1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Is it possible that the bullet that some allege went sailing through the windscreen was a different calibre to pierce the windscreen without huge damage, and that it also lost some of its energy from piercing the windscreen and even potentially deviated down to hit the throat when it was meant for the head? 

Perhaps Evan Marshall can chime in with his expertise on this subject.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkxo9azM3xIxZouOFs_8BBKGfM_oQLFULsd


Can we legislate for any chicanery that may have taken place after JFK’s cadaver departs Parkland? 

In this scenario the bullet had to be removed pre-autopsy, since there was no round recovered from the throat,

See the work of David Lifton and Doug Horne.

1 hour ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

Those two wounds are certainly a great mystery among the many in the JFKA. Documents allege the back wound left metallic residue on the jacket (and maybe the shirt) but no metallic residue was found on the front of the shirt or the tie. Weisberg conjectured that damage was caused by a nurse cutting the shirt and tie to get the clothing off. Years ago on this forum Gerry Hemming said the back wound was a “meat shot” and was designed to be a low powered …short charge… round so the bullet would be found and tied to a rifle. With Hemming, it was hard sometimes to separate fact from fiction.

Nick, I’ve been led to believe bullets don’t fall out of bodies.  If the intent was to tie a bullet to a rifle, the plan went sideways when no bullet was found in the autopsy.

1 hour ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

If that is true,  then it might have been CE 399, or the pointed bullet that Poole and Tomlinson described or the bullet found in car in the early hours of the morning as requested by the other White House physician (not Dr Burkley). So I think the back bullet was metal, but not the neck projectile was not. If someone here had the time and ability, they could analyze the entrance point of the neck wound and  where that air bubble is located, determine if one was above or below the other, and possibly reverse engineer where that shot came from.

The neck wound was just below the trachea, just above the tie knot.

1 hour ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

 

As to it originating from the umbrella man, I have no idea but I would think it certainly originated from the right side where he was located. 

Free Louis Witt!  

Rosemary Willis corroborated Witt’’s statement that he focused on his umbrella, not JFK, as the motorcade drove by.

In the 2 hour Oliver Stone Destiny Betrayed documentary, roughly at the 26 - 31 minute mark, two crucial facts are addressed:  JFK had a wound of entrance in his throat, and a shallow wound in his back to the right of his Third Thoracic Vertebrae.

Two wounds in soft tissue, no exits, no rounds recovered in the autopsy.

What kind of weapon leaves shallow wounds in soft tissue?  Certainly not a 6.5mm Full Metal Jacket, or any other conventional firearm.

The Disturbing Story Of The Heart Attack Gun Invented By The CIA During The Cold War

https://allthatsinteresting.com/heart-attack-gun

30 years of almost unrestricted CIA activity came grinding to a halt before Senator Frank Church on Capitol Hill. After the shocking revelations of the Watergate scandal, the American public had suddenly gained an intense interest in the activities of their intelligence agencies. Unable to resist the growing disquiet any longer, Congress was forced to peer into dark corners of the Cold War — and some of them held bizarre secrets.

What they found was the stuff of paranoid thrillers and hair-raising spy fiction alike. Aside from plans to assassinate national leaders from across the globe and extensive spying on American citizens, investigators came across the heart attack gun, a macabre weapon which could cause death in minutes without leaving a trace.

This is the story of what may be one of the Central Intelligence Agency’s most chilling

Mary Embree was the researcher tasked with finding an “untraceable” poison for a range of uses, including the heart attack gun.

The roots of the heart attack gun lay in the work of one Mary Embree. Going to work for the CIA as an 18-year old high school graduate, Embree was a secretary in a division tasked with devising hidden microphones and other audio surveillance equipment, before being promoted to the Office of Technical Services. Eventually, she was ordered to find an undetectable poison. Her research led her to conclude that shellfish toxins were the ideal choice.

Unbeknownst to her, Embree had been made a part of Project MKNAOMI, a highly secretive program dedicated to crafting biological weapons for the United States’ Cold War arsenal and successor to the far more infamous Project MKULTRA. But while other MKNAOMI projects were dedicated to poisoning crops and livestock, Embree’s findings were destined to form the basis of the brass ring of black ops: killing a human being — and getting away with it.

The heart attack gun may have been intended for use on Cuban leader Fidel Castro, himself a survivor of numerous assassination attempts.

Work began in a laboratory in Fort Detrick, an Army base dedicated to biological warfare research since World War II. There, researchers under Dr. Nathan Gordon, a CIA chemist, mixed shellfish toxin with water and froze the mixture into a small pellet or dart. The finished projectile would be fired from a modified Colt M1911 pistol equipped with an electrical firing mechanism. It had an effective range of 100 meters and was virtually noiseless when fired.

