I think this bit of the newsletter could be unpacked more:
"Namely: Paul had said at the hearing that two countries Russia has attacked, Georgia and Ukraine, “were part of Russia.” Actually, the full quote was “were part of Russia—or were part of the Soviet Union, rather.” But Crosbie left out everything after the dash—that is, the part where Rand immediately corrected himself."
I don't know what Sen. Paul was after framing things this way (since I've only read it here), but this framing does seem close to echoing a key element of Putin's vision of a Russian imperialism that expresses itself with extreme violence (whether one sees this imperialism as reactive or proactive, it is definitely currently extremely destructive) as though it's a legitimate way of understanding the war. Even if Ukraine or Georgia were part of the Soviet Union before its collapse, why should that be any kind of reason for Russia to now invade nation-states that are sovereign under international law?
And if this framing ("They were part of the Soviet Union") is being put forward by a US Senator casually without additional explanation (i.e. unless Sen. Paul was also saying "we can perspective-take for a moment this expansionist and revisionist Putin perspective and in doing so also show how misguided and destructive such a perspective is to the international community and to Russia itself" or something like that), then it is pretty surprising that an element of one of the most crude Russian-imperialistic framings is being echoed.
But maybe there's more context on Sen. Paul's statement?
In any case, I don't think the Russia instead of Soviet Union slip up is the part that is surprising here, but I also don't think (even if you allow the correction) that Sen. Paul's statement is harmless.
The context of that specific exchange was Blinken's claim that Russia had attacked Ukraine and Georgia because they are not members of NATO. Paul was saying there is another factor: those two nations were members of the Soviet Union since 1922. Paul was suggesting that if Ukraine (and Georgia) had been part of NATO, then Russia might have attacked them anyway to retain them as part of its historic sphere of influence, in which case NATO and Russia might now be embroiled in an all-out war. Finland, for example, was not part of the Soviet Union and is not part of NATO, and Putin has not attacked or threatened to attack it.
Having now watched that bit of the exchange, it doesn't look like Sen. Paul really explains what he means by his comment. So it doesn't strike me as McCarthyism lite to be dismayed that the senator interjects multiple times "They were part of Russia/Soviet Union" statements. Especially given that Putin gave a speech declaring that Ukraine is not really a nation right before his regime initiated one of the most destructive wars in decades, Sen. Paul's undeveloped statements seem like a real misstep/distortion. And since the US hearing has a global audience and Paul's statements can be used by the Putin regime to bolster its justification of the invasion (to itself and others), it seems pretty irresponsible of Sen. Paul.
Finland, by the way, is an interesting historical example to bring up, since a key reason they were not in the Soviet Union in the end was that they fought a high-casualty war against the Soviet Union when it invaded Finland in 1939. So calling up who was or wasn't part of the Soviet Union in the current context can also be a reminder of what the imperialist-expansionist predecessor to today's Russia tried to do to its neighbors.
THIS is what I pay for. Good shit.
I think this bit of the newsletter could be unpacked more:
"Namely: Paul had said at the hearing that two countries Russia has attacked, Georgia and Ukraine, “were part of Russia.” Actually, the full quote was “were part of Russia—or were part of the Soviet Union, rather.” But Crosbie left out everything after the dash—that is, the part where Rand immediately corrected himself."
I don't know what Sen. Paul was after framing things this way (since I've only read it here), but this framing does seem close to echoing a key element of Putin's vision of a Russian imperialism that expresses itself with extreme violence (whether one sees this imperialism as reactive or proactive, it is definitely currently extremely destructive) as though it's a legitimate way of understanding the war. Even if Ukraine or Georgia were part of the Soviet Union before its collapse, why should that be any kind of reason for Russia to now invade nation-states that are sovereign under international law?
And if this framing ("They were part of the Soviet Union") is being put forward by a US Senator casually without additional explanation (i.e. unless Sen. Paul was also saying "we can perspective-take for a moment this expansionist and revisionist Putin perspective and in doing so also show how misguided and destructive such a perspective is to the international community and to Russia itself" or something like that), then it is pretty surprising that an element of one of the most crude Russian-imperialistic framings is being echoed.
But maybe there's more context on Sen. Paul's statement?
In any case, I don't think the Russia instead of Soviet Union slip up is the part that is surprising here, but I also don't think (even if you allow the correction) that Sen. Paul's statement is harmless.
The context of that specific exchange was Blinken's claim that Russia had attacked Ukraine and Georgia because they are not members of NATO. Paul was saying there is another factor: those two nations were members of the Soviet Union since 1922. Paul was suggesting that if Ukraine (and Georgia) had been part of NATO, then Russia might have attacked them anyway to retain them as part of its historic sphere of influence, in which case NATO and Russia might now be embroiled in an all-out war. Finland, for example, was not part of the Soviet Union and is not part of NATO, and Putin has not attacked or threatened to attack it.
Having now watched that bit of the exchange, it doesn't look like Sen. Paul really explains what he means by his comment. So it doesn't strike me as McCarthyism lite to be dismayed that the senator interjects multiple times "They were part of Russia/Soviet Union" statements. Especially given that Putin gave a speech declaring that Ukraine is not really a nation right before his regime initiated one of the most destructive wars in decades, Sen. Paul's undeveloped statements seem like a real misstep/distortion. And since the US hearing has a global audience and Paul's statements can be used by the Putin regime to bolster its justification of the invasion (to itself and others), it seems pretty irresponsible of Sen. Paul.
Finland, by the way, is an interesting historical example to bring up, since a key reason they were not in the Soviet Union in the end was that they fought a high-casualty war against the Soviet Union when it invaded Finland in 1939. So calling up who was or wasn't part of the Soviet Union in the current context can also be a reminder of what the imperialist-expansionist predecessor to today's Russia tried to do to its neighbors.