Jeff Carter

The “Rumour and Speculation” section of the Warren Report features a “speculation” regarding “metal file boxes filled with the names of Castro sympathizers” (WR p 666). The attached footnote references the Walthers testimony conducted by Liebeler which you cite, as well as a DPD inventory. Liebeler - who had made the Paine “who is responsible” phone call disappear through attributing the call to a different date (Nov 23 instead of Nov 22) allowing Michael Paine to firmly reject that he had participated in any such call on the Saturday - begins the relevant Walther testimony with an odd introduction in light of the existing contemporaneous DPD Investigation Report, authored by Walthers, which unambiguously describes “a set of metal file cabinets containing records that appeared to be names and activities of Cuban sympathizers.” Liebeler instead says: Mr. LIEBELER. I have been advised that some story has developed that at some point that when you went out there you found seven file cabinets full of cards that had the names on them of pro-Castro sympathizers or something of that kind, but you don't remember seeing any of them? Liebeler should have referred to Walthers' Investigation Report, as it is not only an official police document, but it is also clearly the source of the “speculation”. Instead, Liebeler refers to a vague “story” which he received second-hand (“been advised”). Liebeler also, in successive questions, adds a specific number of file cabinets - “seven” - a number which does not appear in the Walthers Investigation Report - and which is later used by the authors of the Commission Finding attached to the “Speculation” (WR p666) to attribute to Ruth Paine the metal file boxes described by Walthers and claim “no lists of names of Castro sympathizers were found among these effects” (i.e. Ruth Paine’s file boxes). Walthers is never asked why he put in writing a description of “metal file cabinets containing records that appeared to be names and activities of Cuban sympathizers.” It is not at all clear if the “cabinets” he refers are the same as Ruth Paine’s cabinets. That inference is entirely dependent on Liebeler. The Warren Report’s “Speculation” features its own misdirection : Speculation - After Oswald’s arrest, the police found in his room seven metal file boxes filled with the names of Castro sympathizers. What speculation do they refer? Walthers' original report clearly reports the metal file boxes “filled with the names of Castro sympathizers” were found at Ruth Paine’s house, not the North Beckley rooming house. And the specific number “seven” appears again - “seven metal file boxes”. That number does not appear in the original Walther report.

You are arguing that Jim DiEugenio/the new film engaged in some form of misconduct for not sharing or referring to an item in the Warren Report’s “Rumour and Speculation” section. When did the “Rumour and Speculation section of the WR become the Final Word? Two things are notable in Walther’s testimony: 1) Walther is not directly asked why the sentence about the file cabinets with records of Cuban sympathizers appeared in his report. Liebeler offers a speculation but it is left at that. 2) Liebeler introduces and repeats the number seven ( “seven file cabinets”), but the number seven does not appear in Walther’s original report - Walther describes “a set of metal filing cabinets”. One could say that Liebeler is engaged in conflating the metal cabinets found in the garage with the metal cabinets belonging to Ruth Paine which appear in the DPD evidence list. (Liebeler was the WC staff lawyer who made the Paine’s “we know who’s responsible” phone call go away by attributing a different date).

Greg - as pertains what many believe to be a yet unsolved or unacknowledged mystery, the application of deductive reasoning is not, as you seem to suggest, unseemly or out-of-bounds. The question of “who were the Paines?” Is really just a sub-section of the overarching important question “who was Oswald?”. In general terms there have been three answers to the latter question: 1) Oswald was a psychologically disturbed loner 2) Oswald was an agent for Communist interests. 3) Oswald had some form of affiliation with US intelligence. Notable in this case is that answer #1 is not just the Official Solution, but its premise is not supported by the assembled evidence. Answer #2 is supported by evidence, but only on a surface or “face value” level. Answer #3 relies largely on circumstantial evidence, at best, but actually fully fits with the record and answers many of the outstanding questions. What you are doing here is sharply criticizing individuals for following the deductive reasoning approach related to answer #3, and you do so by applying an insistence on surface and “face value”. As well, you grossly overstate the application of the logic I.e. the Paines are somehow being “incriminated” (and therefore their presence or influence must be considered as a matter of “guilt” or “innocence”). But the presence of index cards has nothing to do with illegality, and acting as an informant for the state has never been considered criminal. The presence or non-presence of such cards is certainly open to clarification, but as a data point it was entirely consistent with the acknowledged activity of Michael Paine chatting up students on politics. A coincidence? - maybe so, but, deductively, it can also be considered alongside the “coincidence” that Ruth Paine’s discovery of specific evidence in the weeks following the assassination seemed to miraculously bolster evidentiary holes in the developing investigation. (Or her “note-taking” in Nicaragua, coincident with later revealed state-sponsored programs of assembling “dissident lists”). This is what I mean by “protesting too much”. Nevertheless, on the surface or “face value” level, the Paines transported and placed in Ruth’s garage a box full of “Freedom for Cuba” pamphlets and a rolled blanket which trained police officers later described as holding the distinct shape of a rifle.