When fired into a target, the frozen dart would immediately melt and release its poisonous payload into the victim’s bloodstream. Shellfish toxins, which are known to completely shut down the cardiovascular system in concentrated doses, would spread to the victim’s heart, mimicking a heart attack and causing death within minutes.

All that would be left behind was a tiny red dot where the dart entered the body, undetectable to those who didn’t know to look for it. As the target lay dying, the assassin could escape without notice.

Dr. SIdney Gottlieb, head of the CIA’s Project MKULTRA, directed Dr. Nathan Gordon to turn over the shellfish toxin stockpile to Army researchers, but was ignored.

The heart attack gun may have seemed like an outlandish idea from a spy novel, but the CIA had reason to believe it would work perfectly. After all, KGB hitman Bohdan Stashynsky had used a similar, cruder weapon with success not once, but twice, in 1957 and again in 1959. Years after leaving the CIA, Embree claimed that the modified pistol, known as a “nondiscernible microbionoculator,” had been tested on animals and prisoners to great effect.

Among other things, the Church Committee investigated possible American involvement in the deaths or attempted killings of leaders like Patrice Lumumba of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Along with a number of other MKNAOMI creations, the heart attack gun might never have been detected if not for a growing awareness of illegal activities carried out by the United States intelligence community. When a New York Times article revealed a series of reports detailing illegal operations dubbed “the family jewels,” the Senate convened a select committee chaired by Idaho Senator Frank Church to investigate the depth of criminal intelligence actions in 1975.

The Church Committee soon became aware that former President Richard Nixon had shut down MKNAOMI in 1970. They also learned that Dr. Gordon, against the orders of Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, the elusive head of Project MKULTRA, had secreted 5.9 grams of shellfish toxin — nearly a third of all shellfish toxin ever produced at the time — and vials of toxin derived from cobra venom in a Washington, D.C. laboratory. The committee also investigated allegedly sanctioned assassination plans targeting leaders such as Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, and Rafael Trujillo, dictator of the Dominican Republic.

William Colby was critical of the Church Committee, arguing that it had “placed American intelligence in danger.”

In a highly publicized hearing, CIA Director William Colby himself was called to testify before the committee. He brought with him the heart attack gun itself, allowing committee members to handle the weapon as they queried him about its development, nature, and use. What became of the gun after its single public viewing is unknown.

Furthermore, whether the weapon was ever used is also unknown. The toxin may have been put to further use as a suicide pill for American operatives or as a powerful sedative and was set aside for one operation, but as Colby claimed, “we are aware that that operation was not in fact completed.”

Partially due to the Church Committee’s findings, in 1976 President Gerald Ford signed an executive order forbidding any employee of the government to “engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.” If ever there was an era of the heart attack gun, it came to a close when that order was signed, bringing to an end the CIA’s most notoriously secretive and violent years.

4 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Oh my Lord - Cliff, quoting Business Insider. I thought you knew what propaganda was. I’m disappointed. The story has been walked back for sure. So which is true? The earlier one of course, which was widely distributed elsewhere but not here.

How can you be sure the Gov’t of Israel and the Hoover Institute weren’t protecting their relationship with Putin in March of 2022?

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

What kind of a weapon leaves a shallow wound in soft tissue?

The question that’s never N - E - V - E - R asked.

Jim’s right, let’s get back to Stone and the JFKA.

At around the 30 minute mark of the 2 hr Destiny Betrayed the following root fact is discussed:  JFK had a shallow wound between his T3 and the upper margin of his scapula.

That’s soft tissue, folks.

What kind of a weapon leaves a shallow wound in soft tissue?

This BBC account doesn’t indicate a deal was imminent.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-60679175

Israel's Bennett plays peacemaker in Ukraine-Russia war

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

I’m not sure what you mean. The breach was the unconstitutional removal and replacement of the elected government in February 2014. The RF had nothing to do with that. Otherwise you are attributing things to me which I have never said.

This topic has some relevancy in that during the months leading up to the start of the SMO, international disagreements over national security and sovereignty echoed those of concern during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Recognizing the points of similarity actually assists in clarifying what is going on, a task which has some urgency. The stage is currently being set for a two-front world war which could go hot over the next months or year ahead.

They’ve rescinded the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction?

China’s economy is heavily dependent on the American consumer.  They’re not going to blow up that relationship over Putin.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

I think you’ve succeeded in ruining the thread. Its hardly a new thing for you. Realistically, nobody should reply to you. You always take it here. 
 

