The U.S. likes the break-up of Arab Muslim states? How can you, as a supposed liberal, be in favor of a state with enormous diversity like Sudan defining itself solely on the basis of Arab ethnicity and Islam?
Every single instance you cite that was supported by the U.S., the region in question that was struggling for autonomy had legitimate grievances against the central government. Even the previous Russian territorial grabs, in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, came after the central governemnt in Georgia revoked the autonomy of those regions. The Abkhaz and the Ossetians are distinct ethnic groups by any metric.
In the Crimea, the "prime minister" was installed after the Russians invaded. Russia guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons as a Soviet successor state.
Your desire to paint the United States as an arsenal of hypocrisy is one reasons people roll their eyes when they hear the word "liberal". The U.S. is hardly being hypocritical in this instance; it's making the same calculation between standing up for admittedly muddled principles of international law and the mucher clearer principle of assessing if we have a dog in this fight. Unlike those other states, the Russian dictatorship isn't a tin-pot one, and dealing with it effectively requires more analysis and nuance than your Glenn Greenwald impersonation allows.
It's obvious Ukraine is being violated here; it's obvious that Russia is taking a play right out the Manual for Tsars. The liberal position is a thoughtful response that balances international law against the likely indifference of most Americans to get involved. There are more liberals than your blogger-professoriate so stop with your obnoxious anti-American posturing.
Finally, the ignorance of the commenters comparing this obvious foreign invasion to the right of self-determination under the principles of the Declaration of Independence is pathetic. Read some American history.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
The U.S. likes the break-up of Arab Muslim states? How can you, as a supposed liberal, be in favor of a state with enormous diversity like Sudan defining itself solely on the basis of Arab ethnicity and Islam?
Every single instance you cite that was supported by the U.S., the region in question that was struggling for autonomy had legitimate grievances against the central government. Even the previous Russian territorial grabs, in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, came after the central governemnt in Georgia revoked the autonomy of those regions. The Abkhaz and the Ossetians are distinct ethnic groups by any metric.
In the Crimea, the "prime minister" was installed after the Russians invaded. Russia guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons as a Soviet successor state.
Your desire to paint the United States as an arsenal of hypocrisy is one reasons people roll their eyes when they hear the word "liberal". The U.S. is hardly being hypocritical in this instance; it's making the same calculation between standing up for admittedly muddled principles of international law and the mucher clearer principle of assessing if we have a dog in this fight. Unlike those other states, the Russian dictatorship isn't a tin-pot one, and dealing with it effectively requires more analysis and nuance than your Glenn Greenwald impersonation allows.
It's obvious Ukraine is being violated here; it's obvious that Russia is taking a play right out the Manual for Tsars. The liberal position is a thoughtful response that balances international law against the likely indifference of most Americans to get involved. There are more liberals than your blogger-professoriate so stop with your obnoxious anti-American posturing.
Finally, the ignorance of the commenters comparing this obvious foreign invasion to the right of self-determination under the principles of the Declaration of Independence is pathetic. Read some American history.
Filibuster abolition needs to be at the top of your list, bro.