Lytenburgh wrote:Yes, penned by the Western Free and Independent Press. But surely, even here on NSG there are a lot of people in the anti-Russian camp beholden to such Manichean approach of viewing the West as the force of Good.
I'll bite.
First, some of us ― no, Hell, a fucking
LOT of us ― opposed Reagan's efforts to back the Contras in an effort to overthrow the Sandinistas. As a matter of fact, it pretty much came to be the position of one of America's two major parties (the Democratic Party... which, now that I think of it, just happens to be
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA'S PARTY) that such efforts were wrong and ought to be halted.
In fact, not only was Reagan's Nicaraguan policy opposed by the Democrats, but in fact they actually moved to block it within the American political system. Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate enacted something called the
Boland Amendment, which effectively cut off all funding for American efforts to undermine Nicaragua's Sandinista government.
This, of course, led directly to efforts by the Reagan Administration to circumvent the law by illegal means, via the illegal sale of arms to Iran in exchange for monies that were to then be funneled to the Contras. In America, we dubbed this the
Iran-Contra Affair, and it badly damaged Ronald Reagan's political fortunes, to the point where it virtually ruined his second term as President.
So if we can pause here for a minute, we are able to see a significant difference between American efforts against Nicaragua and Russian efforts against the Ukraine: In the former case ― that is to say, the case of American intervention in Nicaragua ― there was widespread public opposition to a policy that was seen to be unjustified and unjustifiable, even to the point where the people who undertook said policy ended up suffering major political damage. In the latter case ― that is to say, Russian intervention in the Ukraine ― there appears to be only very minimal domestic opposition, and virtually no press criticism; nor does it appear likely that Putin will suffer much political blowback from his inexcusably aggressive policies.
So on the simple level of "whataboutism", any attempt to justify Russian buttfuckery in the Ukraine on the basis of similar American hijinx in Central America back in the 80s falls flat on its miserable face. Whereas (among Americans) only right-wing assholes ever really supported such criminal acts, while the majority of Americans thought them inexcusable ― a reality that in time led to the policy's failure ― apparently Russians in general don't know any better, which leads them to blindly and stupidly support unwarranted aggression on the part of their government.
That doesn't cast Russia or Russians in a very flattering light, now does it?
Ah, but that's not all. Europe opposed American efforts in Central America, just as it opposes Russian aggression in the Ukraine today. Like the Democratic Party in the 80s, they have nothing to be ashamed of on this score, and no hypocritical "gotcha" to have to explain away in opposing Russia's efforts to screw over Kiev.
Then, too, American efforts in Nicaragua never got so far over the line as to see American soldiers volunteer to fight alongside the Contras, bringing their equipment along with them as part of whatever inexplicable "leave" arrangement allowed them to go off and fight a war under someone else's banner under the cloak of plausible deniability.
Nor did America grab a chunk of Nicaraguan territory (such as, say, the
Mosquito Coast), hold a referendum there in support of annexation, and then incorporate said territory into the US. So there's still the whole "land grab" aspect of Russian intervention in the Ukraine that doesn't line up here with your analogy, leaving it embarrassingly dangling out there for everyone to see (a flaw this analogy shares with the usual "But-America-invaded-Iraq-without-justification!" whataboutist excuse, BTW).
But here's the most annoying part of the whole comparison: Ultimately, Nicaragua proved that American (or, rather, to be more precise,
REPUBLICAN lies about the nature of the Sandinistas and their government were, well, just that:
LIES. The FSLN ultimately held elections, ultimately lost one of those elections, and then eventually returned to power again
THROUGH ADDITIONAL ELECTIONS ― and none of that ended up harming American security or destabilizing Central America one single jot. IOW, the Sandinistas proved that everything American right-wingers said about them was absolute bullshit: They proved that they in fact were
NOT a threat to the region or America, that intervention against them had
NOT be justifiable, and that the Democratic alternative policy ― namely, that of leaving them alone to determine their own fate on the basis of self-determination and national sovereignty ―
WAS, in fact, the right approach.
Which is kind of embarrassing for you, Bunky ― because it suggests that your country's hysterical "OMFG Banderist Zombie 4th Reich Rising KILL IT WITH WITH FIRE KILL IT NOW!!!!!" stance is similarly overblown; indeed, it implies that you'd have been better off keeping your hands off the Ukraine and just watching from afar, rather than shoving your fingers in where they don't belong.
And, worse, it
ALSO makes both Europe and America's Democrats ― including the current Administration ―
RIGHT on this, because both can say that, just as Reagan went too far and did things he shouldn't have back in the 80s, Putin is going too far and doing things he shouldn't be doing 30 years later.
<pause>Methinks you fucked up with this argument, son ― and that this will now be the last time we hear an Occidentophobe us what happened with the Contras in the 80s as justification for what Russia is doing in the Ukraine today.
Geilinor wrote:You admit that Putin is arming the Ukrainian rebels like Reagan armed the Contra rebels?
I suspect he thinks we Americans all worship St. Ronald.
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:56 pm
