I'm trying to learn more about the Russia/Ukraine conflict. In the articles that I find that seem to be critical of Ukraine, there are a few that are right wing that seem to have similar viewpoints as what I've read on here or in the more leftist articles.
For example this piece from National Interest, or this from the CATO institute.
There are others that aren't flagged as right wing that are critical, but it's just got me wondering, why would right wing politicians/publications perceive these things similarly to how some communists would when the ideologies of both are so extremely opposite?
Disclaimer: I'm not pro-ukraine at all, but in my search for info that's not super pro-Ukraine propaganda, this is the stuff that comes up for me
There are several reasons that left and right opinion meet on this issue in particular:
Right wing pundits see social conservatism (anti-LGBT etc.) in post-USSR Russia and see kindred spirits
A specific faction of neocons in the administration and war machine see China as far more of a threat than Russia, and want peace or even an alliance with Russia to target China and break up the nascent Eurasian bloc - this includes rabid defense ghouls like John Bolton and cold-blooded analysts like (rest in piss) Henry Kissenger
Pro-America realists who see that the US Empire is obviously taking a severe beating over this - and while the heartland can stay afloat by cannibalizing its European allies, the whole situation is badly weakening the NATO bloc as a whole - such as John Mearsheimer
Pure and simple contrarianism: the Democrats support Ukraine, so the Republicans must oppose it
Inside the Empire there are always plenty of people who are evil, but do actually understand how the world works. When the stars align, they can make perfectly cogent, accurate arguments in favor of the same things we want, but as soon as the subject changes they switch straight back to lies, disinformation and controlled "misunderstanding".
Thanks for this; I think having a understanding of "realism" helps to frame it a bit, which I didn't have prior. One of the articles I linked is from an agency led by Kissinger I think, so that framework is the main influence there. I haven't kept up with anything about China, Russia, or Ukraine so I think that lends to my confusion not being able to connect all of those dots.
Would China be more of a threat due to its economic growth?
Yes, their manufacturing growth is a threat; they're helping third world countries build infrastructure and reduce dependence on Western finance; their rising living standards endanger the narrative of capitalist superiority; but worst of all is that they don't let Western capital - especially financial and tech capital - have unfettered access to their population.
The wet dream of every Wall Street and Silicon Valley ghoul is to crack China open, balkanize it, neoliberalize it and drain all the blood out of its people like they did to Russia in the 90s. Imagine what 1.8 billion additional people would do to Facebook's ad revenue or Blackrock's rental income.