Debate: The Left’s Position on Ukraine? w/ Branko Marcetic & Eric Levitz

Eric Levitz and Branko Marcetic debate how the American Left should understand and respond to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Read Eric's article here: nymag.com/inte...
And Branko's response article here: www.jacobinmag...
Subscribe to the channel and hit the like button!
Subscribe to Jacobin in print for just $10: jacobinmag.com...
Music provided by Zonkey: linktr.ee/zonkey

[@ianhruday9584]

This was a good debate! Both participants took the issue seriously, and it didn't devolve into grandstanding. Thank-you Jacobin!

[@Drozit0]

Great debate, guys. Keep on making good nuanced content

[@jet-fury]

Dude take a sip of water

[@christopherbaker3817]

I just want Eric Levitz to take a sip of water. Sounding a little dry on the track.

[@ThinkerNinja]

Informative discussion, thanks guys

[@Pykstuks]

Branko is very concerned about right wing tendencies in Ukraine, but Russian fascism that is in power and Russian imperialism that is clearly expressed in this unprovoked invasion seems to be a major blindspot.

[@daquidi]

Russia has been one of the central financial contributors to right wing organizations all over Europe. Germany's AfD is for those reasons shielding Russia from critique. Germany's Neonazis have been travelling to Bootcamps in Russia.

[@SaundaryaLahari]

I think Branko is correct in that US foreign policy has no interest in protecting the Ukrainian people. It's all about positioning in the world order and maintaining power. I REALLY wish that weren't the case, but history informs this understanding.

[@xeraph02]

The same could be said about Russia, they state propaganda literally released a statement that ''special operation'' in Ukraine is a historical step for positioning Russia in the world order lmao

[@SaundaryaLahari]

@@xeraph02 yep, I honestly don't believe any of these governments are working for the best interests of the people. But America is the country I live in and so I'm gonna call out the people who are supposed to represent me and my country...

[@ikonofcoil]

@@SaundaryaLahari Many times some interests are coinciding. We cannot expect 100% common interests in the real world.

[@JoeKozak-lv9bu]

"... land bridge between Crimea and Russia..." WWII began with the invasion of Poland by Germany and Russia in September of 1939. Hitler invaded Poland to resolve the "Danzig Corridor" issue. The Danzig (Gdansk) corridor was part of Poland connecting it to the Baltic Sea but separating Eastern Prussia (modern day Kaliningrad Russia) from the rest of Germany. Putin seizes Crimea in 2014 and then is rewarded in 'peace' negotiations with a Danzig corridor back to Russia?

[@BlueRockBill]

If we're looking to influence or lead policy as socialists, someday, then our discussions about the Russian invasion need to tack towards strategy and not abstract wool gathering or crystal ball predictions. Branko makes a lot of good points about the rise of Ukrainian fascism, and their threat to the LGBT community, but to not make the same point about the rise of Russian Imperialism and it's threats to the sovereignty of the Baltic States, Poland, or even Finland is incredibly negligent. Especially given the emotional and familial ties to these countries represented in their Western European and United States diaspora. As both parties admit, we're not in a position to influence much, so what should we talk about? Branko's last and all to brief point about Climate Change and oil power is where we should take this discussion: Why did Putin feel safe invading Ukraine? Germany's oil and natural gas commitments to Russia. Why did they do that? Capitalism needs the cheap solution, not the better solution and even German capitalism cannot plan beyond next quarter's profits. This invasion was inspired by Russian chauvinism, and its Imperial past, but was made possible through rank capitalism.

[@helengarrett6378]

Putin didn't just decide on a whim to gobble up Ukraine. He set us up, first by aiding and influencing Trump. Yes he fdid that That! Which, in turn, set the country up for our own stupid fascist conspiracy theorists and foolish antivaxxers snd anyimaskers. A lot of us got sick, some of us died, and some are still sick with the pandemic not finished yet and a more infectious strain gaining ground, though not killing as many of us. This chaos and the 1/6 coup attempt were all set in motion by the rise of Trump and his love affair with Putin who with hilarious glee encouraged the idiot. That guy planned ahead. He chose now to invade Ukraine because we are divided, weakened, in the throes of an economic mess and suffering climate change chaos. Putin planned ahead and moved when the time was right for him, but first he strengthened his alliance with China, and India and other countries. They are buying Russian oil helping to soften the sanctions we stupidly thought would crush Russia.. He's no dummy.

