The Dec. 28 editorial criticizing Lauren Boebert’s behavior during Zelensky’s visit to Congress sidesteps bigger questions.
One ignored question is the premise for U.S. involvement. The naïve believe this conflict is about democracy and Ukrainians “fighting for their most basic right.” More realistically, it’s about power, profit and global domination. It’s an extension of militaristic, imperialistic U.S. policy bent on global hegemony. Seeking to remain the world’s only superpower, the U.S. cannot tolerate an empowered, competitive Russia.
Claims that Ukraine is fighting for democracy become outright farcical as Zelensky’s regime bans opposition political parties, arrests an opposition leader and seizes control of media.
In short, the editorial reduced a complex issue into instructions on how to cheer for the correct team – classic wartime jingoism.
Rather than critique Boebert’s decorum, why not educate readers about U.S. involvement, including its support for the 2014 Maidan coup, ousting Ukraine’s democratically elected leader? Why not educate readers about Ukraine/Russia relations including the Minsk agreement, ethnic tensions and civil war raging since the aforementioned coup?
I’m not defending Boebert's actions or policies; I'm questioning The Durango Herald and The Journal’s. Publishers can choose to inform the public and suggest parameters for civil discourse. Readers would benefit from facts and history about this conflict. Instead, editors chose virtue signaling and lectures about manners. We need substantive discourse, not public shaming of outliers.
Perhaps more egregious, the editorial implies that when powerful people appear in a forum designed for debate, we should unquestioningly stand and applaud.
Ryan Dubas
Durango