“Walthers and the officers also found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records, and index cards with names of pro-Castro sympathizers. All the evidence found was put into the trunk of Walthers car and taken back to the Sheriff’s Office.” Eric Tagg - Brush With History (1998) My mistake - I somehow thought Tagg’s book was published in the 1960s, based on interviews with Walthers. Regardless, the information (or rumour) about the index cards with names of Cuban sympathizers was a) a specific detail and b) did exist to the extent that it had to be dealt with in Walther’s WC appearance. And Walther’s questioner - Liebeler - was the same WC lawyer who made the 1PM 11/22/63 Paine phone call disappear by attributing an incorrect date. The pertinent point, as Paul B suggests, is where did this information/rumour come from? If these index cards did exist, then most would understand them as tied to Michael Paine, who was in fact engaging seemingly random persons in Dallas area in political dialogue which seemed in part eliciting ideological sympathies. That’s quite a coincidence even if a rumour.

In proper context, Nicaragua was a geopolitical flashpoint in the 1980s much as Cuba had been a quarter century earlier. The Reagan administration placed high priority on both destabilizing the Sandinista government and orchestrating an information and narrative management campaign around its Latin America policies. So anyone involved with identifying and taking notes on Americans sympathetic to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua would come under suspicion of serving a purpose related to such priorities. This observation gains further traction when it fits a familial pattern established twenty years earlier in the Cuban context. So the insistence that there is “nothing to see here”, or that suspicion merely reflects a defective logic, doesn’t hold up.

Is it in Shakespeare that a person is observed - “he doth protest too much”? This run of Ruth Paine threads brings that to mind. Michael Paine conceded to the Warren Commission that on multiple occasions he engaged students in political conversations, and attended diverse political meetings to gauge “the pulse” of local political activity. Walther’s WC testimony as cited here is not/was not the final word on the contents of the filing cabinets, as he maintained something else in the book published 1967. Inconsistent testimony over the years and ambiguous statements are a feature of this case. So the accusations of “malicious smears” appear limited and partisan. Ruth Paine’s habit of taking “notes” while engaging with American Sandinista supporters in Nicaragua in the 1980s seems indicative of some sort of clandestine activity which also may - or may not - relate to some kind of informant status. It is certainly enough to create a deductive surmise, which is appropriate because similar personages appear constantly in the orbits of Lee and Marina after their move to Texas.

I personally do not think the Paines were involved in an assassination plot. However, there is enough innuendo to comfortably surmise their interactions with the Oswalds were not motivated solely by their individual interests. Their sudden appearance into the narrative just as deMohrenschildt was wrapping up his involvements is very curious. deMohrenschildt certainly had the trappings of being some kind of “handler” of Oswald (and has suffered exactly the same amount of suspicion as the Paines). Ruth Paine’s immediate and persistent engagement with Marina sticks out precisely because of this previous attention, which, according to deMohrenschildt, was encouraged by a person with Intelligence ties. In my opinion, there was some degree of improvised subterfuge going on with the Imperial Reflex camera, of which Ruth Paine was a witting participant, and this required the sort of follow-up in subsequent investigations which did not, in fact, ever happen. Michael Paine’s claim in 1993 that Oswald showed him a Backyard Photo in April 1963 is also very sketchy and does not have an innocent purpose. To surmise that the Paines have not been forthright regarding their relationship with the Oswalds, and that they knowingly participated in the post-assassination framing of Lee Oswald, is not at all unwarranted.