To anyone else, I apologise for my part in this. 

You cast ad hominem as readily as you breathe.

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Oh my Lord - Cliff, quoting Business Insider. I thought you knew what propaganda was. I’m disappointed.

So because Bennett was quoted in Business Insider it means he lied?

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

The story has been walked back for sure. So which is true? The earlier one of course, which was widely distributed elsewhere but not here. When it finally broke through a year late it engendered damage control. Come on Cliff. Israel is still not on board and still as far as I know not sending weapons to Ukraine. 

And yet Bennett now disputes the notion there was a solid deal on the table.

But he lied because he was covered by Business Insider?

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I noticed as well that none of you want to tackle the Pentagon leaks.

The one that claims the war is going poorly for Ukraine, they’re taking 7 - 1 casualties?

The source of those leaks is a hard right nut.  

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

To the Mods:

This has gotten back to the whole pie in the face routine over Ukraine.

I don't know if that was Caddy's intent.  Maybe, maybe not. 

But that is what it has become.

It has nothing to do with the JFK case and it simply demeans this site when this kind of thing happens. For the simple reason that the issue has become so  polarized by the MSM that there is no reasonable debate possible.

I would move to lock the thread or just eliminate it.

So many custard pies are flying that it reminds me of Soupy Sales.

 

Jim’s getting his Russo-centric cookies baked.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Quote me verbatim. Don’t make things up. I have already pointed out false equivalence from you in this conversation, don’t make me do it again. 🙂 

You can spare us your Russo-centric takes any time.  Your accusation of “ethnic cleansing” is based on nothing.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

You’re missing a trick here. I am not the one pretending go be something that I am not. I am not a virtue signaller crying about one conflict zone and not another.

Yes, with every post you signal virtue.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

Thats you dude. Interestingly the one you care about is almost exclusively white caucasian. Sorry to point that out. Its staggering hypocrisy at the least from you, of course at worst its....

You don’t appear to care about the Palestinians.  How long have you hated Arabs?

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

That’s your mindless opinion. Nothing I say will change it or improve your mental state. It illustrates your programming and the reason why you are not effective in the world. 

Started a world-wide musical genre centered on protest — hardcore punk rock.

What have *you* ever done?

How many anti-war demonstrations have you attended?

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

I am against all genocide. Me pointing out ‘ethnic cleansing’ going on in the Donbas obviously falls on deaf ears to you.

Not at all.  Your assertion of the right of the Donbas Russian enclaves to defend themselves clashes with your denunciation of other Eastern Europeans exercising the same right.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

There is a pattern here with you. A lot if wars around the globe fall on deaf ears with you. You have your special ones that are well propagated and where US interests are at stake. Funny that. 🙂 

You have turned a blind eye to Sudan.  How long have you hated black people?

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

We’re back to the nuances of the geopolitical situation that don’t occur to you in your cocoon. How on earth can there be any withdrawal without the fate of the Ukranians of Russian heritage decided?

More apologetics for genocide.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

Seems like the USA might have quite a sizable bill for that pipeline sabotage, too. 
 

From memory Yemen has been happening since 2014 (I could be wrong). I guess you have a queuing system and you’ll get around to it.

You’ve turned a blind eye to the Uyghurs.  How long have you hated Asians?

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

Maybe they’ll be dead and you can pine about it retrospectively from your temple of faux-caring and virtue signalling mindlessness. If your defence you have been programmed to do it.  
 

 

 

You’ve turned a blind eye to drug cartels in Latin America.  How long have you hated Hispanics?

Btw, how many anti-war demonstrations have you marched in?

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

Neither Chris nor I suggested that it’s a breeze for foreigners to fight in Ukraine. I don’t know where you got that idea.

You both called me a coward for not fighting in Ukraine.  Your rhetoric has the full scent of desperation.

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

The contrary is the case. Both of us have referred to the Ukraine conflict as a shambles or words to that effect.

But justified, according to you both.

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

Regarding your last substantial reply to me, I seem to have mistakenly interpreted your saying  “Point taken” as agreement. My apparent misinterpretation seems to have arisen from your deploring both Russian and US imperialism at another point.

The states of the former Soviet Bloc wanted to join NATO — that’s not US imperialism.

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

Apropos the rest of your reply, I don’t see any point in rebutting it line by line, because I might as well be banging my head off a stone wall. Despite your commendable anti-war activism in your youth, you seem to have a blind spot regarding the Ukraine situation.*

Yet another fig leaf to cover Putin’s genocidal mania.

