These candidates are really the only challengers to Biden in the primaries. All of their campaigns are extremely long shots (but not impossible in my opinion- if we decided we liked them more than Biden they could win). Let's all have a civilized discussion/debate over them. Let's try to not focus too heavy on their perceived inability to beat Biden but focus on them as actual candidates.
my take
MW: I recently watched an interview with Marianne Williamson who I'd never heard of before (I'm sure there's a reason media doesn't cover her). She really impressed me with her views, especially on neoliberalism. She heavily reminds me of Bernie and isn't running just for the sake of it or as a protest like some other long shot candidates do. In my opinion she deserves everyone's vote in the primaries, at least. She is also very talented at oration.
CW: I'll be honest, I know very little about him and need to do more research.
RFK JR: He's literally a clown. He's a nepo baby and all his views are inconsistent, harmful, and crackpot. He has no shot at winning.
You think that giving Ukrainian land to Russia is the right way to solve this conflict?
Not necessarily. Maybe Crimea. Russia has their military navy there. They only have 2 facing Europe/NATO .Asking them to give that up may be too much. If Mexico joined BRICS and China started placing weapons there, ya think America would be happy. That’s what is going on in Ukraine. I’m not defending Russia or Putin. I just understand that there’s a lot of geopoliticking going on that we aren’t privy to. If you were Russia, would you want NATO on your border. You can be against NATO and Putin. Not everything has to be a false dichotomy.
What's going on there is more similar to if Mexico invaded Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. And you are saying, "eh, just let 'em have Texas. They used to own it anyway. And they deserve it since the USA aligned with Canada".
Giving Russia Ukraine essentially means that Ukraine will never be able to effectively export anything again since Russia will exert total control over the Black Sea. That means that Ukraine's main economic means of survival, the produce and export of grain will become impossible.
Does Ukraine not get to decide what treaties and organizations they join? Or does Russia get de-facto control over everything it's neighbors do? If we allow Russia to invade and annex any country they want, how long before we are dealing with the invasion of another country such as Moldova or even the Baltics or Poland?
It's quite clear that they want their borders to extend to the Carpathians to make them more defensible with their shrinking population. Do we just allow this? Then they will need to expand south and East to close the gaps there from the lost USSR as well. And at that point, why stop?
So, just to reiterate, we need to allow Russia to invade and destroy whichever country it wants so that it can "feel more comfortable" by owning that country's land? Is that a fair assessment of your position?
And then I suppose we need to let China do this too, right? And then when we are down to 3 superpowers running everything, we can just duke it out for who's the final winner in one big war?
What you are recommending is called "appeasement". It was tried in very much the same way with Germany by Neville Chamberlain in the late 1930's in the country where I live, Czechia in an area called The Sudetenland, under extremely similar circumstances as you describe today. It wasn't very effective to say the least.
So I must say, it's a very interesting plan you've got.
Watched the interview again. Still agree with West. You are prioritizing land over lives. Should Russia have invaded. No. But here we are, and people are dying, homes lost. The alternative is to play this out. Where everyone loses, but America and NATO. If that’s the goal. Proceed. You want Russia to retreat and concede. Would NATO do that? The solution is concessions. Is it optimal? No. But again, the alternative is death and destruction.
If Russia wins there will be more wars and more lives lost. It will not work any better than Chamerlain giving Hitler the Sudetenland.
Giving Russia what they want at best pauses the fighting until they can regroup and come back for more. Anyone, like myself, who lives in this region knows that, because we were paying attention when Russia invaded Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova, and now Ukraine since Putin came to power.
The end result will be a string of wars lasting decades, and culminating in nothing less than a Russian/Chinese war machine waging a full world war against the West. This is what their leaders are talking about when they talk about a reorganization of the world order. It's a very common theme for discussion on Russian TV. The vast majority of Europeans have learned their European history well enough to know this.
There is no avoiding this for the USA either. The US has 2 options.
Option 1 guarantees millions of deaths. Option 2, hundreds of thousands. Your plan guarantees the maximum loss of life.
And anyway, isn't it up to Ukraine to decide if they want to fight or not? Why the hell is it up to you or Cornell West?
West was prescribing a position based on a hypothetical situation where both sides choose diplomacy. That is what I agree with. That is not the current situation. Russia has said they do not seek diplomacy and Ukraine doesn’t want to concede land, so the hypothetical is irrelevant. If you don’t agree to the hypothetical diplomacy, due to historical precedence and speculation for the future, you’re condemning the region to war. Yes, Russia may continue and expand the war. But making geopolitical decisions based on fear and speculation is not the ideal position when lives are being lost daily. Do you want the war to stop? If you do, then Cornel West’s position of diplomacy is the best option.
I agree that a position based on a hypothetical world we don't live in is not useful. Diplomacy in the current reality that we live in will only cost more lives than defeating Russia will. This is abundantly obvious given all the evidence Russia has given us over the last 20 years.
And again, this is Ukraine's decision to make, not ours, not Cornell's.
Here's a good video by a philosopher who grew up in Russia that very well describes the complexities of this situation:
https://youtu.be/017WGzJ5fHA
Good video. Although I was distracted when reading about his illness. I’ve researched this somewhat recently and am understanding the reasoning for supporting NATO in Ukraine. I think the central dissonance is between comfort and change. I have no misconceptions about Putin/Russian imperialism and what their intent is. And for that matter, China. I also understand the goals of American / European imperialism. The consistency of capitalism. In that regard, Western imperialism is better because it is comfortable and what we know. But when analyzed from a global perspective, it is the greater evil, and needs to change. Niger is a current example. The greater left sees this in NATO and forms opinions accordingly. You can be against Russian aggression and NATO expansion. You can support Ukraine independence and be against capitalist imperialism. Those of us voicing opinions against NATO aren’t necessarily pro Russia/ Putin.