Jackson Hinkle on Ukraine War

Jackson Hinkle / Ukraine War / 2025-01-20

Position

“Russia is denazifying Ukraine. NATO is the aggressor. This is the beginning of the end of American empire. The multipolar world is being born in Ukraine, and BRICS will replace the dollar as the global reserve currency. Russia is on the right side of history.”

This is a synthesized characterization of this commentator's publicly known stance, not a direct quote from a specific source.

Position from 2025-01-20

nato-provocationMed

NATO expansion provoked Russia's invasion of Ukraine

Their wording: “NATO's eastward expansion and interference in Ukraine's 2014 revolution caused the conflict”

Hinkle holds this from explicit alignment with Russian strategic doctrine - NATO is framed as the aggressor, with Russia responding defensively to encirclement

Also held by (9)

Aaron Bastani — Bastani holds this from a left anti-imperialist framework that treats Western military alliances as inherently destabilizing. Unlike the realist right which frames this as great power politics, Bastani frames NATO expansion as an expression of Western imperialism and militarism. The provocation is both strategic folly and moral failure Brian Berletic — Berletic holds this as background context but focuses more on the ongoing military reality than the historical causation Noam Chomsky — Chomsky frames NATO expansion as the structural cause of the conflict while explicitly condemning Russia's criminal response - this distinguishes him from commentators like Ritter and Hinkle who don't condemn the invasion. The provocation analysis is causal, not justificatory Jimmy Dore — Dore holds the NATO provocation premise in its strongest form - not as a contributing factor but as the primary cause, with the Mexico analogy as his go-to rhetorical device. This is central to his argument that the US bears moral responsibility for the war John Mearsheimer — Mearsheimer holds this from offensive realist theory - great powers do not tolerate hostile military alliances on their borders, and the US would react identically if the roles were reversed (Monroe Doctrine analogy)Alexander Mercouris — Mercouris views NATO expansion as the root cause - not a justification for invasion, in his framing, but the strategic trigger that made conflict inevitable once Russian red lines were crossed.Neema Parvini — Parvini approaches this through structural realism filtered through elite theory - he's not defending Russia but arguing that the Western managerial class ignored obvious geopolitical constraints because acknowledging them would undermine liberal internationalism's foundational premises. The provocation was predictable; the refusal to predict it was ideological Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — RFK treats the NATO expansion broken promise as the original sin of the conflict - a violation of diplomatic agreements that triggered a predictable response, making the US morally culpable for the consequences Scott Ritter — Ritter holds this as part of his broader pattern of challenging Western narratives about military conflicts - same skepticism applied to Iraq WMD, now applied to the Western framing of the Ukraine war

Incompatible with (1)

“Ukraine has the sovereign right to choose its own alliances including NATO membership”Med

held by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Joe Biden, Stephen Colbert, Destiny (Steven Bonnell), Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley, Ana Kasparian, Jimmy Kimmel, Konstantin Kisin, Piers Morgan, John Oliver, Jordan Peterson, Marco Rubio, Bernie Sanders, Richard Spencer, Jon Stewart, Cenk Uygur

multipolar-determinismLow

Historical determinism favors multipolarity and the decline of US hegemony

Their wording: “The Ukraine war is a milestone in the inevitable transition from US unipolarity to a multipolar world order led by BRICS”

Hinkle holds this from the same explicit alignment with Russian strategic doctrine (Duginism) as his Iran position - identical framework applied to a different conflict. Cross-conflict consistency: identical premise, identical ideological basis, perfectly consistent

Also held by (4)

Brian Berletic — Berletic holds that US imperial overreach is self-defeating - fighting on multiple fronts simultaneously exhausts the empire faster Jackson Hinkle — Hinkle holds this from explicit alignment with Russian strategic doctrine (Duginism) repackaged for American social media audiences Alexander Mercouris — Mercouris frames Western misreporting as a symptom of a broader inability to accept the transition from American unipolarity to a multipolar world in which Russia and China are peer competitors.Scott Ritter — Ritter holds this from the same pro-Russian framework as his Iran position - the multipolar transition narrative provides the structural inevitability claim. Cross-conflict consistency: identical premise, same trajectory from legitimate skepticism to adversary alignment

anti-hegemonyLow

US foreign military intervention is an extension of American imperialism and hegemonic maintenance

Their wording: “This is the beginning of the end of American empire”

Hinkle explicitly frames the war as about American hegemony/empire - consistent with his Iran and Venezuela positions

Also held by (16)