The Luby’s engagement occurred more than once. Paine told the FBI he was in the habit of eating lunch on Sundays at Luby’s, and would engage in “intellectual conversations or debates concerning world affairs with various SMU students …” (CD 1245, p. 196) Michael Paine also attended right-wing meetings, such as a John Birch Society meet the night following Walker’s United States Day rally which Oswald attended (Oct 23-24, 1963). In turn the following night (Friday Oct 25), Paine took Oswald to the ACLU meeting. Paine: “I have been to a number of rightist meetings and seminars in Texas.” (WCH II, p 389) “I gathered he (Oswald) was doing more or less the same thing ... I didn’t inquire how he spent his free time but I supposed he was going around to right wing groups ... familiarizing himself for whatever his purposes were as I was.” (WCH II, p. 403) What was Michael Paine’s “purpose” in attending disparate political meetings and engaging students in political conversation?

My remarks were in context of this thread's assertion: "It was the ACLU which the Secret Service was afraid of, in the motive to cut Marina off from Ruth Paine. (Not the CIA.)"

I’m not sure the ACLU angle is as cut-and-dried as portrayed here. Michael Paine took Oswald to a Dallas ACLU meeting Oct 25/63. According to Paine, Oswald “didn’t know about” the organization and Paine had to explain “its purpose” on both sides of the 35 minute drive to and from the meeting (WCHII, p407). In the days following, Oswald begins what appears as an “op” directed at the ACLU, similar to what he did with the FPCC: Oswald writes to The Worker, describing his introduction to the ACLU local chapter and requesting advice on future interaction; he opens a new Dallas post office box listing both FPCC and ACLU on the postal form; he mails a membership form to the ACLU and requests notification on how to “contact ACLU groups in my area” even as he is now aware of monthly meetings through Michael Paine. On Saturday Nov 24, while in custody, Oswald told Dallas Bar Association president H. Louis Nichols that he was an ACLU member and requested an ACLU lawyer if Abt was not available. On Nov 27 a reporter from the Dallas Times Herald broke the story that Oswald had listed ACLU on the postal form, which revelation caused the ACLU in general to assume damage control (see CD 205,p704-708). Wonder what they thought about the fact that provocateur Oswald was at times staying at the home of long-time local ACLU Treasurer Ruth Paine. The ACLU was never going to involve itself with this case, and there was no reason for the Secret Service to even be concerned about it. Despite what may have been said to Marguerite Oswald, neither of the Paines stepped forward to assist with Oswald’s civil liberties in the aftermath of his arrest, and in fact appeared on local television shortly after his death to advance not just his guilt for the assassination but to also assert what would later form the official profile - that he was a little man trying to be something bigger than he was.

Not sure about that timing, as the Krystinik-Paine conversation re: Oswald was triggered by the first reports mentioning the TSBD, not Oswald’s arrest. So that is more in keeping with 1 PM. Even so, there is a causal logic to the 1PM phone call, cued by Krystinik. What stands out in this matter then, is the official effort expended to make the call go away altogether. The misattributed date allows the call to be dismissed at the Warren Commission as a sort of rumour. Then years later an unconvincing story involving a phone company employee is pushed as a cover. What is being covered up? - that the Paines held such discussion at 1 PM? or the presence of a wiretap on the household? I presume the latter due to the FBI’s language on the confidential source, and also presume the tap was directed at Marina Oswald ( it has been established that wiretaps were placed at her living quarters in aftermath of assassination). An acknowledgment of a wiretap on the Paine home would likely damage the story of kindly Quaker charity and the association with the below-the-radar lone nut. Just a point of interest: reading between the lines of Michael Paine’s WC testimony regarding the introduction of Oswald-Krystinik at the ACLU meeting - this seems to have been arranged by Michael Paine, as he told Krystinik all about Oswald’s leftwing bonafides ahead of time. Paine recounts the meet-up of the two from the position of observer, noting the reactions of both men. Primarily interested in how Oswald reacts to Krystinik, or how Krystinik reacts to Oswald? The testimony is intriguing. (Michael Paine WCH IX )

Barger introduced the false date (Nov 23 rather than 22) into the record which allowed Michael Paine to categorically deny the phone call took place at all to the Warren Commission. Then he reappears in 1976 in a newspaper article written by Hugh Aynesworth, not an objective reporter on this case, to seemingly run some damage control after the FBI materials were revealed to the public. The varying stories - Barger , the telephone company employee, the Paine’s - don’t really line up. I am fairly convinced that a wiretap on the Paine home caught a conversation at 1PM, a time confirmed by the Paines, and the official investigators thought it best be buried - for obvious reasons looking at the minor furore it created when revealed in 1976.

