The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[W. Niederhut]

5 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Paul,

        Oliver Stone's Untold History series was an excellent espose of the dark side of American imperialism, but I agree with Princeton historian Sean Wilens that Stone and Kuznick were less than accurate in downplaying Stalin's totalitarian Comintern agenda for Europe and the planet in 1945, and beyond.

       Yes, the Red Army largely defeated the N-a-z-i Wehrmacht in WWII.  80% of Wehrmacht casualties in WWII occurred in Russia.  Most Americans don't really understand that history.

       But did that historic Soviet victory in WWII justify turning Eastern Europe into a collection of totalitarian, communist police states for decades?  What about self-determination?  Freedom?  Democracy?

       And we can ask the same question about Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics today.  Do we still support freedom, democracy, and self-determination-- in contrast to totalitarian police states like the Russian Federation and Belarus?  (Admitting that we have made a mockery of those ideals in the Third World and the Middle East.)

       The Kremlin propagandists have tried to portray the Ukrainian struggle for freedom, self-determination, and democracy as N-a-z-i.  There's a good article about this ploy at Russ Baker's WhoWhatWhy website today.

So About Those Ukrainian Nazis…

https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/international/so-about-those-ukrainian-nazis/

February 18, 2022

       As for Putin's nationalist, neo-Soviet police state, let's not be naive.  The man is an autocrat who is openly contemptuous of liberal Western democracy.  He recently sent Russian troops into Belarus to support the dictatorship of the proletariat, Lukashenko.

      IMO, Putin embarrassed Oliver Stone by occupying and annexing the Crimea before the final Oliver Stone interview.  It was painful to watch, because Putin, essentially, made Oliver Stone his bitch.

Counter Punch is running with the Ukrainians are Nazis narrative tonight.

Meanwhile, Biden just announced that Putin has decided to invade.

[Matt Allison]

35 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

 They’re both villains

Well, at the moment, only one of those villains is about to invade the country of Ukraine, so don't be surprised when we dump on them.

[W. Niederhut]

58 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Well, at the moment, only one of those villains is about to invade the country of Ukraine, so don't be surprised when we dump on them.

        It's a fallacious argument by Chris.  I'm the last person on the planet who would ever approve of CIA and U.S. military atrocities in the post-WWII era, but that black CIA/MIC history is no justification for Putin invading Ukraine and establishing a totalitarian police state in Kiev.

        The tragedy of the modern Russian Federation is that it failed to join the free world as a functional, convivial democracy after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

        Gary Kasparov nailed it last weekend.

The dictator’s gambit: What Putin is after on Ukraine

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-the-presidents-gambit-20220212-vmmooopnvjdbbnevrdwpswge4y-story.html

Edited February 19, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

but that black CIA/MIC history is no justification for Putin invading Ukraine

FYI in case you, or others have misunderstood. I don't think Putin should invade Ukraine, or that there is justification for Russia to do so. It only takes a false flag and a major conflict begins. It concerns me how the UK media are reporting this. 

 

[Guest]

A different opinion: 

 

https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2022/02/18/pictures-of-an-invasion-force-not-so-much/

PICTURES OF AN INVASION FORCE? NOT SO MUCH.

FEBRUARY 18, 2022 PAULR 11 COMMENTS

Way back in my youthful days as a military intelligence officer, I was trained in imagery intelligence, so it kind of makes me feel young again to see grainy pictures of Russian tanks in Belarus (though in my day, it was the Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, and the tanks were Soviet.) And so my interest was immediately aroused by an article on the BBC website today containing satellite pictures purporting to show the Russian military build-up in Belarus in preparation for an alleged invasion of Ukraine.

Now the thing about intelligence is that it’s more than raw data. It’s a process. Collecting the data is just part of it. What you do with it is equally as important – how you interpret it and how you disseminate it. The frame, or in other words the context in which you discuss it matters too. Russian tanks in Belarus are harmless if your frame is long-scheduled, standard military exercises. But Russian tanks in Belarus are ominous if your frame is an impending invasion.

You therefore need to be very careful about throwing out raw information without thinking it through and doing a proper analysis, and without putting it in the proper frame. Unfortunately, our dear friends in the press are often not very good at this. Twenty or so years ago, when the British government produced its infamous dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, I bothered reading it and realized immediately that the headlines saying that Iraq was knee deep in WMD was false – the evidence just wasn’t there. But the press took the government’s analysis and framing uncritically. The same happened with the Steele dossier that sparked off the Russiagate scandal – obvious garbage, but that didn’t stop people running with it.

In short, there’s a lack of what you might call critical thinking, a rush to publish stuff without stopping to think what it actually means, and a tendency to put it into the most scary sounding frame, even if that is not appropriate.

And so it is with the BBC and its report about Russian troops in Belarus. This says:

“The latest satellite images provided by the US space technology company Maxar show that wide-scale Russian military activity persists close to Ukraine’s borders, despite recent Russian claims of de-escalation and withdrawal. Taken in mid-February, they illustrate that Ukraine remains surrounded on three sides – on its borders with both Russia and Belarus – by Russian military hardware and troop concentrations.”

