Common Sense PAC

WHO IS "SLEAZY, GROSS AND CYNICAL"? Matt Yglesias claims that it is “sleazy and gross” and “let[ting] cynicism poison your brain” for the hosts of @theallinpod to support @RobertKennedyJr. I’ll speak only for myself since each host has their own views. Kennedy is running an honest, hopeful and idealistic campaign. He supports free speech over censorship, civil liberties over the surveillance state, and peace instead of war. He would seal the southern border instead of making excuses for why we can’t fix it. He would end the marriage of state power and corporate greed which has captured federal regulatory agencies. He decries the trillions of dollars we wasted on Covid lockdowns and Forever Wars. He wants to rebuild the middle class and unify the country. His message is in the best tradition of the Kennedys. So why is Yglesias so bent out of shape? For one thing, Yglesias enthusiastically supports the Ukraine War, which he described this way: “this is actually a really good deal for us. Basically, NATO equipment + Ukrainian lives are being traded for Russian equipment + Russian lives, which leaves NATO coming out ahead. That's doubly true because NATO is much richer than Russia, so we win a long-term game of "everyone explode their weapons as fast as they can make them." Again, though, what makes that really true is that NATO material is killing Russian soldiers, while Russian material is killing Ukrainian soldiers. That’s a deal in our favor.” slowboring.com/p/joe-biden-i… Could any argument for Biden’s war policy better confirm Kennedy’s critique of it? Kennedy has eloquently denounced Biden’s policy for condemning the “flower of Ukraine’s youth” to an “abattoir of death” on behalf of a “geopolitical game.” Yglesias’ calculus is the one that is truly cynical and gross, but even taken on its own amoral terms, it’s incredibly foolish. Russia has a huge armaments industry which can replace the weapons it is exploding whereas those Ukrainian lives are never coming back. Moreover, it is American stockpiles that are being rapidly depleted while the Russian war machine ramps to full production. Even worse for America’s future security, Biden’s policy has cemented a Russia-China-Iran bloc that has more industrial capacity than the US. In the economic sphere, it has alienated the BRICS countries and much of the Global South. So the war is not making America safer; quite the contrary, in a rare unscripted moment, Biden himself acknowledged that it risks Armageddon. Yglesias never explains why the only acceptable candidate for “tech guys” to support is a president who is visibly deteriorating before our eyes and who has stubbornly rejected every diplomatic opportunity to end the war. I guess we’re just supposed to want four more years of living on the razor’s edge, hoping that senile belligerence doesn’t tip us into World War III. But making convincing arguments about which candidate to support is not the point of Yglesias’ piece. The point is to apply derogatory labels as a disciplinary tactic to make sure independent-minded tech people don’t step out of line. Such ham-fisted attempts to enforce party orthodoxy on the tech community could not be more at odds with the spirit of the All-In Pod. But the fact that he feels compelled to do this proves the opposite of what he wants. It proves the All-In Pod is working.

THE FAILING COUNTEROFFENSIVE AND THE PEACE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN With each passing day, it’s becoming clear that the Ukrainian counteroffensive is failing to achieve any of its originally stated objectives. Recall: the Biden administration’s bet was that the counteroffensive would roll back Russian territorial gains, cut the land bridge to Crimea, and force Russia to the negotiating table. That is almost certainly not going to happen. On the contrary, a stalemate is more likely, or even that Russia will take more territory and win the war, as Mearsheimer has predicted. What are Biden’s options now? Either escalate or admit defeat. In preparation for NATO’s Vilnius Summit, Blinken has been floating a proposal to give “Israel status” to Ukraine. This means multi-year security guarantees including weapons, ammunition and money that would continue even if Biden loses the next election. This is not what the American people signed up for. Many Americans supported the $100+ billion in appropriations for Ukraine believing it was a one-time deal to reverse Russian territorial gains. If they had been told that it was the basis for an annual appropriation in a new Forever War, they would have preferred an alternative, especially if they had known that one was available. THE PEACE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN New evidence is emerging that a peace deal was achievable at the beginning of the war. At a recent meeting with the African delegation, Putin showed the draft of an outline or preliminary agreement signed by the Ukrainian delegation at Istanbul in April 2022. It provided that Russia would pull back to pre-war lines if Ukraine would agree not to join NATO (but Ukraine could receive security guarantees from the West). This document has not been publicly released yet, but no one seriously contests that it exists. The only dispute is over what happened subsequently; Ukraine (via reporting in Reuters) contends the deal fell apart. However, the availability of a deal based on Ukrainian Neutrality is consistent with previous comments from Naftali Bennett, who said a deal was attainable but rejected by the West. Why would the West do this? Ukrainska Pravda (UP), a pro-Ukraine publication, reported in May 2022: “As soon as the Ukrainian negotiators and Abramovich/Medinsky [the Russian negotiators], following the outcome of Istanbul, had agreed on the structure of a future possible agreement in general terms, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson appeared in Kyiv almost without warning. "Johnson brought two simple messages to Kyiv. The first is that Putin is a war criminal; he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not. We can sign (an agreement) with you (Ukraine), but not with him. Anyway, he will screw everyone over", is how one of Zelenskyy's close associates summed up the essence of Johnson's visit.” pravda.com.ua/eng/articles/2… Johnson (who must have been speaking not just for himself but for the Western alliance) wanted to pressure Putin, not make peace, and promised new weapons systems if Ukraine would keep fighting. At the time of UP’s article, Ukraine appeared to be doing well, so UP portrayed Zelensky’s decision to accept Johnson’s offer as a smart gamble. Now, in hindsight, it looks like a disaster. AFGHANISTAN REDUX? I know some of you may find it hard to believe that the realities on the ground are so at odds with the mainstream media's coverage. But it’s worth recalling that the American public was assured for two decades that we were winning in Afghanistan. All of that reporting was revealed as a pack of lies when the Afghan army that we were supposedly “standing up” collapsed within a matter of weeks. At that point, the media stopped reporting on Afghanistan, just like it had stopped reporting on Iraq, instead of holding anyone accountable. Unfortunately, it looks like we're headed for a similar kind of outcome in Ukraine. The only question is when, and how long Biden will be able to perpetuate a proxy war of choice that could have easily been avoided.