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.
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.