The democratic socialist Melat Kiros unseated the long-serving US representative Diana DeGette in Colorado’s primary elections held on Tuesday, the latest in a string of high-profile victories for the party’s insurgent left.
The Associated Press reported that Kiros had defeated DeGette for the Democratic nomination in the deep-blue first congressional district centered on Denver. Kiros’s triumph came a week after New York voters unseated two Democratic congressional incumbents and replaced a third who was retiring with candidates who had campaigned on standing up to Israel amid accusations that it was carrying out a genocide in Gaza.
It’s not a pro-russian piece.
Throughout every paragraph, the author makes sideways jabs at Russia intended to make clear that it’s a war that they started, and that Ukraine is defending itself.
Their only point, which is the point that you’re contending with, is that Ukraine should still maintain the moral high ground by minimizing civilian casualties.
Literally, from the article you cited:
That doesn’t sound pro-russian…
And yet. What does the letter call out? Russian attacks on civilians? (Don’t you dare say yes because it’s obliquely referenced. That is not how it works.)
Russia isn’t spending hundreds of millions of dollars every single year to bring reasoned debate into the world. They’re doing it to accomplish what Cambridge Analytica proved without a doubt: convince 50.1% of the voters that something outrageous “sounds” true and nothing else matters.
You can continue to throw the third largest military (by budget) against the 43rd largest (in 2021, before the genocide started) and professors in Southampton can express qualms over the danger of unintentional casualties in the aggressor nation. Sure! RUN THAT BABY. We need to publish more garbage that keeps this thing going.
Yeah… as I’ve already pointed out, yes, they do call that out. And you trying to preempt me by calling that “oblique” doesn’t change that.
Literally the whole argument is “Ukraine shouldn’t tarnish its moral high ground in its defensive retaliations by indiscriminately targeting civilians they way russia does to them in the war that russia started.”
His word choice may have been hamfisted in places, but that is not what russian propaganda sounds like.
And they’re not doing that to post opinion pieces in The Guardian, either. They’re funding troll farms where people make disingenuous arguments like what you’re doing. Literally the shit you’re saying is exactly how that stuff sounds.
Sometimes it’s even so convoluted that I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re claiming “Minimize civilian casualties” is a pro-russian statement, specifically to shame Ukraine-supporters into saying “Nah, fuck those civilians” just so that russia has something to point to and say “See, I told you they’re evil aggressors!” and tarnish that moral high ground that the author discussed.
I certainly don’t think the kremlin would give a fuck if their disinfo gets more russian civilians killed, if they think it will gain them more leverage over negotiations or worldwide public opinion.
At best - okay, granting a ludicrous amount of good intent - at best that’s a delusional position from someone who hasn’t been near weapons fire in decades if ever. What does our illustrious professor think WAR is? Huuh! Good gawd, y’all.
I never said I agree with his position in its entirety. I even called it hamfisted in places. I think the three opposing opinions in the other piece I linked were much better.
But that doesn’t change the fact that the original was not a pro-russian piece, and the guardian is not a pro-russian outlet; nor a billionaire-sponsored media outlet, to bring this discussion back to where it started before you led us down this trail of red herrings.