Caller MAD About MR Crew's Ukraine Coverage

A listener who identifies themselves as an anti-imperialist got into a very heated debate with the MR crew over their coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Watch the Majority Report live Monday–Friday at 12 p.m. EST on YouTube OR listen via daily podcast at http://www.Majority.FM

https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm

#SamSeder #EmmaVigeland #MajorityReport #politics #news #progressive #leftist #democrats #liberal

SUPPORT the show by becoming a member: http://www.jointhemajorityreport.com/

Download TMR's FREE app: http://www.majorityapp.com

TMR MERCH: http://www.shop.majorityreportradio.com

CHECK OUT MORE from the MR crew:
Matt Binder DOOMED https://www.youtube.com/MattBinder
Brandon Sutton DISCOURSE https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse
Emma Vigeland ESVN https://www.youtube.com/ESVNShow
Matt Lech LEFT RECKONING https://www.youtube.com/LeftReckoning

OTHER LINKS:
Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport
Facebook: http://facebook.com/MajorityReport
Twitter: http://twitter.com/MajorityFM
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/majorityreport.fm/

Come from a 323 area code. Who's this? Where do you come from? Also in the middle of work. But you know okay. Yeah, that's better. Thanks. Yeah no I've been listening for quite a while. I wanted to like perhaps everything I'm saying with that because you know a big part of my political education came from listening to Michael Brooks. And just the way he was able to talk about the stuff going on internationally and everything else was really something that I connected with. And the past in my opinion is the past year with what's going on in Ukraine and everything has been very disappointing just in the way that I've been hearing it talked about. And especially just from people like yourselves who I've come to understand that like your guys' job is much more in the political Realm and understanding what's going on politically. And in the realm of Politics as opposed to you know a more International lens. Which is what I know Michael Brooks was amazing at. You know and just from the aspect of NATO's involvement the recent leaks that have come out regarding you know the CIA had funded the Ukrainian Nazis the Azov Battalion it just felt like a lot of the discourse around it was from my view from a very racist lens. Because in my understanding of things had that same situation gone down and anywhere outside of Europe then it would have been the discourse of we've been down this road before. We know what it's like to have to sit there and fund small right-wing far right-wing sections of a government that seems small and then 20 years later we have a full-on God knows what. But that's what happens when you put billions and billions of dollars into the hands of Nazis. So wait a second so let me let me see if I understand the way you're characterizing what's going on in Ukraine. For you, the top line of the Ukrainian conflict is the U.S. starts funding a small band of Nazis in a country. Do you feel like you're missing a step or two with that timeline? What I'm getting at. No, you still don't know. you still don't know. Give me an example of when the United States funded a country's Army let's say when they were invaded by another country. Kuwait I don't know that we gave them funding. But we came in with the military. I mean I wouldn't be surprised if we gave them some money as well. I would imagine we also gave them money but we brought in troops. What I'm trying to get at is the discourse, see I'm not saying that Russia is right in its Invasion. I'm Anti-Imperialist and it's a war of sovereignty. But what I'm seeing is the discourse around it. I'm only criticizing the way that you presented the conflict. You led with I mean I want to say you led with the tail but not even. Was the president before he was not democratically elected and has it not been shown that that Revolution was highly funded by a CIA operation to overthrow that democratically elected president because he was a Russian Ally and was going to go against American hegemony. So I think without understanding that context the answer is I. I think that it's highly disputed that if you're saying that the but for in the Revolution was a function of U.S of U.S money. I think you're wrong. I don't think it was the sole reason but I think that U.S. hegemony has gotten very good at pushing things in its direction in the way it wants to go. Also in some ways too I mean also really bad. well I mean I would say that it's all bad when you're giving money.