[@Alexed.w]

Excellently put!

[@groovalotfunk4147]

Great talk but come on Branco, is it really feasible to do a background check before giving out guns when you are under seige? Ridiculous statement. War is hell.

[@asengo141]

What's more, the people receiving weapons aren't just sent home with them. They are incorporated into Territorial Defence units, which are under the command of the Ministry of Defence. I feel like a lot of people: 1. Don't understand that Ukraine has a functioning government and is under martial law right now; 2. Think that Ukraine is some kind of Wild East where lawlessness is the norm and everything is achieved using violence only, needless to say, it's very far from the truth.

[@skis_injeans]

Chapo recently went all the way in on this Levitz piece as well

[@jet-fury]

@@abstractalien12345 chapo was correct

[@jet-fury]

@@abstractalien12345 condemning the crimes of others has as much moral value as condemning crimes of the 14th century. The old chomsky line and its true today. It's easy to do. Much harder to say something about what you, through the actions of your government, are responsible for.

[@jet-fury]

@@abstractalien12345 funny that you mention ari Fleischer though considering he shares the same opinion on Ukraine as the average liberal thirsting for a proxy war. Flooding the country with arms, and whatever else they would ask for. Honestly the irony of liberals accusing anyone else of being neocons when they share far more ideologically with them than the actual left. That is when they aren't outright rehabilitating them, like they did with Bush, whos cabinet ari Fleischer was part of.

[@ianhruday9584]

I wouldn't say they went all-in. A lot of what they responded to was the headline, which probably wasn't written by Levites.

[@RebbeccaGuaylover]

@@jet-fury Then have no morals Then. Last I checked Karl Marx was not in favor of the subjugation of people as he was one of the earliest voices against slavery. What is the purpose of being socialist if you can't even identify what's morally right and morally bankrupt?

[@BenSmith-mg5jv]

Ok so far first 10 mins guy, sux at talking. I floated from being confused, to being put into a coma from boredom.

[@gabrielsatter]

He blew the other guy out of the water though.

[@daquidi]

Logical arguements can have that effect. He tried to argue from the perspective of Ukrainian subjects and was very disciplined in not getting distracted. Whereas the the person arguing against weapons threw a lot of different arguements against it.

[@clydehogan3]

“If you want to know who America’s next enemy is, look at who we’re funding right now.” - Dave Smith

[@adenizenabroad9593]

We’re funding lemur of countries lol that’s the whole point of nato, plus Dave smith is a reactionary crackpot and failed comedian whose been wrong about nearly everything that comes out of his mouth

[@noelchambers5475]

branko gets stomped...."when reality turned against left-wing orthodoxy, some leftists turned against reality."

[@Lorenz1973]

Europeans used lots of diplomacy prior to the war and continue to do so now. Overall have many European countries tried to build good relationships with Russia over decades … but things are not getting better in terms of Russian imperialism but just worse. This invasion is just a step too far…

[@casteretpollux]

No they haven't. They've moved NATO 12 countries eastwards and the US unilaterally dropped the nuclear arms treaties one by one. The US organised the 2014 coup with the Nazis. What are you talking about?

[@Liisa3139]

Putin despises diplomacy. He is like one of those pubescent boys that feel their new strength in the body and therefore believe that they can overpower anybody. The pubescent boy can only be put to face reality by physical force. He needs to meet the bigger guy and to be beaten down. Unfortunately that is how simple the situation is. An agreement between the parties would be nice, kind of. But it would only give Putin more time to prepare his next attack and to continue creating confusion in Western politics.

[@casteretpollux]

Which Europeans? The recently retired Merkel? No accident this happened after she was gone. In 2014 she blocked US intervention and steered Minsk. She would have let the EU collapse under the US boot in the way the feckless minion Van der Leyen has.

[@casteretpollux]

@@Liisa3139 You do know that this view of history as run by the personalities of 2 or 3 individuals is nonsense, don't you?

[@Liisa3139]

@@casteretpollux For a long time Putin has been preparing for the right moment to show his power. He saw Europe's weakness (Brexit, covid etc.), the moment had come. He had to continue on the path he had planned. His kind of rulers never give up. They either die or "win", as they see it.

