The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[James DiEugenio]

Just what was the purpose of NATO after the Berlin Wall collapsed?

The original purpose was to stop an invasion of West Europe through Germany.  How could that happen after there was no East Germany and the country was united?

And OMG, what did Libya have to do with the original purpose of NATO?

If you want to see the real story here, take a look at China's statement.  The Sino Soviet split is now a valentine card.  That is what decades of USA aggression--Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq-- has done.  Its united China with Russia.  

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Talk about missing the point.

Look, I am no Russophile, but just ask yourself how Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia  got into NATO. Norway is not known for its aggression.  But Ukraine is, just ask the people in Donbas who turned away two invasions.

You might also want to check as to when the NATO external offensive operations started increasing in frequency and force.

Biden could have prevented all this.  What Putin was asking for was not at all unreasonable.  I mean during the Missile Crisis, Kennedy granted two demands by the Russians: a no invasion pledge for Cuba, and removal of the Turkish missiles.

But what people forget is that it was Biden who was Obama's man on the original Ukraine coup back in 2014. He essentially gave that neocon nut Nuland a free hand in sanctioning all those  Banderaeque groups like Right Sektor.  And covering up all those shootings and terrorist acts during the Maidan uprising.  And then she herself picked the new president during an illegal proceeding. There was no quorum. 

Very disappointed in Biden over this.  He has not been statesman like at all.  But it really goes back to the real disappointment which was Obama.  Ted Kennedy made a big mistake.

Well said. 

[Steve Thomas]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10553723/Putin-turns-attention-Finland-Sweden-Kremlin-official-warns-nations.html
"Russia has threatened its close Arctic neighbours Sweden and Finland with 'military consequences' if they join NATO. 
It came as Russia's invasion of Ukraine intensified today after a night of fighting in the capital of Kyiv especially. 
Sweden and Finland are the two closest countries to Russia in the Arctic Circle. 
'Finland and Sweden should not base their security on damaging the security of other countries and their accession to NATO can have detrimental consequences and face some military and political consequences,' foreign affairs spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said during a news briefing. "

Sweden?
Putin is threatening ABBA?
Now that's going too far!
I'm putting my foot down on that one.
Murderous thug.

Steve Thomas

[Bob Ness]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Just what was the purpose of NATO after the Berlin Wall collapsed?

The original purpose was to stop an invasion of West Europe through Germany.  How could that happen after there was no East Germany and the country was united?

And OMG, what did Libya have to do with the original purpose of NATO?

If you want to see the real story here, take a look at China's statement.  The Sino Soviet split is now a valentine card.  That is what decades of USA aggression--Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq-- has done.  Its united China with Russia.  

 

Just for reference.

Edited February 26, 2022 by Bob Ness

[Ty Carpenter]

If this is true, it just further demonstrates the depravity of the regime. You know your soldiers won't fight for your true motives, so you must lie to them to get them to do your bidding.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Well Jim, Where have you been? I thought you were wise to keep out of this unless you're set on ruining the response to the "Revision" 4 hour version and polarizing it with new "johnny come lately"  Trump crazed Q  anon followers  which may serve you well but ultimately will ruin  the JFKAC!. I noted a wise reluctance to steer away from these matters in interviews with Stone lately. I certainly hope Stone uses better judgment than you. But it's not too late, Jim.

 

Jim has never been one for nuance, grey areas or both sides of a story and at least use to  push his narrative like inbox boner pills. How nice it must be to be so certain!

This is a quote from Jim probably around 2017!

 

Jim said: Those nutty neo Nazis we backed in Ukraine are about to light tinder to a conflagration they will lose in spades.

 

Yes Jim and Ollie Stone, like Putin  have been warning us about a fascist takeover for now  8 years! But what happened, Jim? The Ukranian people  overwhelmingly elected a comedian no less, and overturned over 80% of their parliament. You got to admit, that sounds pretty cool. Some of us, including me, would like to see that happen in our country.

 

Jim for years, was parroting the Putin "de Nazification"' propaganda that we've been hearing from our newly crazed Putin.

