I appreciate the detailed response. I think it is in error in several ways, but it offers the basis of a discussion.
Let me deal with your last point first because I think it is important and is a fatal mistake being made by the Trump wing of my party. My ideal of the relative outsider with a unique vison for the country was Ronald Reagan. He and the policies he promoted were what I. and I think most educated people, would define as actual conservatism. I call him a relative outsider, because he had already been a successful governor of one of the country's most diverse and populous states.
Because he was a successful politician in such an environment, he realized as president that he needed a mandate much greater than his conservative base. At that time, he too faced a intolerant self-destructive fringe in the party that valued purity over governance. One of his most famous quotes was, "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor." Even if somehow Trump is elected in a wave of anti-Biden sentiment, the party can not maintain a governing majority in congress without a broad mandate that includes most moderates, whatever their party.
I should add, Trump not only has a problem winning over moderates, he also has one with conservatives in his own party. Whatever Trump's movement and fiscal beliefs are, it isn't conservatism. Judging by his recent denunciation of not only Nikki Haley, but also her voters, I am no sure his self-indulgence allows him to even understand that.
The so called RINOs currently represent constituencies that reflect such a mandate far more than the purists like a Chip Roy or Matt Gaetz. No president can be successful without congressional support. If this party devolves into nothing more than the 35% who worship at the alter of Donald Trump, the republicans will never hold a mandate again.
With respect to Russian history and the notion that every Russian dictator "has moved to the west" since Stalin, that is simply not true. In fact, I would argue that sentence itself is self-refuting. I assume you would agree Malenkov doesn't count. Khrushchev was certainly less murderous than Stalin, but hardly what anyone would call an admirer of the capitalist system. In spite of the efforts at détente, during the Nixon administration, Brezhnev politically was as reactionary as Stalin. I think we can also safely leave Andropov and Chernenko out of this discussion. I believe Gorbachev did recognize the failings of the Communist system, though whether that was through a desire to be closer to a Western model or merely to survive the pending upheaval as the Soviet Union collapsed, I am unsure. And whatever Russia could have become in a post Soviet world, that was cut short by the dictator currently occupying the Kremlin.
Spheres of influence serve only those with the power to enforce them. We articulated the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. But it was 75 years later, during the Spanish American War, before we actually had the power to begin to enforce it. Fortunately, we still do.
The Russian Empire and Soviet Union have waxed and waned throughout its history with respect to its sphere of influence. Crimea, for instance, was never under Russian control until ceded by Turkey in 1783. There is certainly no ethnic bond between the Rus and the Tartars who still make up most of the Crimean population. Perhaps following your logic, it should be returned to Turkey rather than Russia, or maybe the Byzantines?
The same is true of the "buffer zone" Russia created in Eastern Europe following the Second World War. That sphere of influence existed solely because six million Red Army troops occupied the ground. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, everyone of those States immediately sought true independence. Russia no longer had the strength or will to hold them in bondage. The Ukraine is also one of those states, and with a history of actual independence not very different than Poland.
The notion that the CIA convinced the vast majority of the Crimean people to revolt against a government attempting the realign itself with Moscow is simply not true. It is a notion perpetuated in a lot of right wing sites like Revolver and Gateway Pundit, but the Ukrainian people "voted" overwhelmingly to chart their future with Western Europe. Undoubtedly many in government to include in CIA and State were pleased. However, most of the overly sophisticated savants in the Obama administration saw the Ukrainian people's actions as actually destabilizing - hardly actions that administration would encourage through its intelligence services.
No, Ukraine's desire for self-determination and alliance with the West is very real. It is a dream for which they continue to cast their votes every single day with their blood. Putin, far from "moving West," is doing everything in his power to destroy that dream and submerge Ukraine in the apathetic police state that is the modern Russian Empire.
Which portion of the Minsk accords did Ukraine actually violate? To save some time, there is no pledge anywhere in them preventing Ukraine from joining NATO or the EU. That is both a Russian propaganda claim and belief adopted among the American right wing.
Fortunately, both Finland and Sweden, long exercising a careful balancing act between the West and their periodically belligerent neighbor, see Putin and his goals for what they are. Their joining NATO, and becoming two of the chief supporters of Ukraine's fight for survival puts a lie to the appeasers in the West. Refusing to aid Ukraine is by definition supporting Russia's strategic goals. It is unfathomable to me, that I share a party with people who support that foreign policy position. Reagan, a true champion of America first, aggressively defended our national interests wherever threatened. I am certain he would be appalled at the notion of abandoning Ukraine.
Mr. Red Leg, my friend, please forgive my absence. As I said in my original post, very few issues are more divisive among conservatives than the Ukraine situation. I very much appreciate your statement that the person you agree with 80% is your friend. I suspect we would agree on 90% of policy.
You probably misunderstand me a bit. I am not a huge fan of Mr. Trump, but I like him much more after he was President than before. I was pleasantly impressed with his accomplishments. Still, I have reservations about him, but he was effective. In fact there are things that are pretty repulsive. But in today’s world, there is a lot of “fog”, and we have to pick a “horse” don’t we?
He is a far bigger jackass than he needs to be. On the other hand, with the way things have been trending, perhaps an a**hole is just what we need. The house needs to be cleaned, and who will be better?
There are a couple others who I think may actually be better on policy than him, but they are not going to capture the “forever” Trumpers. So you roll with what you have. My biggest concern is that he won’t capture the “center” he needs. Because he CHOOSES to be a d*ck.
A lot of Americans are tired of our overseas adventures. I question our involvement in the 2nd Gulf War, based on Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction”, not that I think Saddam got any better than he deserved. Or why we stayed in Afghanistan, long after Bin Laden was dead, wasting thousands of young Americans and billions of dollars. And why we left in such an absolutely, obscenely, shameful way. We needed to leave, but not like that. Or why we still have troops in Iraq or Syria.
We are THE EMPIRE. Frankly, Americans don’t want to be emperors. They want to be left alone and they don’t like cruelty or unfairness in the world. Thats it.
The worst part of “neocons” is that there is never a war they don’t like.
You and I won’t come to terms on Ukraine, or Putin, and that is ok. I won’t say that I am convinced that the Ukraine “cause” is illegitimate. What I do think is that Ukraine would have been well positioned as the “Switzerland” of Eastern Europe, even if corrupt, which it is. And it was the West, not Russia, that eliminated that possibility. Why couldn’t that work? Because we wouldn’t let it work. Ukraine had to be in our “sphere”, not independent.
Now, for the “big” picture. Russia has been a declining threat to the West since the before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Black Sea has ZERO effect on my security as an American. Yet in the Biden administration’s extraordinary brilliance, we chose to take a stand there. We have taken this declining threat and made it an asset of the real threat - China.
Russia is not the Soviets of the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s. Stop fighting that war. Our choices in Ukraine have made our most serious threat STRONGER. WAKE UP.
And God’s blessings on you and yours.