[@kaoskb3654]

Nice studio/stationery supply room combination.

[@maxmillianwiegel1643]

Why are three Americans debating about Ukraine, without including an actual Ukrainian in said conversation. It’s imperialist. Which is, you know, typical for that country.

[@jefftist9625]

Branko's start. 9:30

[@Pykstuks]

How many Buchas is an acceptable price of 'Pax Putinorum' to American Left?

[@masterblaster848]

Butcha was false flag. How many time you need to understand it?

[@robertbrennan2268]

Ukraine is fighting an existential war. Eric Levitz stated that it was difficult to know Putin's mind. But in July 2021, Putin published, "On the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians". We also have access to his chief ideologue, Alexandr Dugin who operates with a Eurasian model of Russian "civilization" and like Samuel Huntingdon sees this as in conflict with Western liberalism. We also know Putin admires Ivan Ilyin the White Russian inter-War emigre who supported Mussolini and Hitler and advocated "Russian Fascism". Putin wants to eradicate Ukraine as an artificial construction of Lenin's USSR constitution. Ukraine has been a sovereign independent nation since 1991 when it chose this path in a Referendum. Ukraine was colonised by Russia. The case is similar to Ireland. Ireland achieved its independence in 1922. It is as if Britain invaded Eire 31 years later - in 1953. Ukraine has afar right element and in 1941 some Ukrainians saw the Wehrmacht as a liberation from Stalinism. In 1932-3 some 4 million of Ukrainians died in the Holodomor (famine) induced by Stalin's forced collectivization of agriculture (classified as a genocide). This had something to do with the Ukrainian reception of the Wehrmacht - although many more thousands died fighting in the Red Army. During the last war elements of the IRA would have welcomed the Wehrmacht had they landed in Ireland to "liberate" Ulster. Writing here in Europe these issues really do seem real and near. Of course we must arm democratic Ukraine and not take a leftish High Moral tone from the safety zone of the USA. Putin is perpetrating a Genocidal assault on Ukraine. Cultural genocide is covered by the Genocide Convention and takes the form of an attempt to eradicate a culture. Any peace deal at some point must be determined by Ukraine not by "bien pensant" American leftists. Agreeing over the heads of Kiev the ceding of Ukrainian territory to Russia for peace is no different from the Munich Agreement in 1938 when Chamberlain and Dalladier ceded Sudetenland to Hitler. Then of course he took the whole of Czechoslovakia. Putin will behave like that too. Ukraine must be armed to fight for its survival. Remember Spain from 1936 and the "neutrality" of bourgeois liberal democracies who withheld arms while Fascism and Nazism moved in. This is equivalent. No passaran! This is a war of re-colonisation and cultural genocide.

[@marciukspuks5353]

response to marketic up to 22 minute response: -ukraine was armed with offensive weapons after 2014: javelins and rifles are NOT offensive weapons, especially considering Russian aggressors that possess nuclear weapons. Ukraine's independence and security was recognized by Russia in EXCHANGE for Ukraine's nuclear disarmament in 1994. Ukraine's independence was overwhelmingly supported 87% by Ukrainian residents at that time. Russia's explicit security protocol calls for the use of nuclear weapons in case Russia's territory is attacked. So curious, how exactly does attack on Russia would look like? Russian diplomat, Polyianskyi, specifically repeated this point recently. Also, Marketic explicitly did not acknowledge that Ukraine was invaded. so was it invaded or not? -Ukraine has violent ultranationalists. Ok, every war, without exception, is fought by violent (using guns) ultranationalists (defending national borders) because these are the only people willing to fight. For every Azov there is a single Wagner. Russia's Z propaganda explicitly invokes Russian nationalism and pride as well as its expansion. Again, it was Ukraine that was invaded, NOT the other way around. -This leads to nicely to comment about abuse of Russian speakers. Let me explain this "abuse" since I grew up in the region. All this means is if you work in govt agencies you have to be able to speak native language. That's it. And if we talking tensions, well let me remind of how Russia would send and protect their gangsters (Russian Mob) to infiltrate and control local populations in the 90s after the breakup of USSR. -Finally, the reason Ukraine's army expanded after 2014 is because of an annexation of Crimea. At that time Ukraine did not have an army and Russia literally walked in and took over. And support comes from the west is because that is the ONLY place where that support can come from. And surprise, surprise that support ain't free, lol.

