‘Don’t burn your bridges’: Shoebridge warns Ukrainian community over military aid
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/don-t-burn-your-bridges-shoebridge-warns-ukrainian-community-over-military-aid-20261014-p615kk.htmlOpen linkView original on aussie.zone
30 replies
Bro doubled down lmao.
Finally greens will no longer be capped at 13%. With this bold new direction they may finally achieve 12%
yeah, better to vote ONP /s
Shoebridbe is 100% wrong on this, we should double our military aid, reciprocity is a thing. We fuck over another democracy why would anyone come to our aid in a time of need ?
As a Greens voter I'm disappointed in this and several of their policies but broadly supportive of many of their other polices. The other side of that coin is I am disappointed with nearly all the polices of the other parties.
The only path to sanity lies through the Greens and moving the Overton Window to allow the rise of the truly radical politicians we need, every other political choice is deliberately choosing failure.
What a despicable thing to say. The Greens should have elected Hanson-Young.
Edit: Just saw this in the comments of the SMH article: "Sounds like something Trump/Vance would say threateningly to Zelensky"
I know it is existing and outdated Green's policy that Shoebridge is defending but they need to take it back to the party and bring themselves into line with the european greens. The world has changed and the Greens need to catch up. A real leader like Bob Hawke didn't just accept apartheid in South Africa. He used his position in the union movement to fight it. That is what great leaders do. They take a moral stance, not make excuses.
You burned it first mate. You told them you were leaving their families still in Ukraine to die
They and he said nothing of the sort.
Their position on it has long been held and we should have moved to providing medical, social and economical aid across the board ages ago.
Nope. If anything we should have taken that invasion as the indication that we're likely on our own when the chips are down, and we better be ready.
By,
In twenty years when we look back on this time there will be many moments identified like the invasion of Ukraine where Australians should have recognised the threats posed by these events to themselves as well as those initially suffering from these breaches. The Greens wanting to hold back military support is no longer an admirable moral stance, it is a threat to the Australias ongoing viability. Without friends we'll be done here as soon as a major power decides its in their interests, and without a stable and happy world our own quality of life will suffer, as it already is starting to.
Slapping down tyranny in all its forms means Australians need a fairly big stick that we can independently use, and sometimes we need to lend that stick to others.
The Greens Party need to appreciate the world they're living in is not the world we want to live in. Yet.
Its policies like these that actually deals Greens put of being a viable party of government because they're only ever going to get close by preferences, and few who are voting for Labor, Liberal, Nationals, or One Nation are going to look at this policy position and think it makes sense.
Yes. Their position on it has long been held, it’s always been the same, and the truth is it’s the position we’ll all have to take eventually.
And yes, it’s one we should have adopted years ago, instead of jumping into conflicts which have nothing to do with our peace or stability.
That said, I personally think that we should be helping Ukraine in both regards. We did recognise those threats, and acted on them.
The Greens stance on it is as admirable as it’s always been. That the rest of the world can’t hold the same standard isn’t on them.
That it becomes a singular voting point for Australians when the majors are doing so much worse (including supporting a President who backs Ukraines enemy, since we want to attack the Greens) is equally as disappointing as them being branded as supporters of Russia.
So the key here is, they have a blanket rule for all conflict. But we know, they know, not all war is the same. Having the blunt rule, which I'm led to believe it is, of no military aid is akin to the blunt tool of interest rates for the reserve bank.
In both cases they are the right choice in certain circumstances, but we're talking about the same policy prescription being applied to a myriad of circumstances. In both cases its too wide a range for such a narrow policy answer to be applied effectively and in both cases ends up doing more harm than the other available policy options.
Thats why its not admirable. A blunt tool thoughtlessly applied across a myriad of different situations, no matter its noble origins, ends up being used forbthe wrong curcumstances thereby hurting those it purpotedly protects. The RBA hurts the economy in unnecessary ways, the Greens hurt their Party prospects, and in government would hurt the range of maneuver for national security.
All this said, i hope they keep having a shit fight about it. Every column dedicated to this Greens internecine war is a blow in the attention economy to the rabid culture warriors and their wears, and another monent in the spotlight for the Greens. And it is a debate of aome substance, instead of some trans deadcat sponsored and propelled on by fossil fuel interests.
Absolutely they and we know not all wars are the same. I guess that’s why there’s debate within their party, along with people like myself who aren’t going to withdraw support because I don’t align with the position as well.
And why they’ve previously supported arming Ukraine.
As for ethical wars, you’d think those as keen to arm Ukraine would be as keen for us to arm Palestine as well, but I guess it’s not like that.
What isn’t open for debate is the line of supporting Russia, which is a load of garbage. Labor offer Russia more support than the Greens do through their backing of Trump USA and their tech businesses including Musk, which is more than enough to sterilise any argument the Greens are backing Russia.
I suspect you've been listening/reading to Osman Faruqi this week. As I have. This is a point he made towards the end of the Lamestream podcast this week.
I couldn't disagree more about the comparison. Even before October 7 I'd have never supported arming Palestinians. And it comes back to what we've been discussing about not all war being the same. These 'wars' for want of a better word have some similarities but are also very different.
Ukraine have an ability to fight that Palestinians don't. Even without support from the 'West', Ukraine was in a stronger position towards their aggressor than Palestinians have been towards theirs in probably decades, if ever. If Australia, or a wide coalition were to start supplying weapons and related aid to Palestinians in these last decades it would have led to even more genocidal Israeli actions. The balance of power is greatly in the Israeli favour.
It would also have given the Israelis an added amount of moral ambiguity. Better able to legitimately claim they're fighting a significant armed resistance, instead of murdering families in the streets and homes they live.