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

As Chris suggested, the reason for that is quite clear. Like a lot of your compatriots (and mine), you seem unwilling or unable to problematise your Americocentric world view. The fact that you cite western propaganda regarding the Bucha incident as gospel is just one symptom of this cyclopean world view.

You’re accusing Luke Mogelson of acting as a western propagandist.  Maybe you should do some research on him before you smear.

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

Have you never heard the saying, “The first casualty of war is the truth”? Do you know that Ukraine’s president Zelensky is an actor – you know, a make-believe professional?

I’ve asked Sandy repeatedly to identify any flaws he sees in Prof Mearsheimer’s reasoning and he has failed to do so. I haven’t seen you do so either. You’ve both thereby confirmed the validity of Mearsheimer’s thesis.

Mearsheimer’s thesis posits the right of Great Powers to dictate the alliances of smaller countries.  No such right exists.

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

I would also refer you to Jeff Carter’s and Paul Brancato’s very informative posts, and I would suggest that you refrain from such wildly inaccurate and inflammatory accusations as referring to your opponents as apologists for genocide.

I’ve rebutted Paul’s assertion that the US torpedoed a peace deal.

Stop apologizing for Putin's invasion if you don’t want to get called out for it.

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

 

*The anti-war activism, past or present, of a minority, or even a majority, of Americans is irrelevant as far as Mr Putin is concerned. It’s not those people he has to worry about. It’s the aforementioned neocon nobheads – whom Chris Hedges called “the pimps of war”.

All he has to do is withdraw.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

This is showing your juvenile mind. I have already said I am against war.

You’re not against Putin’s genocide.  You offer rationale after rationale.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

seek detente, rapprochement, peace. If you’re struggling for the difference between you and I.

Everyone’s for peace.  You think you’re special?  Why aren’t you calling for Putin to withdraw?  How many anti-war protests have you marched in?

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

I support neither the war in Ukraine or Yemen. I don’t take sides. I can see when we have protagonists on both sides, and nuances. You, on the other hand, wilfully choose to take a side in Ukraine and turn a blind eye in Yemen, perhaps because your propaganda channel isn’t covering it (likely) or because you just don’t give a damn about brown people. The public can decide. 

There are many inequalities and atrocities in the world.  Because one doesn’t address them all at once it means they’ve turned a blind eye?

Talk about juvenile!

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Hi Cliff, in response to my asking this:

You answered this:

I am not at all comprehending your answer. First, who is Barb Junkkarinen and does she have medical credentials.

She did.  Barb is no longer with us. 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

Second, are you interpreting that as a suggestion that the air pocket was caused by a doctor at Parkland tapping on the outside of JFK's throat lightly with a pencil or similar object?

No, it was caused by the round that entered the throat.

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

What does the quote from Barb Junkkarinen have to do with--how does that refute that the throat wound could have been a front entrance wound from a shot fired from the front?

Because the damage is inconsistent with a shot that blows out the back of the head.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

That stopped Conor Kennedy did it? And its the cane that really stopped you?! Who are you trying to con here? If you were younger you’d be claiming it was your eye sight or asthma or something. What a joke. 

Is it asthma keeping you from going to Yemen?

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

 I believe in detente, rapprochement, and peace. Thats why you won’t catch me cheerleading conflicts and giving consent to arms manufacturers to use our taxes. 

We catch you making excuses for Putin’s genocide.

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Feb 22, 2022 Putin invades. March 4th Zelensky and Putin meet in Russia mediated by former Israeli PM Naftali Bennett after Putin promises not to kill Zelensky. Both sides agree to major concessions, but ultimately negotiations fail. When asked if western powers blocked the mediation Bennett said “basically yes. They blocked it, and I thought they were wrong”.

Former Israeli prime minister rebuts claim, boosted by Russia, that the US blocked a Ukraine peace agreement: 'It's unsure there was any deal to be made'

https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-bennett-walks-back-claim-west-blocked-ukraine-russia-peace-deal-2023-2?op=1

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

That literally makes no sense. When are you packing your bags and heading off to Ukraine to help? I know the answer. You’re taking the courageous route of sending them mental support. 

They only take people with a military background.

Besides, since I’m 68 and walk with a cane I’d only get in the way.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Its exactly what is happening and you can’t see it and have zero outrage. Its because MSM his directed your anger at a bogey man in the Orwellian sense. Your emotions can be summoned up and directed, just by headlines. 

So when will you be going to Yemen?

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

I am one of the few here who has been against the conflict from day one. I have expressed so many times that I desire, detente, rapprochement and a lasting peace. 

You’re an apologist for genocide.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Of course its impossible for you to comprehend that there could be any position other than cheerleading escalation for team USA / NATO or cheerleading team Russia.  