[@ajiththomas2465]

Honestly, I've always found the excuse of "B-b-but Ukraine has Neo-Nazis!" that quite a few online leftists spew to being pure bullshit and Russian state propaganda. A lot of these dumbfucks seem to mistakenly think that "America bad" is a political philosophy, when it's not, and the fact that they seem to think that American imperialism is any worse than Russian or Chinese or any other country's imperialism, is an example of American exceptionalism. Ukraine doesn't have a Neo-Nazi problem. The "Neo Nazis" only make up a fraction of the Azov Battalion, a fraction of a Battalion made up of 900 people. The Ukrainian Armed Forces have an active personnel of 245,000 soldiers. The Azov Battalion only makes up less than 0.00367347 % of the active personnel of the Ukranian Armed Forces. The Azov Battalion is a minority among a minority among a minority. So called "leftists" should stop fear mongering about them, especially when most of them will die fighting against the Russian invaders. The same arguments against American support for Ukraine because of a much overhyped fearmongering of the Azov Battalion is the same arguments levied against funding Palestine because a fraction of that money may go to Hamas. It's the same stupid logic. What exactly is the alternate solution that these opposing leftists support? That Ukraine should just lay down and let Russia r-ape and ravage them and put them under a repressive Russian regime for decades? Speaking of Nazis, how's Russia and their Wagner Group doing? Also, Ukraine is noted as being the least anti-Semitic country among the Eastern European countries. Russia is leagues far more anti-Semitic than Ukraine, by a country mile. The invasion has never been about de-Nazification. Hasan "The Russian (imperialist) annexation of Crimea was 100% justified...aMeRiCa BaD!" Piker, and other tankie-adjacent "leftists" should stop falling for Russian state propaganda and for Putin's blood-and-soil Fascist imperialism. I don't know why people like Hasan, tankie-adjacent leftists and tankies (some of whom write for Jacobin) simp for Putin and Russia like this. Whether it be Russia from the time of Lenin to Putin or China from the time of Mao to Jinping, these so-called Socialist/Communist countries have never been socialist. It's pretty much always been an authoritarian state capitalist dictatorship. The workers have never really owned the means of production or had that much strong worker rights to begin with. They ended up trading one authoritarian government for another, with the Chinese courts and Russian courts being replaced by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) elite and Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) elite respectively. State owned is not the same thing as worker owned though they tend to get conflated with each other when people talk about "public ownership". The state can be a mechanism for which the workers can publicly own the the means of production but it is not the only mechanism and isn't always the best one either depending on the situation. Socialism is not when the government does stuff, etc. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production. If a government claims to be socialist but if the workers don't own the means of production and/or there isn't at least some decommodification of certain things, then it's not a socialist government. Actions speak louder than words and names. Case in point, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, otherwise known as North Korea. Tankie: Wait, China/Russia is capitalist? Socialist/Anarchist: Always has been. Also, markets are not synonymous with capitalism, just like a command economy is not the same as a socialist economy. Market socialism is a thing. Markets and centralized command refers to the systems of distribution. Socialism and capitalism refer to the systems of production and ownership. You can mix and match with them basically. Just thing that these types of distinctions should be noted, because quite a few lefties don't really try to differentiate the differences between systems of distribution and systems of production ownership. I think it'd be really helpful for lefties to discuss distinctions like these so that we can combat the Right's stereotypes of the Left wanting everything to be government controlled. It's time to break their narrative. Do you get what I mean? --------------- P.S. If you want good leftists coverage of the Ukraine situation, check out Beau of the Fifth Column, Adam Something, and Vaush. Adam Something's Community Posts are a really good source of news of the Ukraine situation on a day-to-day basis from a close distance. Beau is the perfect source of analysis of the Ukraine situation from a geopolitical security and international relations perspective, informed from his time as a military contractor, with his words of wisdom being a real fresh breath of air in a sea of shitty takes by other leftists. If you get the chance and have the time, check out Vaush' fantastic interviews of a former RT-affiliated journalist who quit because of the Ukraine situation and of a former NATO Special Operations Officer. Those 2 interviews are highly fascinating, interesting, and fascinating and watching those 2 videos will have you touching grass more than 99.99% of terminally online leftists.