It was a fairly thoughtless comparison of Faruqi to draw, and tells me he's arguing more against their political opponents than thinking about what gets Palestinians out of the terror and persecution they constantly live under.
It was a final quick comment to end on that sounded snappy, but his detractors will likely be hopping up and down about it like they do whenever they think they've got a killer line.
The tankie thing is grasping at straws. But anybody making claims like that these days should be careful, a supporter of theirs may hold very similar views to a tankie. Once you strip out the communist bunting and garlands from their purported belief structure whats left seems awfully similar to other absolutist heirarchys. But I'll stop there because I really haven't cared to look into tankies more than briefly.
Putting a policy in a vacuum is the worst possible way govern, and I hope this forever demonstrates why the Greens should never be allowed near the levers of power. Their brand of pacifism is identical to Trump's: willfully ignorant of the downstream effects and motivated by anything but the material conditions of the victims.
This is transparently guilt by association and nothing more. Our sovereign decision to support Ukraine has nothing to do with appeasing America. By your own logic we should be doing the opposite if it was relevant.
Bull shit. It’s been their position since forever and despite it being somewhat incompatible on a world full of arsehole leaders and arseholes that vote for them, it’s the mature one to take.
My arse. What’s wilfully ignorant is a Labor government walking headlong into a fascist coalition because they’re too fucking spineless to stand up to it. They are hoping it sorts itself, which it won’t.
Fuck outta here with this shit as well. It’s been their position since forever; no arms supply. You’re right about the decision being outside our alliance with the US…they support Russia, and the current government supports the US. Until that changes, I’d shut up about who truly supports Ukraine.
Edit: by my logic, we should supply arms to Ukraine. I’ve stated, on a few occasions now, that I don’t support the position. That said I’m not going to let major party centrists crap on the Greens when the current government is doing far worse, in a number of areas. Including backing Russia by proxy through backing the US.
Sending meds is clearly very important, but they can't defend themselves with used syringes and bandaids.
Sooner or later, we’re all going to have to mature enough to adopt the position.
It might be naive for today and I support arming Ukraine as well, but any claims it’s because they are tankies or support Russia fully or by proxy because of it are bullshit.
And they’re still miles in front of their cowardly, betraying Zionist colleagues.
He said no aid at all without UN approval, which is never coming because Russia's got a security council veto.
This position leaves Ukraine to die. If what he says he wants comes to pass, they won't get the medical aid either
Which is still the position they’ve held since forever, he has stood behind the medical and economic aid position, and not one held by the government who is providing the aid. While backing Ukraines enemy by proxy.
Nor is it something I agree with, but the position he and the Greens are supporting Russia, who they’ve offered no aid at all to, is dishonest.
Even more so, when the major parties are held to a far less bar, for openly supporting a nation who now does back the Russians. If we want to hold the Greens to account by proxy for supporting Russia, we can hold Labor to account for backing Trump USA. Who does support Russia.
Be honest. Many of their policies are good ones, or at least solid ones. This is one of the few TRULY bad ones, and it is - fairly - probably going to be a deal breaker for the Ukrainian community he's asking for trust from.
He burned a bridge. Whatever his reasons for doing so, he chose to burn it...and he's blaming other people for the ashes.
Grow up, David. Own up.
I was. They’ve held this policy since forever, it’s a mature one to hold and it’s tge direction we should have gone years ago, well before that conflict.
I also said I don’t fully agree with it. What more do you want?
And why is it that Labor can align with the US, who do support Russia against Ukraine, and that not be burning bridges? It should be, but I guess not like that ay?
Again, it’s a pretty mature position to take, it’s the world not grown up enough for it, not Shoebridge. Forced by politics and arse holes maybe, but not immature by any stretch.
What I want is for you to stop defending it with "but everyone else is worse, so this is fine"
Both things can be true. Labor can be fucking up massively AND Shoebridge can still have made a serious error and shoved his own foot down his throat.
This is bad policy regardless of what other parties are doing.
I said I didn’t support it.
It doesn’t wash though, when the government is as bad or worse. Especially with the allies they’re keeping.
It also doesn’t alter a couple of overarching premises…that adopting an approach of peaceful support, one we should have adopted years ago, is the mature option and that the Greens aren’t advocating support for Russia.
If this is a reason not to vote Green over Labor’s support for the Epstein Coalition (god that sounds cooker but it’s unfortunately too real) I don’t know what to say. That’s without adding not all Greens are on board, let alone something that would finally be decided in a Green or shared government. And without all the other dogshit Labor serve up to us in behalf of whichever going lobby of the day that doesn’t work for us.
In some ways this is just a gotcha question about well-meaning but decades-old greens policy that has brewed into a storm. But Shoebridge's inability to handle it, not read the room, and come across as extremely snobbish and combative is a death sentence to his leadership imo.
A few days ago the Greens were claiming their biggest rise in membership on record after David's election. They have weathered worse than this current run of 'news'. Hopefully they can turn up the pressure on Labor which is what Labor, Murdoch, Gina et al are actually afraid of.
Man, i have such a more positive spin on this, like they've taken over national politics for a good two weeks. They've won the week twice in a row. Not only that, but they've blocked the media from bollocking on about One Nation as much as they've been. Sure, the Jordan steel-john business is serious, but the Greens can come out of this moment fine, and maybe stronger if they deal with it in a way that is noticeably better than other parties have.
I think having the disagreements has been a good thing for the Greens and the public to see the Greens functioning in a more 'human' way.
Just shove a shoe into Shoebridge's ass and burn that Bridge with his idea of "peace". Or deport him to Russia.
Deport you to the usa since you spell arse like a mcmurican