There will not be a “no-fly zone” or similar direct NATO involvement in Ukraine. It’s not a matter of spineless politicians, it is rather the cold reality that a direct conflict will spiral rapidly up the escalation ladder into a full nuclear exchange. The leadership at the Pentagon has made this reality very clear and they will not countenance such a move. It is distressing that Forum members appear not aware of this, or are comfortable advocating the ultimate disaster for the human race at this time. If it makes you feel better - what has become clear is that NATO has assembled a very impressive observation network capable of geo-location across the region, and resulting real-time information is continuously available to Ukraine’s Armed forces. So NATO is providing weaponry and more importantly advising their proxies with extremely accurate information on where to shoot. This is in support of the war plan: goad Russia’s armed forces into Ukraine and create a quagmire. This plan will not change due to revelations of atrocities real or imagined. Turning Ukraine into an active protracted war-zone was and is itself an atrocity. The political diplomatic off-ramp was the UNSC endorsed Minsk process but the Ukraine government refused to abide by it and its NATO partners refused to use their considerable leverage to insist on it. What has also become clear now, however, is that there was no political solution because the Maidan events effectively triggered a civil war in Ukraine and the last eight years were used to prepare for the full realization of this war. Some form of partition will be the likely result if and when the fighting is stopped.

Fantastic job all round - the four-parter is simply excellently produced and engrossing. At the same time it is complementary to the 2-hour film: I.e. they are two versions of the story rather than merely a longer film with a condensed alternate. The integration of the narrative threads - the assassination mystery, JFK’s troubled relationship with the national security bureaucracy, and development of real alternative foreign policy - across the four episodes rather than separating them into episodic topics serves to involve the viewer with the tricky process of formulating the “big picture”. The use of the two narrators aids this process. Technically, the sharp utilization of graphics succeeds in keeping the narrative threads on track, and Richardson’s lighting of the interview subjects is top-shelf work which subtly enhances the viewing experience. The focus on the ARRB will not only be informative for many, it keeps the emphasis on the documented factual record and the hard leg-work required to establish such. Jim - there is a book to be released, but will there also be a physical Blu-Ray/DVD and will this include more materials (commentary etc)?

Under more enlightened leadership - less beholden to military-industrial concerns or neo-conservative ideology - none of these events would be occurring. The primary sources re: NATO expansion and 2014 Ukraine coup clearly demonstrate this.

re: Ukraine Biden’s “war aims” were realized on the first weekend when Germany shelved Nordstream 2 and SWIFT cutoffs were announced. A Cold War style bifurcation between Europe and Russia (or more broadly NATO/Russia) has been achieved. The intent, presumably, is to create economic pressures which will result in a Putin regime-change, but also to stall the westward momentum of China’s Belt-Road Initiative. However, despite reference to the “international community”, those imposing economic sanctions directed at Russia have been limited to NATO plus Australia/New Zealand and Japan. Also, there has been no explanation of why the EU went further and cut off Russia’s Central bank, let alone is it clear on whose initiative. Not only did this amount to arriving at the top of the escalation ladder, on the first weekend, it was also engaged amidst an outpouring of emotion, which is not the best fit for leadership during a serious crisis. Furthermore, the fallout of this extreme step is unpredictable and may have far-reaching consequences for the structure of the world economy moving forward, consequences which may prove extremely negative for Europe/USA (i.e. reserve currency). Militarily, Russia has essentially controlled the battle-space since the first week - which is why there could be a seemingly stalled convoy which remains intact. Ukraine’s army is essentially surrounded in the east and in several major cities. As seen previously in Syria, the defence forces have embedded themselves into urban environments, and are generating atrocity stories for the west’s media in hopes of stoking direct NATO involvement i.e. with a “No Fly Zone”. Like Syria, such a zone will not happen - in part because it would involve direct combat between nuclear powers which could spiral unaccountably into a world disaster, but also because it is likely NATO would fail in such attempt as the Russians have superior missile technology and EW capabilities. This situation certainly highlights the fact that the detente concepts and policies of FDR and JFK are far far removed from the strategies currently employed. As can be seen in this thread, direct repudiations of what were once understood as sensible and peaceful ways forward, as articulated in JFK’s American University speech, have taken hold via sharp hateful expressions directed at the same identified adversaries as in the previous Cold War. A massive step backwards, no?