[@asengo141]

I agree 100%. I am a russian speaking Ukrainian and I have never been oppressed anywhere in Ukraine, whereas my ukrainian speaking friends were denied of service or discriminated when applying for jobs on multiple occasions. So it feels so bizzare when the so-called liberals are citing oppression of russian speakers as a valid reason for not helping Ukraine, while completely ignoring that russia has been deliberately suppressing Ukrainian language and culture to the point that they almost got extinct.

[@adoredpariah]

Some of Branko's initial points didn't really go very well addressed in my opinion; The comparison of other countries supplying Iraqis during that war being something that would have more than likely escalated the situation and/or created larger conflicts is a fair one (though speculative and not necessarily a certainty). Saying that because Ukraine is a "more legitimate" sovereign state that makes it better isn't a great response to those concerns. Saying that Ukrainian far right nationalists are the ones doing the most dying in the conflict in Mariupol was a strange aside, their dying en masse isn't a good thing for one, for two becoming martyrs would potentially embolden such ideals in the region, they can lay claims that they were the real defenders etc. Similarly saying that these elements aren't the ones necessarily being armed with US aide is questionable particularly considering they are potentially doing the heaviest fighting. That fact (if true) makes is much more likely that they would be getting a lot of aide to support their ability to fight. And then to say "well the LGBT community would do worse under Putin" is questionable logic there, it could be true, it also might not be true. Particularly if those far right elements gain any political power in Ukraine, the likelihood of which is higher when such elements are lionised for their efforts in fighting off Russian imperialism/expansionism. I don't have any easy answers to these issues myself, and I certainly am not pro-invasion, that much I can say for sure. There are some questions like this that are very concerning to think about though. The discussion is incredibly important either way, it is nice to see measured conversations like this happening.

[@captainvonkleist8323]

Branko's position against dumping arms into Ukraine isn't terrible. I don't agree with a Libertarian position that simply arming private citizens provides national security. Problem is, the preferable solution is to move well organized military into Ukraine instead. The position against sending arms, AND against establishing a well organized military presence to deter Russian aggression is untenable. It's a Liberal contrarian position that doesn't hold up in real life. Try selling that position to the people in Ukraine, and I think you'll find out pretty quickly that it's not acceptable, and profoundly undemocratic. I think you'll find that denying the people of Ukraine an effective well organized military response actually inspires the people of Ukraine to take matters into their own hands. Ukrainian self defense is a result of insufficient NATO deterrence. The idea that adequately defended borders with Russia provokes Russian aggression is an absurdity. The Russian border with China, for example, is much more effectively deterred from invasion. If it were the case that military build up inspires Russian aggression, then there's much better targets for Russian aggression than a relatively defenseless Ukraine. Really, it's Russia's assessment that Ukraine is relatively defenseless that has led to invasion.

[@adoredpariah]

@@captainvonkleist8323 I'm not sure about that last point, you could be right, but Ukraine has been receiving a lot of money from allies specifically to deter Russia from trying this, and to help Ukraine remain independent. I don't know if more money would have stopped this happening, but in either case that didn't end up working. Then again not many people really thought Putin would act this maniacally either, the immediate and harsh repercussions should have been very obvious, but he still attempted this mad ploy. A final point; putting myself at risk of being accused of whataboutism, I can't help but wonder why Ukraine gets special attention in regards to the notion of "tell the Ukrainian people that"... I mean, we are telling a lot of people (for arguably less legitimate reasons) who are suffering the same or worse. That doesn't necessarily make it right of course, but we do have to consider such biases and the reasons for them. The reason we send Ukraine aide (even before the invasion) is in large part due to their acceptance of nuclear disarmament, we have a treaty to honour there, nonetheless the level of focus and the selective outrage when it comes to this specific conflict is hard to ignore.