Note the prejudicial use of the word ‘surrounded’ which immediately suggests a lack of objectivity. But that’s by the by. The important thing are the satellite images. What do they show us?

First off is a picture of a Russian military field hospital at the Osipovichi training area in Belarus. The BBC reports that, “While this could be a legitimate part of any large scale field exercise it could also be an indication of expected battle casualties from an imminent conflict.”

So where is Osipovichi? Well, as the BBC notes, it is in “north-western Belarus.”

NORTH-WESTERN BELARUS!

In fact, it’s north west of the Belarusian capital Minsk, and about half way between Minsk and the Lithuanian border. In other words, IT’S NOWHERE NEAR UKRAINE. I ask you this – if you were going to invade Ukraine, would you erect a field hospital next to Lithuania?? You wouldn’t.

The BBC should have stopped to think about that before publishing.

Next up in the article is a photo of a pontoon bridge over the Pripyat river in Belarus, about 6km from the border with Ukraine. Sounds creepy, huh? Well, not really. It’s hard to tell from the BBC map exactly where this is, but it appears to be in the middle of nowhere, and there’s no obvious route taking invasion forces from north of the river to a place where they need a pontoon to go south. It’s not at all clear what invasion purpose this bridge would serve.

The BBC notes that “Analysts at London-based McKenzie Intelligence Services have highlighted the large staging area on the right bank of the river as an indicator of possible intent to move large numbers of vehicles.” What “large staging area”?? There’s just a big empty space. I guess it could be a “staging area” but there’s nothing to indicate that. Adding that label is just a way of making emptiness sound scary.

But here’s the zinger. The BBC then tells us, “Some reports have suggested that the pontoon may have been removed.”

How unfortunate!

And then we have another image – of Russian artillery at the Bretsky training area. Note that, as with the field hospital, these troops aren’t in some invasion “staging area” but on a recognized training ground. Nothing unusual about that. Also we’re not told anything about other military forces in the region. Artillery by itself would be useless. Who would it be supporting?

More important is Bretsky’s location. It’s in the far, far south-western corner of Belarus, connecting to the far, far north-western corner of Ukraine. Now think about this for a moment. Is that a likely location for a Russian attack on Ukraine? There is no strategic, operational, or tactical logic I can see for charging into the far west of Ukraine in such a way. It makes no sense.

And finally, we have a picture of some helicopters in Zyabrovka in south-eastern Belarus, which do at least the advantage of being more or less decently located for an invasion, but which by themselves mean nothing. And besides, the BBC then tells us:

“It is important to remember that Russia’s current military presence of around 30,000 troops in Belarus, while alarming to both Ukraine and NATO, are part of joint, scheduled exercises that are due to conclude on February 20.”

So now you tell us! Isn’t that a more logical frame for all this than ‘invasion of Ukraine’. The BBC is having none of it. The pictures don’t prove an invasion, it says, “But NATO defence chiefs believe Russia now has sufficient forces in place around Ukraine to execute an invasion should President Putin give the order.” That’s the frame you should be thinking of.

In reality, these pictures show nothing – a field hospital close to Lithuania; an imaginary staging area; a bridge from nowhere, which well have been removed already; and a few artillery pieces working out on a training area far, far removed from any logical military objective. As evidence of an invasion, it’s not very convincing.

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

What I don't understand is why Ukraine is always depicted as a sitting duck for Russia. Putin will march to Kiev (Kyiv). 

Cruise missiles and drones are relatively inexpensive and GPS guided (deadly accurate). If Russia has really massed troops...they should be the sitting ducks. What has Ukraine been doing? 

Motorcycles and guys with RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) and IEDs are two reasons the US Marines gave up on tanks. The Russians love tanks. 

Putin is a thug. Ukrainians should have known that. Why not an effective deterrent in Ukraine? 

 

 

 

[Guest]

Peter Hitchens

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Paul B. :And they are being baited into sending in troops, while we claim that any reasons they give will be manufactured by their propaganda machine. What about our propaganda machine?

 

Baited??? Paul, I generally like your judgments, but this is the closest I've seen to someone here rationalizing a Putin invasion of Ukraine, (though I'm sure Jeff can) And what is it based on, your over reaction to the  west propaganda machine? There 's no cause under any circumstances for Putin to unilaterally invade Ukraine. And the idea that Nato would is total stupidity.  This idea of Putin being "baited"  absolves Putin of any responsibility and is similar to the license people give Trump as being a victim. IMO

Don't the Ukraine people have a right to live in peace?

 

Chris, your first instincts were also to talk voluminously about the West and their propaganda machine. I'm glad you're walking back to state that Putin does have some responsibility here. I liked your article  about the alleged photos of troop movements and the construction of bridges etc. I've never believed these 130,000 troops , 160,000, and now 190,000 troops estimates, and nobody else should. You can effectively see arms buildup. But there's no way you can estimate how  many troops. Now with your latest clip, It's sounds like you're migrating to my position. I don't think anythings going to happen, but I might be wrong. 