I co-formed and managed this band in 1980.  I’ve been protesting American regime change policies since before you were born, Sonny.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

Why would I think that a person conditioned to look at everything in the good and evil paradigm could possibly imagine a third position?! 

More projection.

Cotter and Barnard think it’s a breeze for foreigners to fight in Ukraine...

More great reporting by one of best journalists on the scene:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/01/02/trapped-in-the-trenches-in-ukraine

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The ghosts of Bucha call bullish-t.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/collecting-bodies-in-bucha

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Well, just a bit peculiar that none of you guys seems to give a toss about Yemen, or other conflicts going on in this timescale.

That subject hasn’t come up.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

I am sick of the faux compassion and virtue signalling.

Then quit doing that, by all means.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

As John said, if you guys really cared, you’d pack your bags and get out there and help fight, or encourage your sons to do so.

Why aren’t you in Yemen fighting on the side of the Houthi?

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

It’s stinking hypocrisy and cowardice.

Projection much?

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

You all turn a blind eye to record profits from fossil fuel providers, from defence contractors who are raping the tax payer and revelling in every extra second that this conflict continues in Ukraine.

Putin could end it very quickly by withdrawing.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

They are laughing at the poor and middle classes as they play out the same trick over and over again, with success

You’re not mad at them.

That’s a different conversation, your stab at self-righteous piety not withstanding.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

You’re mad at people pointing out the corruption. You’re a propagandists dream. 
 

 

Said the pro-genocide propagandist.

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Not a single one of these hypocrites has said a word about Yemen or anywhere else. Maybe their compassion is solely along racial lines?! 🤷‍♂️ 

Don’t hurt yourself bending over backwards to call us racists.  Since you only advocate for ethnic Russian self-determination the hypocrisy is all yours.

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

In your first point you acknowledge the validity of Prof Mearsheimer’s argument, with which I agree, that the Ukraine shambles is the result of US aggression.

I made no such argument.  Putin is responsible for this war of aggression.

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

I agree with your second point, as would Mearsheimer. Mearsheimer has argued that a fair and rational solution to the conflictual situation in eastern Europe would have been a buffer zone of independent states between the west and Russia. But of course, US aggression precluded that option.

Eastern European hostility toward Russia precluded that option.  

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

There is no reliable evidence that Putin targets civilians. That kind of baseless claim is of a piece with the Manichean rhetoric which has been used to “justify” US aggression for much of the past century.

The ghosts of Bucha call bullish-t.

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Regarding Finland, there’s nothing Putin could do about Finland joining NATO.

He could have NOT invaded Ukraine.  The only reason Finland abandoned its long held neutrality was out of the existential fear of Russian expansion.

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

As Mearsheimer also said, the Ukraine shambles wouldn’t have happened under a US president of JFK’s stature, which is clear from JFK’s American University speech of June 1963 in which he spoke about the need to end the Cold War, not win it.

Ah yes, the Great Powers always know what’s best for smaller countries. <gag>

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

JFK was thus at least 60 years ahead of his time in advocating a multipolar world order instead of a unipolar US dominated world. As James Douglass has cogently elucidated, the heretical nature of that advocacy in the eyes of the US national security state marked JFK out for assassination.

That’s another discussion.

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

It’s disingenuous to use the term “defense” in referring to US foreign policy, because the core tenet of that policy is global dominance – in other words, aggression, not defence.

Point taken.  It’s a generic term for a nation’s military capability.  The Russian presence in Ukraine is hardly “defensive” but we can still speak of the Donbass Russians preferring a Russian defense umbrella.

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Hence, as Prof Mearsheimer and other US foreign policy experts explained (and any gobdaw with two functioning brain cells could clearly see), NATO expansion in eastern Europe was an existential threat to Russia.

And Russia was an existential threat to the States of the former Soviet Bloc.  What a chauvinistic conceit that NATO and Russia thought they could dictate alliances to these newly freed States.

Russia had a bad rep in Eastern Europe, after all.

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

In that context, Russia had no choice but to defend itself against further such expansion while there was still time to do so.

The last time NATO expanded was 2009.  Finland in NATO is a far graver concern than Ukraine — there’s a highly efficient Finnish military 60 miles over the border from the only supply road up to the Russian nuke sites in Murmansk, in the Arctic Circle.

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Mischaracterising Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine as aggression rather than defence is convenient for US neocon nobheads, but it’s disastrous for Ukraine because it underestimates Russian determination to stay the course there.

You do understand Putin targets civilians, don’t you?

For centuries Russia kept Finland from forming a Western Alliance.  Putin screwed the pooch.