 

 At one time, I remember Bob Ness and I were talking about the huge estate left by Yanukovych upon his exile, after pilfering his native country for billions.  Jim then defended Yanukovych  and said all would be explained if we watched Stones "Ukraine on Fire". We both scoffed at the idea that one movie should so radically change our viewpoint.

Well I did  watch "Ukraine on Fire", and though it was a while back, and I'm not in awe of everything Stone does so it wasn't that entertaining but  I remember Stone really  bought the Putin Russian pablum and his chief narrative was the the Maidan protestors who overthrew the Yanukovych government were neo nazis, citing the fact than an old historic nationalist Maidan controversial hero figure was a poopoo, when upon later research I found he  embraced the Nazis  against the collectivist purges during Ukraine's Stalin imposed great famine years. So is it any wonder Russia and Putin would use that as propaganda?

 

Whatever threat they posed 8 years ago, real or imagined. Upon research later on I found the group became a militant right wing minority within  the  movement that later formed a fledgling party in their last election that was handily defeated by Zelensky. They got a total of 2% of the popular vote! As stated in the article below:

 

In Ukraine’s 2019 national election, a far-right political alliance including Azov’s political arm only received 2 percent of the vote. There is no evidence that Zelensky’s government is engaging in large-scale extermination of Russians; no international human rights group nor credible expert has made such a claim.

 

https://www.vox.com/2022/2/24/22948944/putin-ukraine-poopoo-russia-speech-declare-war

 

[W. Niederhut]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Just what was the purpose of NATO after the Berlin Wall collapsed?

The original purpose was to stop an invasion of West Europe through Germany.  How could that happen after there was no East Germany and the country was united?

And OMG, what did Libya have to do with the original purpose of NATO?

If you want to see the real story here, take a look at China's statement.  The Sino Soviet split is now a valentine card.  That is what decades of USA aggression--Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq-- has done.  Its united China with Russia.  

 

Jim,

     If I recall correctly, the principle of self-determination was promoted by FDR in the original Atlantic Charter negotiations with Winston Churchill.  NATO evolved from that original Anglo-American framework.

    I'm not an apologist for NATO's black ops and war crimes, but who among us can deny that NATO nations are free, democratic states-- in sharp contrast to Putin's nationalist/fascist police state in the neo-Soviet Russian Federation? 

     That was where I disagreed with Kuznick and Oliver Stone's portrayal of Soviet post-war history in The Untold History series.  Did Kuznick and Stone ever study the writings of my favorite 20th century socialist, Milovan Djilas, including Djilas's Conversations With Stalin?    Djilas, Tito and the Yugoslavs never had any illusions about Russian imperialism.

    What is missing from the Putin apologists in 2022 is any acknowledgement of Ukraine's right to self-determination.

    Ukrainian's don't want to be part of Putin's totalitarian police state.  Why would they?

     Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew granted autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in 2018 because the Ukrainians didn't want to be under the thumb of Putin's KGB Moscow Patriarchate.  (Bartholomew did the same thing for the Estonian Orthodox Church in 1996.)   Who could blame them?

    As Charles P. Pierce phrased it in Esquire this week, "When Did We Stop Caring That Ukraine Doesn't Want To Be Part Of Russia?"

[Ty Carpenter]

W and Kirk,

This forum needs a like button. Great statements by both of you!

[James DiEugenio]

Donbas does not want to be part of the fascist regime in Ukraine.

But Ukraine has invaded the area twice.  

Ukraine refused to abide by the MInsk protocols. This is why Russia recognized Donetsk and Luhansk.  I mean I would  have thought 8 years would be enough.  So you first had an illegal overthrow in Ukraine in 2014, then that Banderasesque  government tried to take over the Donbas. The idea that somehow Russia should not have felt threatened by Ukraine possibly joining NATO is so unrealistic that its almost funny. Which is why I quoted Kennan.  Its pretty clear that the neocons were intent on using NATO to start up Cold War 2. 