Fiona Hill belongs to the national security clique who well understood fourteen years ago the implications of Burns’ memorandum but accepted a move forward with provocations regardless. As she concedes in the Politico interview: “Back then (2008) I was a national intelligence officer, and the National Intelligence Council was analyzing what Russia was likely to do in response to the NATO Open Door declaration. One of our assessments was that there was a real, genuine risk of some kind of preemptive Russian military action…” She admits the basic incompetence of the National Intelligence Council and herself - “we should have seriously addressed how we were going to deal with this potential outcome and our relations with Russia…we have had a long-term policy failure…we didn’t do our due diligence and fully consider all the possible contingencies, including how we would mitigate Russia’s negative response to successive expansions.” Instead, a neoconservative operative was put in place to instigate a coup in Ukraine six years after Burns’ memo, and at the time all the careerist intelligence people claimed to be shocked - Shocked! - that the Russians engaged in preemptive action. Hill admits the Russians had a “logical, methodical plan that goes back a very long way, at least to 2007”, and yet spends most of the interview trying to pitch a story that an all powerful Putin is unpredictable, emotional and impulsive. I don’t see how that in any way represents quality analysis.

Fiona Hill is a careerist shill. Her experience with Russia is limited to a student exchange trip in the late 1980s. She is a product of the academic/think tank treadmill, and is rewarded with flattery for her mediocre and ill-informed opinions. The people who actually know what they are talking about have all been marginalized and weaned from the system long ago. NATO expansion is the root of this crisis, and a looming conflict over it has been known and discussed at high levels for three decades. It is clear that policy makers and narrative shapers in the west prefer a “madman” storyline rather than deal with material reality. Russia’s position was clearly articulated back in 2007-2008. US ambassador to Russia at the time, William Burns, spelled it out in a memorandum prepared for the highest levels of the national security bureaucracy in February 2008: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html Six years later, the U.S. facilitated a coup in Ukraine designed to deliberately cross all of Russia’s red lines. This coup was shepherded by Victoria Nuland, a neo-conservative apparatchik. Nuland was the principal deputy foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney through the first three years of the Iraq War (2003-2005), then served as US ambassador to NATO (2005-2008), and then entered the State Department concentrating on European affairs. Nuland’s avowed positions on Russian “aggression” and “expansionism” rely entirely on pretending that high level discussions and concerns regarding NATO either never happened or were not important. The way out of the crisis that Nuland and the neoconservatives created in 2014 was to walk back the coup. Instead, the Obama administration endorsed it. The way out of the crisis in 2015 was to follow through with the UNSC approved Minsk Accords, but nothing was done. Now there is a major and very serious international crisis, and the response of the western leadership has been to crash the global economy, apparently in the interest of recreating a bifurcated Cold War system and a return to a “with us or against us” global posture. This will eventually serve only to isolate precisely us - the west. We are in for major financial shocks amidst escalating restrictions in the flow of information and international travel / trade.

Those aren’t the facts at all, Kirk. NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early NATO Expansion - The Budapest Blow-Up 1994 https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2021-11-24/nato-expansion-budapest-blow-1994 NATO Expansion: What Yeltsin Heard https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-03-16/nato-expansion-what-yeltsin-heard US Ambassadors to Russia Interviewed pt 1 https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2021-06-16/us-ambassadors-to-russia-interviewed US Ambassadors to Russia Interviewed pt 2 https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2022-01-25/us-ambassadors-russia-interviewed

Sarcasm, I assume. But not far from the ultimate intent of the NY Times argument. Of course the rub is: those acting as the "filter" get to define who the "scum and villains" are. Personally I am more of a free speech absolutist, convinced of the argument many years ago by Noam Chomsky's musings on the subject. He was working from his textual analysis of how institutions like the NY Times use language and omission to manufacture false consciousness.

