Which takes away from the author's point how? They are indicating that this is not a "Putin problem" (a point much of "the blob" seems to miss as well).
There is an undertone to the essay which makes clear that the author believes Russia has no legitimate interests in Ukraine, that the West did nothing wrong to instigate the present outcome, etc. In her casual use of the word "genocidal" as if Putin plans to send every last Ukrainian civilian to the gas chamber. All of the usual neocon Blob delusions. You have to start from that premise to believe, as she seems to, that brainwashing is the only explanation as to why the Russia populace supports the war.
The writer gives no insight into why the Russian people support its war in Ukraine. According to her, any popular support in Russia stems from a sense of victimhood and the propagandist interpretation of Russian history. Yet, it's a fact that Russia has been invaded from the West multiple times over the last few centuries. You don't have to love Putin to accept the fact that the George H.R. Bush Administration promised Gorbachev that NATO would not move 'one inch' further East after Gorbachev acquiesced (1991) to a newly unIfied Germany remaining a member. Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin vehemently opposed NATO expansion. It was no surprise that Putin drew the line at Ukraine. To understand the Ukraine-Russian war, we Americans should ask ourselves what the US would do if a Russian or Chinese military alliance set up camp in Mexico? And remember how the US responded to the Cuban Missile Crisis? This war could have been avoided. It wasn't Russia that dropped its support for the 2015 Minsk2 Accord compromises. Let's be truthful. Global leadership today is bankrupt.
All societies have myths of varying levels of historical and pre-historical accuracy to explain how they got to where they are. This is true of hunter-gatherer bands and tribes as well as nation state wannabes and flailing failing empires. Problems arise when myths collide.
Why? The article as written is making a point about what is driving the war, so that we can better understand what will and won't stop it. That seems like important information, and does not seem any less important for "failing" to perform the same analysis on Ukraine and the US.
The Blob's propaganda in the West is no less pervasive or effective, and McGlynn is clearly part of the effort.
Which takes away from the author's point how? They are indicating that this is not a "Putin problem" (a point much of "the blob" seems to miss as well).
There is an undertone to the essay which makes clear that the author believes Russia has no legitimate interests in Ukraine, that the West did nothing wrong to instigate the present outcome, etc. In her casual use of the word "genocidal" as if Putin plans to send every last Ukrainian civilian to the gas chamber. All of the usual neocon Blob delusions. You have to start from that premise to believe, as she seems to, that brainwashing is the only explanation as to why the Russia populace supports the war.
The writer gives no insight into why the Russian people support its war in Ukraine. According to her, any popular support in Russia stems from a sense of victimhood and the propagandist interpretation of Russian history. Yet, it's a fact that Russia has been invaded from the West multiple times over the last few centuries. You don't have to love Putin to accept the fact that the George H.R. Bush Administration promised Gorbachev that NATO would not move 'one inch' further East after Gorbachev acquiesced (1991) to a newly unIfied Germany remaining a member. Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin vehemently opposed NATO expansion. It was no surprise that Putin drew the line at Ukraine. To understand the Ukraine-Russian war, we Americans should ask ourselves what the US would do if a Russian or Chinese military alliance set up camp in Mexico? And remember how the US responded to the Cuban Missile Crisis? This war could have been avoided. It wasn't Russia that dropped its support for the 2015 Minsk2 Accord compromises. Let's be truthful. Global leadership today is bankrupt.
Was it intended irony that so much of this represents the current cultural and political reality of the US and its leftward tilt?
All societies have myths of varying levels of historical and pre-historical accuracy to explain how they got to where they are. This is true of hunter-gatherer bands and tribes as well as nation state wannabes and flailing failing empires. Problems arise when myths collide.
Now do Ukraine and then the US.
Why? The article as written is making a point about what is driving the war, so that we can better understand what will and won't stop it. That seems like important information, and does not seem any less important for "failing" to perform the same analysis on Ukraine and the US.