Or else what was the purpose of extending NATO past Germany and inviting states from the former Warsaw Pact? Especially when, as Jack Matlock has said, the USA explicitly stated that this would not happen in return for the right to reunite Germany. That took place amid Gorbachev's attempt to form a new security sphere in Europe which would include Russia.

Like every sensible suggestion Gorbachev made, this fell by the wayside.  And every time this happened, Gorbachev's standing in the Kremlin was reduced.  Here was a man who even the nutty Margaret Thatcher said she could work with.  But every time he did something that most thought would be unprecedented, like letting the Baltics go, the neocons moved the goalposts back. And every time they did that, it sawed off more of the floor in front of him. Which makes one think: if Gorby was good enough for the Iron Lady, why was he not good enough for Reagan/Bush 1? Remember the Iceland Agreement?

Well, one reason is that Reagan made the mistake of asking Nixon and KIssinger about the subject. They both said that there was nothing different about Gorby, just another appartchick with a new approach.  Condi Rice said the same thing. If anything ever showed just how Cold Warish, how enthrall these people were to Foster Dulles, this did. Its this kind of thinking that kept us in Vietnam for seven years after Nixon knew the war could not be won.

This eventually caused the fall of Gorbachev and the passing of a golden opportunity.  But it was not enough to get rid of Gorby. In the USA we had to get rid of the guy who really recognized what had happened, Soviet expert Steve Cohen, the best Russian analyst of his age.  He was banned from the MSM.  That is how nutty the neocons were on this.

They would not be content unless Russia was decimated and sold off piece by piece like a salvage sale.  Which is what happened under the drunken fool Yeltsin.

And that gentlemen is how we got Putin.  Russia had been humiliated for too long.In my opinion, using the Missile Crisis model, it would not have happened under Kennedy.

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

The late great Robert Parry on Nuland, her hubby was in PNAC.

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/02/26/robert-parry-the-mess-that-nuland-made/

And let us not forget, it was Obama who launched TImber/Sycamore in Syria.  And Biden admitted that Russia had little choice but to oppose that since it would have brought ISIS too close to them

Again, after having studied Kennedy's foreign policy on this issue in detail, I can confidently say he would not have endorsed doing that.

[James DiEugenio]

Let me also add that Cohen did not really like Putin.  But he understood what had happened.

After the complete and utter disaster of Yeltsin, Putin was the only way for the recovery of Russian pride and status.

And in all honesty, I really have to say that the USA has more or less shoved China and Russia together.

[Kirk Gallaway]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

And that gentlemen is how we got Putin. 

Oh really Jim, but for years, to hear you tell it, that was a very good thing!. And now the economic collapse of the Russia was brought on  Condi Rice, Jim? Everybody including Russia is just helpless, before the U.S. right Jim? Just as people never blame Trump for anything. You can't make any support for that argument. 

As for Gorbachev, the U.S. liked him until his end which was brought on by his allying with right wing forces, then being kidnapped by them, and totally discrediting himself before the Russian people, which brought a populist uprising and Yeltsin. You can't  blame the U.S. for that. Yeltsin was elected in their first Democratic election, then Clinton embraces Yeltsin, and  he later turns out to be an incompetent drunk, steps down,in disgrace,crying at the mess he made, and never  blames the U.S., Jim. And then  hand picks his own successor, Putin!

Jim:They would not be content unless Russia was decimated and sold off piece by piece like a salvage sale.  Which is what happened under the drunken fool Yeltsin.

And as so often with your innuendo, Jim, who are  they? No Jim, just another mad race to connect a lot of dots. You can't specifically substantiate any of it.

There was a period when the USSR was a terrible victim of the US, but that was probably before you were born.

Woulda coulda shoulda Jim. we've already talked about the U.S. mistakes made along the way.

But the bottom line is, you haven't been right about anything yet. Why should we put any more faith in your narrative than we would Bill Krystol on MSNBC?

Edited February 26, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Bob Ness]

18 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Donbas does not want to be part of the fascist regime in Ukraine.

They want to be part of the great democratic experiment in Russia? Hahaha! And yet Moscow is the only entity who can parse through this and is the global leader on these issues? Are you kidding me? Who says they're a fascist state? You, Oliver and Vlad? Who's cracking heads now, much to your delight apparently? Chasing the Ustachi across the border in their baby strollers? That's sick man.