Sorokin’s perspective is based on a strained Lord of the Rings metaphor and a series of subjective opinions and adjective-laden surmises without direct referent to actual events or policies. He obviously dislikes Putin and the contemporary Russian political scene, but his psychoanalytical conceptions of the same appear more as a personal rant extemporizing his animosity rather than an intellectual framework by which to promote concern. That said, his literary works sound quite interesting. In turn, your partisan version of schisms within the Russian Orthodox Church appear entirely weighted to positions developed during the time of the Soviet Union, arriving at conclusions which are also dependent on attitudes formed at the time of the Soviet Union - which no longer exists.

Bob - I do not wish to deny or disrespect the experiences of your friend, but my understanding of the 2014 Ukraine coup and the instrumental role of a far-right “nationalist” cadre in facilitating the coup at the ground level has relied on the published accounts of multiple reporters/ journalists also on the scene. That these accounts are consistent with each other in observing the same events directed by the same persons leads me to accept these accounts as materially objectively factual. Describing the events as a “revolt”, an “uprising”, or a “revolution”, does not overcome the most salient fact that a democratically elected government was removed by unconstitutional means. This is civics class stuff but… democracies have constitutions which establish the functioning methodology of the a political system, and establish the legal frameworks by which governments can be impeached or removed before the end of their mandate. A mob storming the legislature, in most instances and certainly not in Ukraine’s constitution, does not have legal standing - as most posters on this thread seem to understand when it comes to Jan 6/21. The mantra - “did you get it in writing?” - usually applies when someone has been taken in by some sort of shyster/ fraud artist. But as a legalistic alibi, it doesn’t hold up in the field of geopolitics and it doesn’t excuse a pattern of deceit. In fact, following through with broken promises harms the integrity of an organization or polity, and may serve to reduce the “space” of negotiation in the future. That is, it may lead to unintended consequences with negative effect. In this case, senior political-diplomatic-military persons associated with NATO’s membership long warned of approaching and then crossing Russia’s red lines, which has now occurred. NATO’s response over the past months has doubled down on the error, insisting that Russia has no legitimate regional security concerns and that NATO will not acknowledge Russia’s identified red lines. This approach was at one time feasible, due to an obvious imbalance in relative strength (military and political), but those metrics seem to have since evened out. NATO members have responded with a cascade of economic penalties over the last few days, but it is far from clear that the consequence of these were properly “gamed” out. Tomorrow (Monday Feb 28) may kick off one of the craziest days in financial markets and exchanges in modern history.

You’re just kind of flailing on this topic because you continue to deny the three most pertinent facts or events pertinent to clear understanding of what is going on: 1) NATO’s repudiation of its promises not to expand eastward 2) the February 2014 putsch or coup in Ukraine illegally removing the democratically elected government 3) the outsized influence of far-right (aka neo-poopoo) factions in Ukraine since the coup All of the above is well-documented and understood. Jim is sharing background, I have shared background - none of the most partisan voices on this thread appear to have spent even a few minutes trying to grasp this info, even if to try and dispute. Instead, they link to vastly-oversimplified mainstream sources and pontificate superficial and ill-informed opinion.

Alleged “Russian hacking” in 2016 remains contentious and unsettled. Trump’s alleged status as a “compromised agent” has not risen above opposition research rumours. The “Gerasimov Doctrine” was entirely made up by a Politico writer. The Jan 6 “coup” appears a clumsy and unsuccessful attempt to follow the precedent of the entirely sketchy 1876 contested election. Obviously, what’s currently happening in Ukraine is extremely serious. As I said before - very senior experienced US diplomats who experienced and directly participated in the entire Cold War period warned in the 1990s that NATO expansion was a bad idea and would lead to serious events. Those events are now happening. Background information is available at the National Security Archive: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu

The USA invaded both Iraq and Syria in recent years. And still have troops and conduct operations in both. So drop the Hitler thing. The carnage from both of the above is well-documented and extensive. Personally, I feel the multi-lateral forum provided by the UNSC was the appropriate road forward for the Ukraine issues. This should have been resolved years ago through that format. The Russians, however, expressed their misgivings regarding their national security back in December, did not receive what they considered serious responses in return, and are now acting in what they believe to be their best interests. Others, particularly associated with NATO, will passionately disagree. I believe the Russian position to be not dissimilar to that assumed by the Kennedy administration during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, although more pre-emptive and less crisis. Unless it somehow spills over into NATO aligned countries, and I think there will be meticulous care on all sides to avoid that, this will probably play out like Georgia in 2008 whereby the Russians conduct a series of operations to solve their identified problems and then retreat.