[@captainvonkleist8323]

@@adoredpariah If the US adopts a foreign policy consistent with my politics, then I'll feel obligated to defend those choices by various US administrations. They haven't, so I don't. In my opinion, from a policy perspective, it's mostly about resources/money - Ukraine is quite wealthy in terms of agriculture, and I think the US would rather those resources be accessible through the EU. From a military strategy perspective, I think the US would rather Ukraine be secured by NATO, or some other arrangement aligned with the West. I think the US would rather not send troops in, so sending weapons is the next best option. Pressuring EU countries to send troops in, or at least meet their defense commitments, is another response (which I believe has been happening behind the scenes.) In terms of popular outrage, I think Ukrainians have been doing an outstanding job in communicating to Western media, through social media, access to Western journalists, and amateur footage. Also, there has been no push back to these efforts from the administration - since it's mostly aligned with their foreign policy.

[@asengo141]

What values do you think Ukrainians are fighting for? Political freedom, freedom of expression, cultural identity, democracy and rule of law, European integration. There is absolutely no question in the minds of LGBTQIA+ activists in Ukraine whether they "would do worse under putin". We WOULD do worse "under" putin, who is an hardline homophobe and transphobe, oh and besides he's a dictator of a terrorist and fascist state who is actively killing Ukrainians, including those from the LGBTQIA+ community! If you really wish to support human rights activism in Ukraine, then perhaps listen to what the representative ogranisations have to say about it, e.g. UkrainePride: instagram.com/p/CaXHcrBtsnh/ They, by the way, are cooperating with the Azov regiment, providing them with the much needed gear like walkies and thermovisors. Yes, their views hugely differ, but now everyone in Ukraine is united in the fight against the russian oppression. Please, don't fall for kremlin's propaganda and do their job for them by spreading misinformation. I know it's hard to navigate the information space right now, but I beg everyone, be dilligent! If you wanna learn more about the state of far-right movements and the Azov in particular, here's a good place to start: krytyka.com/en/articles/too-much-ado-about-ukrainian-nationalists-the-azov-movement-and-the-war-in-ukraine

[@uris77]

Levitz delivery skills needs work. I lost his train of thought and stopped watching after 8 minutes

[@Rabidmonkey73]

Yes, ability to write and speak are not always correlated.

[@gabrielsatter]

He's still right though.

[@leadinged]

sorry sounds like a word salad that is difficult to piece together. need to speak simply and get to the main point. Branko needs to invest in a proper microphone. Amazon $20.

[@Lorenz1973]

Minorities have and continue to live in each others countries all over Europe. Since WW2 it has been taboo to address concerns regarding those minorities by anything else but diplomacy. Russians live in all the Baltic countries- so they are fair game next? Sorry, but Invasion as step to address anything is just unacceptable… blood and soil imperialism is just unacceptable.

[@solidaritytime3650]

Morally, we agree. Strategically, I wonder what you would furnish as Putin's alternative course of action for halting the further encroachment of NATO.

[@hazelwray4184]

'blood and soil'? you omit to mention the significant neo-Nazi element within Ukrainian nationalism. Plus, 80 years on from its invasion of the Soviet Union, that killed 27 million Russians, we're seeing the biggest remilitarisation of Germany since Hitler.

[@captainvonkleist8323]

"Minorities have and continue to live in each others countries all over Europe." I think your assumption that countries belong to certain ethnic groups is highly problematic. The taboo since WW2 hasn't been against addressing minority rights, and minority issues, the taboo is against the kind of ethnic chauvinism implicit in your assessment of the situation. It's unfortunate to see these ideas resurgent.

[@RebbeccaGuaylover]

@@solidaritytime3650 Not attacking anyone is the right action. Russia was never endanger of NATO.

[@RebbeccaGuaylover]

@@captainvonkleist8323 Your mischaracterizing her statement. Just because she states that minories exist doesn't Mean she's in favor of putting people in a minority box. She's just merely claiming that they exist just like they do anywhere else. How you came to that conclusion is a mystery. Maybe better reading skills would serve you well.

[@jamesfiegel9675]

Natural Gas resources plain and simple the rest is smoke!!!

[@OdieSalmon]

Levitz takes here get worse with every passing week

[@jameskaufmann765]

To put it crudely simplistic terms, I side with Ukraine in the current tragic circumstance. However, looking decades backward it seems like the West has screwed up catastrophically in the geopolitical aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR. Looking decades forward, I will suggest that there could have been (and perhaps still could be) a future-centered reaction to a very recent event -- the alarming announcement by Zelenskyy that his government was reining in independent media and opposition party activity. What if the West had unanimously announced a total freeze on military aid until Ukraine reversed this decision, making the clear point that we intend to support DEMOCRACY. I imagine the point would be heard loud and clear, and Ukraine would come back around in a flash, without negative consequence to their war effort. Opinions welcome.