Russia officially recognizing those regions is about as useful as me recognizing them. It holds no water except for justification for invading and annexing the area (I'm waiting for a better time). Russia agreed to the current borders of the Ukraine in the early nineties in exchange for Kiev's relinquishing its nukes.

You keep spitting out poopoo epitaphs and claiming righteousness but what you're saying is ridiculous. For instance, you claim that when the wall fell there was no purpose for NATO when in fact there was MORE purpose for NATO because after the dissolution of the USSR there were now 4 countries controlling the nuclear arsenal and the world was much more unstable than before. 

If you look over there now Putin has forced yet another consolidation of countries into NATO which has been happening since 1991.

[James DiEugenio]

Bob, what i am stating are facts.

The purpose of NATO was to resist an invasion of West Europe through Germany.  This is why it was a big deal for Gorby to let Germany unite. This eliminated that threat.  In return, as Matlock said--and it was he who said it--Gorby got a promise that NATO would not extend beyond Germany.  Jeff Morley just quoted the guy on this. That promise was broken.

Nuclear non proliferation is part of an agreement by a different organization and states like Belarus--which had been part of the USSR-- returned their nukes to Russia.  As did Ukraine.  What was the need for NATO to do that when you had a different body specifically designed for that purpose?

There were fascist groups in the Maidan.  To deny that is to deny facts; they actually had Swastikas on their helmets.  Bob Parry was the only journalist to show those pictures.  They idolized Bandera.  And in fact after they took power, Bandera's statue went up.

Edited February 26, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

If you take a look at the three major operations that NATO was involved with in the last 30  or so years they are all east of Germany. That would be Kosovo, Afghanistan and the utterly nutty bombing of Libya. The Clintons were directly involved with the first and last.

This is why, in some of my talks, I address this issue: that a large part of the Democratic Party has gone neocon. Because they have. In his battle with Kennedy, Senator Henry Jackson ended up winning. Jackson was really a Republican in foreign policy and he fathered in a lot of the Neocons like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and Bill Kristol.  He was very much a Cold Warrior and pro Israel and he used those two issues in unison in the Jackson-Vanik amendment. He got into it with Kennedy over the F 111 fighter where Jackson created a pseudo scandal where none existed.

Jackson really did not like Carter's attempts at arms control either.  After Carter left, many of Jackson's aides, named above, went over to the GOP and served under Reagan and Bush 1.  So this is how many commentators trace the beginning of the practice of Neoconservatism which ultimately resulted in the infamous PNAC group. Because of this incestuous crossover, and because the Dems lost their bearings in foreign policy under the transition from JFK to LBJ, they became easy prey to be intimidated by the neocons. For all intents and purposes Hillary Clinton was and is a neocon. And Wikileaks proves that.

This is why, in the galloping of the foreign policy establishment to the right,  there was almost no let up under Clinton and Obama.  That Obama approved  the bombing of Libya and Operation Timber Sycamore is to me, just inexcusable. And for him to have approved NATO as the instrument in the former is simply nutty. What NATO had to do with Africa is one that will forever elude me. But this is what happens when an agency really does not have a mission anymore.  They FIND missions in order to survive. And so NATO wants to expand east now even though the USSR is no more and some of the former Warsaw Pact is in NATO. And a huge market for NATO and American weaponry are former members of the Warsaw Pact, who have bought all kind of armaments in order to join up.

BTW, in 1957, Kennan renounced what containment had become.  And he said the idea that the USSR would invade west Europe through Germany was simply not going to happen. I know since I once did a paper on Kennan.  He forever regretted what Truman did with his Long Telegram. And he had a sense of foreboding as to what would happen to America after Kennedy's murder. He was Kennedy's ambassador to Czechoslovakia.

One of the finest moments in senate history is Kennan's testimony before the Fulbright committee about Vietnam. Johnson called up Stanton in order to get CBS not to carry it.

Edited February 26, 2022 by James DiEugenio