I do not disagree with Harold Meyerson, although I’m not sure of the value of his taxonomy of viewpoints regarding Ukraine.
One thing that seems especially interesting regarding the progressive subgroup’s letter to Biden, was that it was composed in June soon after Henry Kissinger’s notable speech at Davos earlier this year and had been sitting on the shelf of the Caucus chair with signatures. Kissinger at Davos was especially emphatic that security guarantees between the conflicted parties had to be negotiated quickly and that such guarantees had to involve territorial concessions for Russia (notably Crimea). He said also that there was a window of only a few weeks before domestic political forces (against negotiations and in favor of weapons exports) within the United States and Ukraine would gain too much horsepower: war would become unstoppable.
So I infer that when written several months ago, the caucus subgroup letter was intended to contemporaneously advance a Kissinger/Davos perspective to encourage bipartisan, skeptical co-thinking against escalation. Kissinger was not being prescient, so much as being observant of the motivation of the Nuland/Blinken group, since 2013, to consolidate anti-Russian configurations in Ukraine. Weakening Russia and, by extension, weakening the future potentialities of a Russian/Chinese axis are, I believe the BIG moves behind stirring up this theatre for a long conflict. Remember Lloyd Austin’s slip; “We want to weaken Russia.” He was, in context, not talking about the short term. For the conflict in Ukraine to be worth all of the blood and economic pain that is being justified, so insincerely, by a false necessity to expand NATO, there must be a larger lurking geopolitical ambition. I think, perhaps, that the weakening of the prospects of a emergent Russian/Chinese bond is such a lurking justification.
So why did the progressive subgroup release their stale letter? It may simply be that their hearts are broken over the stoking of an avoidable war where the U.S. could have been the security guarantor rather than the proxy/sponsor. They just needed to bear witness.
I do not disagree with Harold Meyerson, although I’m not sure of the value of his taxonomy of viewpoints regarding Ukraine.
One thing that seems especially interesting regarding the progressive subgroup’s letter to Biden, was that it was composed in June soon after Henry Kissinger’s notable speech at Davos earlier this year and had been sitting on the shelf of the Caucus chair with signatures. Kissinger at Davos was especially emphatic that security guarantees between the conflicted parties had to be negotiated quickly and that such guarantees had to involve territorial concessions for Russia (notably Crimea). He said also that there was a window of only a few weeks before domestic political forces (against negotiations and in favor of weapons exports) within the United States and Ukraine would gain too much horsepower: war would become unstoppable.
So I infer that when written several months ago, the caucus subgroup letter was intended to contemporaneously advance a Kissinger/Davos perspective to encourage bipartisan, skeptical co-thinking against escalation. Kissinger was not being prescient, so much as being observant of the motivation of the Nuland/Blinken group, since 2013, to consolidate anti-Russian configurations in Ukraine. Weakening Russia and, by extension, weakening the future potentialities of a Russian/Chinese axis are, I believe the BIG moves behind stirring up this theatre for a long conflict. Remember Lloyd Austin’s slip; “We want to weaken Russia.” He was, in context, not talking about the short term. For the conflict in Ukraine to be worth all of the blood and economic pain that is being justified, so insincerely, by a false necessity to expand NATO, there must be a larger lurking geopolitical ambition. I think, perhaps, that the weakening of the prospects of a emergent Russian/Chinese bond is such a lurking justification.
So why did the progressive subgroup release their stale letter? It may simply be that their hearts are broken over the stoking of an avoidable war where the U.S. could have been the security guarantor rather than the proxy/sponsor. They just needed to bear witness.