[@ianhruday9584]

This certainly would have been welcome, but it also assumes that the promotion of democracy is a significant goal for the Western countries.

[@jameskaufmann765]

@@ianhruday9584 I think it should be, and that historical policies counter to this principle have had long-term negative consequences.

[@theredstheredstheredsthereds]

Boi who cut your hair

[@katalepsykills]

It’s funny how far right Marcetic has moved since this video. He’s like a totally different guy.

[@RyanWattersRyanWatters]

How ya figure?

[@vipermad358]

Man! Levitz is such a horrible speaker I keep forgetting WHAT he is talking about!! State your point clearly and GET OUT. Quit literally hemming and hawing.

[@daikyosenshi]

2:53 jesus get to the point

[@FM-ln2sb]

You should invite either Aaron Mate, Max Blumenthal or Rania Khalek for this type of debate.

[@tmsphere]

Why not just invite Bashar Al Assad himself at that point?

[@chrisbarnett5303]

Just have Sergei Lavrov on and skip his middlemen

[@captainvonkleist8323]

There's two "lefts" in this country. There's left/Liberal and left/Democratic-Socialist. Problem is that left/Liberal hasn't been the legitimate left wing since at least the World Wars era, though really this tension has been growing since at least Lincoln. Right wing Libertarianism has changed over time, from traditional Libertarianism (government should protect the borders, and basically has no other responsibilities) to a recognition that the government has a role in protecting individual rights (which is a position closer to traditional Liberalism). The result of this is that the difference between the politics of a Rand Paul has become very close to a left/Liberal politics. There is little real difference between Libertarian and Liberal governance at a local level The World Wars era showed definitively that Liberal politics were wholly inadequate. The idea that protecting individual rights, and individuals is a sufficient governing strategy was replaced with a recognition that governance must also consider the interests of the common good/society/"the people". Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism all emerged during this time, with different conceptions of society and the common good. In this debate, I believe Branko is representing a left/Liberal position, and Eric is closer to a left/Democratic-Socialist position. To me, the left position should be focused around the good of the Ukrainian people. This means ensuring their security at this time, first and foremost. Also, the interests of the people of Russia should be recognized when considering a response to Russian aggression. And, the good of the people in the region also needs to be considered. An acceptable solution from this perspective means that Russia should be deterred from aggressive military action in the future, the threat of nuclear war should be minimized, and economic stability should be emphasized. This means a position against economic sanctions, against regime change in Russia, but for a military build up in Ukraine, and along the Russian border. Branko's theory that less military build up will result in peace in the region has been completely disproven by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It's still a balance of powers world when dealing with characters like Putin. I would remind Branko that he lives in the most heavily defended country in history, and that the peace he enjoys is a result of that. (I'm referring to the defense provided by US military might, not the Libertarian conception that arming private citizens to defend private property is a national defense policy.) Deterrence is a very real effect. The cost of invasion should be very high so as to adjust the calculus of expansionist leaders like Putin. Russia's incursion is because of insufficient defense. There are plenty of better defended borders with Russia, and Russia chose to invade Ukraine because of their relative defenselessness. This Russian regime has shown a pattern of aggressive behavior against poorly defended neighbors. The problem isn't NATO expansion, it's that NATO didn't expand fast enough to protect the countries around Russia's border. If Russia is against NATO expansion, then it should provide alternative arrangements for the security and prosperity of Eastern European countries. Invasion is not an acceptable arrangement, and has done nothing but delegitimize any Russian claims to advance peace, security and stability in the region.

[@leighfoulkes7297]

As soon as you started given credence toward the crazy libertarians, I stopped reading. Heck, I should have stopped reading when you called the neo-liberals "left/Liberal"!🤣I mean heck, Libertarians are pushing neo-liberal ideas but without the government (the whole "greed is good" BS).

[@y0884]

This is so stupid man. Marcetic is literally a socialist and I doubt Eric levitz would identify himself with socialism over liberalism. This view is so American-centric it’s hard to read..

