kremlin). It's also worth remembering that before the invasion, some Republicans were vocal admirers of Putin, seeing in him the kind of "strongman" they yearned for in the USA. So I judge that DeSantis has gauged the dominant inclination of the Republican electorate correctly.
A determined propaganda campaign, engaging all the resources of the Murdoch empire, Sinclair, etc., probably could change that, but at present, I see little reason to expect such a campaign.
Putin announced to the world some years ago that war was obsolete. His plans involve using all the stolen riches of his country to subvert, bribe both very poor and very rich to act in His best interests.
Remember what he did /is doing to Syrian population. Initiate refugee crisis to other country's borders is another Putin tactic. The destruction is occurring in Ukraine because we're afraid of his temper tantrums and some powerful industries see money to be made.
Someone in Putin's circle persuaded him ground wars are a quicker means to an end. So we're left with Crosses row upon row. A prosperous and educated population is Putin's greatest enemy.
First off, let's be real here: comparing the Gulf War to the current conflict is dumb. Iraq was a regional power with limited international support and no nuclear weapons. Russia is a world power with more nuclear weapons than any other country in the world AND sits on some of the world's most important energy reserves (and more power to control world energy markets). So Europe providing aid in that conflict has almost no geopolitical cost. The stakes of that conflict were far lower.
Second, your assumption that the ICC has any impact on what Brazil or India will do is unconvincing. I don't think anyone doubts Russia's war crimes. Going to the ICC isn't going to move Brazil and South Africa to go against their own national interest (which is why they're supporting Russia in the first place). The ICC decision (while wrong and infuriating on its own terms) says nothing about America's desire for Russia to lose.
Contrary to the picture you paint: it's entirely possible for countries to want many things at once. The US has provided an immense amount of military aid to Ukraine, has placed unprecedented sanctions on Russia, and has pressed other nations to oppose them as well. The US also has to factor in that we can't push Russia TOO far otherwise we risk thermonuclear conflict. It's also possible that the DOD doesn't want the ICC to be investigating Americans as well. Pretending the only way a policy makes sense is if you toss all caution to the winds just...isn't convincing.
So of course, on of your final thoughts "that there is no single mover of world affairs" is of course right, but that doesn't mean that the US/Europe aren't REALLY interested in Russia losing, and aren't REALLY interested in Ukraine winning is just dumb.
As for this...interesting opinion:
"an empire as colossal as the United States. NATO probably shouldn’t have acceded so willingly to former Soviet neighbors and SSRs who wanted to join in the 1990s and 2000s. (In fact, NATO should have disbanded, and nuclear weapons should have been outlawed, in 1991 with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact."
I find it completely laughable
Wow, just wow. You are so off base here it's hard to know where to start.
Behind EVERYTHING going on in the world right now is the CLIMATE CRISIS.
The RATE of WARMING accelerated around 2015. It's now 0.36C PER DECADE.
We will hit 4C of warming by 2075 at that rate.
It won't stop until we get to THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM.
WE ARE ABOUT TO HAVE A CLIMATE SHOCK. IT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.
I am forecasting famine deaths of 800 million to 1.2 Billion over the next 4-6 years.
PUTIN AND XI know this is happening. Their Climate Models are better than ours because they don't have the Fossil Fuel Industry throwing sand in the gears like we do.
China doesn't want to be in an American dominated world during the Climate Crisis. Considering Trump went to war with them and DeSantis is a full on Fascist can you blame them?
Russia and China are allied in this and have been from day one. Ukraine is a coordinated project towards a common goal. Realignment of the existing American Dominated world order to a Chinese Dominated world order.
China is bleeding us in Ukraine the way Wellington bled Napoleon in Spain. We are going through our stock of smart weapons faster than we can replace them. And, the place that makes 90% of the world's computer chips is just off the coast of China.
Do you see the "strategic peril" we are in?
Also, we have now spent more on Ukraine in ONE YEAR than we did in NINE YEARS in Afghanistan. The last time we had a similar "burn rate" per year was Korea.
Wasn't Grassley the one MTG was stumping for when she said "not one more dollar for Ukraine?"