You say that it was a political move by Russia to make the US and Ukraine look like Nazis.
What? No, I didn’t. I said that it’s common to see that kind of bombastic title for a bill used as a political tool - voting against something that says “puppies are good” is not the same thing as saying “puppies bad”, but it’s easy to interpret it that way. As in this thread, the decision to vote no is being implied to be US (and to a lesser extent by abstention, european) support for nazism. As you yourself point out, it plays directly into that narrative to vote against the resolution.
it can’t be the case that the US vote is a response to the war in Ukraine
Even if the US could see into the future and knew that Russia was going to invade
I have never said anything about this being linked to the war in Ukraine. I do not know why you keep bringing up the war in Ukraine. I agree with you that this has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine which, apart from the annexation of Crimea six four* years before (and that even at the time the US barely cared about), had not happened yet. Are you replying to the correct person?
The US had no particular reason to be contrary to every resolution Russia put forward at that time.
You’re absolutely right, the US had always been very level headed towards the Russian Republic and it’s precursor states, right up until 2022. Prior to that there has never been any major ideological disagreement between the two power blocs, and certainly never any attempts to do something absurd like “portray Russia as the ‘specter of communism’” in popular US media. No indeed, the US has a long and robust history of rational behavior towards the russophone world.
many, many broken links in your explanation
I’m so confused. My explanation is “The US hates Russia so much it would willingly lend itself to the implication of being a nazi state just to spite them”. I truly don’t see how that’s a controversial explanation.
You’re absolutely right, the US had always been very level headed towards the Russian Republic and it’s precursor states, right up until 2022. Prior to that there has never been any major ideological disagreement between the two power blocs, and certainly never any attempts to do something absurd like “portray Russia as the ‘specter of communism’” in popular US media. No indeed, the US has a long and robust history of rational behavior towards the russophone world.
In 2005?? Who was saying any of that? That’s complete nonsense.
In 2005? It’s not unsurprising that there would be US xenophobia to a bill jointly authored by Cuba and Russia. At the time, Russia had spent the prior two years blaming the US for inciting the color revolutions, particularly in Georgia and Ukraine. There were diplomatic overtures between Bush and Putin in an attempt to introduce stability, perhaps the most famous example being Russia not using it’s veto for the invasion of Iraq (a complicated issue, yes), but they were already tenuous at that time and fell apart to the end of Bush’s term in office.
There are other aspects to that comment that are also salient, I welcome similar commentary on them.
And those little spats are supposed to be enough for the US to vote against condemning Nazism out of spite? That’s nonsense. Unless the US was already relatively predisposed to vote against it.
Feel free to address any of the other aspects in that comment though, I’m not sure why you’ve dropped them.
I understand the impulse to trivialize them, but in case you’re unaware of the utterly irrational behavior of the US towards cuba here is a decent, if oft-accused-of-western-bias summary. In particular relations with Cuba were at a low point during the Bush presidency, a marked (and characteristically amoral) shift in the US approach from even the prior year. The spats with Russia as well are not exactly trivial.
Further though, I invite you to read the full text - the 2005 (and later) resolutions call for a reaffirmation of article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which (in part) reads :
[All states] Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred
which with regards to the US would be an outright violation of the 1st amendment, and likely is the reason for the 63 abstentions on the vote for the 2005 resolution (an aside, I do think it’s pretty ‘chicken-shit’ for of most of Europe not to actually commit to voting no on this resolution, instead choosing to hide behind the US’s skirts. I do hope that behavior doesn’t portend the next two decades of european geopoli-- oh look at that what a shock). Given that, it’s a fatalistic conclusion that the US would vote no, even aside from the petty geopolitical reasons they would have for it.
What other parts would you like me to address?
If you’re comfortable considering the broken links adequately settled I happily will as well, I just wanted to clarify that I am in no way opposed to criticism on those points.
What? No, I didn’t. I said that it’s common to see that kind of bombastic title for a bill used as a political tool - voting against something that says “puppies are good” is not the same thing as saying “puppies bad”, but it’s easy to interpret it that way. As in this thread, the decision to vote no is being implied to be US (and to a lesser extent by abstention, european) support for nazism. As you yourself point out, it plays directly into that narrative to vote against the resolution.
I have never said anything about this being linked to the war in Ukraine. I do not know why you keep bringing up the war in Ukraine. I agree with you that this has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine which, apart from the annexation of Crimea
sixfour* years before (and that even at the time the US barely cared about), had not happened yet. Are you replying to the correct person?You’re absolutely right, the US had always been very level headed towards the Russian Republic and it’s precursor states, right up until 2022. Prior to that there has never been any major ideological disagreement between the two power blocs, and certainly never any attempts to do something absurd like “portray Russia as the ‘specter of communism’” in popular US media. No indeed, the US has a long and robust history of rational behavior towards the russophone world.
I’m so confused. My explanation is “The US hates Russia so much it would willingly lend itself to the implication of being a nazi state just to spite them”. I truly don’t see how that’s a controversial explanation.
In 2005?? Who was saying any of that? That’s complete nonsense.
In 2005? It’s not unsurprising that there would be US xenophobia to a bill jointly authored by Cuba and Russia. At the time, Russia had spent the prior two years blaming the US for inciting the color revolutions, particularly in Georgia and Ukraine. There were diplomatic overtures between Bush and Putin in an attempt to introduce stability, perhaps the most famous example being Russia not using it’s veto for the invasion of Iraq (a complicated issue, yes), but they were already tenuous at that time and fell apart to the end of Bush’s term in office.
There are other aspects to that comment that are also salient, I welcome similar commentary on them.
And those little spats are supposed to be enough for the US to vote against condemning Nazism out of spite? That’s nonsense. Unless the US was already relatively predisposed to vote against it.
What other parts would you like me to address?
I understand the impulse to trivialize them, but in case you’re unaware of the utterly irrational behavior of the US towards cuba here is a decent, if oft-accused-of-western-bias summary. In particular relations with Cuba were at a low point during the Bush presidency, a marked (and characteristically amoral) shift in the US approach from even the prior year. The spats with Russia as well are not exactly trivial.
Further though, I invite you to read the full text - the 2005 (and later) resolutions call for a reaffirmation of article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which (in part) reads :
which with regards to the US would be an outright violation of the 1st amendment, and likely is the reason for the 63 abstentions on the vote for the 2005 resolution (an aside, I do think it’s pretty ‘chicken-shit’ for of most of Europe not to actually commit to voting no on this resolution, instead choosing to hide behind the US’s skirts. I do hope that behavior doesn’t portend the next two decades of european geopoli-- oh look at that what a shock). Given that, it’s a fatalistic conclusion that the US would vote no, even aside from the petty geopolitical reasons they would have for it.
If you’re comfortable considering the broken links adequately settled I happily will as well, I just wanted to clarify that I am in no way opposed to criticism on those points.