[@y0884]

You just said a liberal is a socialist and a socialist is a liberal because the liberal said things you agree with and you think you’re “on the left” or something. The “left position” has never been in favour of nato expansion ever in the world.

[@captainvonkleist8323]

@@leighfoulkes7297 Neoliberal and left/Liberal are two different things. Neoliberal is mostly right wing. It started with Reagan/Thatcher. There were (and are) Clinton/Blair Liberals, but their posture is to compromise with a radicalized neoliberal right wing. I don't really think of them as left wing in any meaningful way. They didn't advance individual rights, or the common good, or the will of the people. If you're using the quadrants I'm using in this analysis, then right/Liberal is a better correspondence to neoliberalism.

[@captainvonkleist8323]

@@y0884 No, it's based on fundamental positions towards governance. As I explained at length, on multiple occasions. You're the one that's unable to define any of your political terms in this exchange. If you don't know what any of the words you're using mean, then why on Earth would I take your comment seriously?

[@kraz007]

Dudes, you are way off on your "analysis". As most people in the US, you can't even point Ukraine on a map till a month ago.

[@davidalderson4980]

Care to elaborate?

[@peaceisourfriend.1474]

Levits ignore to write bout Syria .... but telling us left ignore Ukraine. peace.... J

[@Adnancorner]

america is in syria right now & you care about UKR. Its a joke

[@Gerulcia]

So is Russia.

[@gabrielsatter]

Holy crap. What is this hippie talking about? He needs a handler to keep him out of the weeds. Also, history lessons...

[@HipHopLives95]

By god is that senator McCarthy back from the grave!?

[@gabrielsatter]

@@HipHopLives95 Relax. I didn't bring him up on trumped up charges before a Senate committee... I just think he's an asshat with long hair, and a skewed, illogical view of why people fight that aligns with what a misinformed communist simp might say... So yes, a hippie caricature... But I really like the first amendment and I want him to chat as much as he wants.

[@joshuapaul2022]

I think total liquidation of Ukrainian state as inherently Nazi state is inevitable now. I just hope this war criminal Zelenskyy and his henchmen will face justice and won't be just eliminated by their CIA handlers or die from overdose. The way their Nazi units use civilians as human shield in cities like Mariupol is absolutely despicable. Even Hitler’s Nazis found Ukrainian Nazis who worked for them too barbaric and cruel.

[@wizarddragon]

Russian bots are still going strong I see

[@theironworker781]

Zelensky is jewish, you dolt.

[@speleoth]

Channel created in 2014... hmm. Only comment is just a litany of Kremlin propaganda... hmm.

[@DEWwords]

@@wizarddragon ,absolutely. The air is thick.

[@ludviglidstrom6924]

@@wizarddragon “Russian bots” - are you a socialist or a neoliberal Clinton supporter?

[@BenSmith-mg5jv]

Why do ppl keep sayin, " the left," has so many different thoughts about Ukraine. The overwhelming majority and the overwhelming majority of the left on power and leadership condemn Russia unprovoked invasion and support aiding them all the way up to starting WW3. Socialists? The broad majority of the left and the broad majority of the left in power and leadership are NOT socialists and or support converting to socialism. This is the opposite of the right whose leaders and those in power have in a overwhelming majority has at the very least been complicit in the destruction of our democracy ranging all the way to being actually involved in their multi pronged coup attempt and their continued election subversion for their next treasonous coup attempt.

[@aaronlong3895]

perhaps your confusion is because socialists would consider the liberals, often considered left-wing, that are in power too right-wing to be referred to as 'the left'.

[@AggroSamurai]

wow. what a question lol

[@eduardoroca1991]

I do agree with you that there's this straw man by the center/liberals that claim that the left is actually supporting the Russian invasion, which is completely wrong. You find Russia bots and Stalinists every now and then in the comment section, but everyone I know in reality is against the Russian invasion. The discussion on the left, sadly, is between the reasonable policy of supporting Ukraine in their effort to defend themselves, vs activating NATO and take the fight to Russia. Sadly there are many on the left that implicitly support escalating the war in a misguided effort to end the suffering of Ukrainians.

[@katalepsykills]

For real. People are crazily confused.