Aaron Bastani — Bastani holds this from socialist anti-imperialist framework informed by his Iranian heritage - he sees the strikes as continuous with decades of Western intervention in the region, from the 1953 coup to the present Brian Berletic — Berletic frames all three conflicts as facets of a single US hegemonic project, not isolated events Tucker Carlson — Carlson's anti-hegemony framing here is selective: he opposes US hegemonic structures (NATO, foreign bases) but supports US territorial expansion into Greenland, revealing that the objection is to multilateral obligation, not to American power projection Noam Chomsky — REUSED from Iran position (chomsky-iran-imperialism). Chomsky holds this from the SAME systematic critique of US imperial power - in Iran he applied it to US nuclear hypocrisy and the 1953 coup, here he applies it to NATO expansion as an expression of US hegemonic extension into Russia's security sphere. The analytical framework is identical: US power projection creates the conditions for conflict, then the US frames itself as the defender of order it disrupted Stephen Colbert — Colbert uses the Iceland/Greenland confusion to frame the entire enterprise as imperial overreach dressed up in strategic language - the incompetence of the execution reveals the nature of the project Glenn Greenwald — Greenwald frames the intervention as proof that the permanent foreign policy establishment controls US military policy regardless of which party holds power Jackson Hinkle — Hinkle's position is rooted in categorical opposition to US military intervention anywhere, particularly against governments that resist US hegemony Jimmy Kimmel — The 'real housewife' metaphor frames the Greenland threat as the kind of petty territorial aggression that international norms exist to prevent, made dangerous only by the power asymmetry John Mearsheimer — Mearsheimer describes the operation as naked imperial hegemony - the US asserting direct control over a weaker state's resources Alexander Mercouris — Mercouris holds that American hegemonic interventions impose costs on the global economy, and that the Hormuz disruption proves the US can no longer conduct military operations without destabilizing the system it claims to protect.John Oliver — Oliver frames the power asymmetry as the core issue - the US pressuring Denmark is not a negotiation between equals but a superpower leveraging its dominance, which is the behavior the rules-based order was designed to prevent Candace Owens — Owens frames the intervention as serving a globalist/Zionist agenda rather than American national interests Hasan Piker — Piker highlights the geopolitical timing - the strike came the day after a Chinese diplomatic visit, framing it as a direct challenge to Chinese influence in Latin America Scott Ritter — Ritter frames the operation as imperial hegemonic overreach establishing a new doctrine of US hemispheric control Richard Spencer — Spencer is unusual among holders of this premise: he does not oppose American hegemony in principle but opposes this specific application of it, arguing that hegemonic resources are being spent on someone else's priorities rather than maintaining American dominance.Cenk Uygur — Uygur frames the intervention as bipartisan establishment foreign policy that persists regardless of which party or candidate is in power

Incompatible with (3)

proxy-war-ukraineLow

The Ukraine conflict is a US proxy war against Russia using Ukrainian lives

Their wording: “The US is using Ukraine as a disposable proxy to fight Russia and preserve American hegemony”

Hinkle frames Ukrainian resistance as US manipulation rather than sovereign choice, consistent with his anti-hegemonic worldview

Also held by (9)

Brian Berletic — Berletic treats the proxy war framing as factual starting point, not a contested claim - his analysis proceeds from this as established Jimmy Dore — Dore treats the proxy war framing as self-evident rather than arguable. For him this is not a contested claim but an obvious fact that the media refuses to acknowledge because they're complicit in the war machine Tulsi Gabbard — Gabbard holds this from her broader anti-interventionist framework - she sees the same pattern of Washington using other nations' conflicts as arenas for great power competition, with the local population bearing the human cost Glenn Greenwald — Greenwald frames the Ukraine conflict as a US proxy war against Russia rather than a Ukrainian sovereignty struggle, fitting his broader critique that US foreign policy serves institutional interests rather than stated humanitarian objectives Alexander Mercouris — Mercouris holds that the Western framing of Ukraine as an independent actor obscures the reality that the war is driven by NATO's confrontation with Russia, with Ukraine bearing the cost.Neema Parvini — Parvini's version is institutional proxy rather than military proxy - Ukraine serves as an instrument for Western institutional interests rather than being supported for its own sake Hasan Piker — Piker holds this from the same democratic socialist anti-imperialist framework as his Iran position - the US instrumentalizes smaller nations for hegemonic objectives Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — RFK frames the Ukraine war through the same anti-establishment lens he applies to domestic issues - institutional actors (CIA, neocons, defense contractors) pursued their own agendas using Ukraine as an instrument, not for Ukraine's benefit but for their institutional interests Scott Ritter — Ritter frames the conflict through the lens of Western aggression rather than Russian invasion, consistent with his pattern of adopting adversary narratives after mainstream exclusion

Incompatible with (2)