Edited February 19, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

 

Chris, your first instincts were also to talk voluminously about the West and their propaganda machine. I'm glad you're walking back to state that Putin does have some responsibility here. I liked your article  about the alleged photos of troop movements and the construction of bridges etc. I've never believed these 130,000 troops , 160,000, and now 190,000 troops estimates, and nobody else should. You can effectively see arms buildup. But there's no way you can estimate how  many troops. Now with your latest clip, It's sounds like you're migrating to my position. I don't think anythings going to happen, but I might be wrong.

 

Thanks, Kirk. The trouble is; whenever you say something in this day and age that is critical of one side, they assume by default that you occupy a position of support for the party you are not criticising. That shouldn’t be the case. The media in Britain right now has just gone back to the fear levels of 9/11 or week two of C19. If you say anything that softens the stance on Russia, you’ll be called a sympathiser or appeaser. It’s a bit like what happened to all of the Dems who were pro a softer stance on the USSR, they got Joe McCarthy accusing them of being double agents. I don’t think it’s a good culture. 
 

I think it’s a terrible idea keeping your enemies at the the maximum state of tension. Our western media totally under reports the way Russia is surrounded on its western flanks, the public has very poor optics. I’ve had mates stationed on these borders. 
 

Perhaps a hypothetical scenario might make people think about things differently. If the US was surrounded on one coast at close proximity with enemy missiles and whatever else trained on its major cities, how would it react? How would the people feel? And what would they be asking for as a response? Lets say there were US citizens in Cuba or Hispaniola and they were getting shelled and firing back in this neutral country but, tour enemy was supporting it. Would the US consider invasion? Would they mount forces close by? Or, would they seek a detente or rapprochement? It the enemy spent 10 X the amount that the US spends on arms, would this change the approach? 
 

This is an over-simplification. It doesn’t require an answer. It might make some think. 
 

I am dead against conflict. We’ve seen how a border skirmish or a false flag can turn into a global conflict. It’ll earn money for oil cartels and the people who make arms. It’ll cost horrific amounts of lives. 

 

[W. Niederhut]

     This sure looks like a Kremlin false flag op to me -- a pre-recorded call to urgently evacuate 700,000 ethnic Russian civilians from the Donbass region, because the Ukrainians are planning to kill Russians and bury them in mass graves.

     Yeah, right... 🥺

A separatist call to flee east Ukraine for Russia was recorded 2 days earlier

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/18/1081790784/ukraine-evacuation-russia-donetsk

 

[Greg Doudna]

31 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Paul B. :And they are being baited into sending in troops, while we claim that any reasons they give will be manufactured by their propaganda machine. What about our propaganda machine?

 

Baited??? Paul, I generally like your judgments, but this is the closest I've seen to someone here rationalizing a Putin invasion of Ukraine, (though I'm sure Jeff can) And what is it based on, your over reaction to the  west propaganda machine? There 's no cause under any circumstances for Putin to unilaterally invade Ukraine. And the idea that Nato would is total stupidity.  This idea of Putin being "baited"  absolves Putin of any responsibility and is similar to the license people give Trump as being a victim. IMO

Don't the Ukraine people have a right to live in peace?

 

Chris, your first instincts were also to talk voluminously about the West and their propaganda machine. I'm glad you're walking back to state that Putin does have some responsibility here. I liked your article  about the alleged photos of troop movements and the construction of bridges etc. I've never believed these 130,000 troops , 160,000, and now 190,000 troops estimates, and nobody else should. You can effectively see arms buildup. But there's no way you can estimate how  many troops. Now with your latest clip, It's sounds like you're migrating to my position. I don't think anythings going to happen, but I might be wrong. 

Kirk, I am as mystified as anyone else reading the news of Ukraine and have not followed it carefully. As you know I am a Sanders/Biden Democrat generally with zero affection for Trump and Trumpers. However I do see another possible reading of the conflicting claims going back and forth re this Ukraine situation, though I do not think of it as more than a possibility. Nevertheless, would be interested in your take on this. (Also, I am not getting this from reading it somewhere; it is homemade.)

This is gut instinct, coming from a background of trying to read between the lines of public pronouncements. It is a given that Putin would like all or part of Ukraine, and feels threatened by the NATO/Russian border being close to Russia's border. I just assume that if he could get away with it, he would have had Russian troops in and annexed eastern Ukraine already, just as Crimea.

What I see ahead in my crystal ball is quite simply, partition (at best for Putin), and NATO troops inside Ukraine with the Ukraine government's permission on Putin's direct border (in the worst case for Putin).

My suspicion is that the talk of a Russian false flag (as plausible as it is) may be cover for an upcoming false flag or pretext from our own side, but whether or not that is the case it just looks to me--(but what do I know?)--like NATO will move into west Ukraine in the name of defending western Ukraine (minimally) or into all of Ukraine including east Ukraine under the same rationale. No one will call it an invasion of Ukraine by NATO because it will happen for the most legitimate and defensible and reasonable grounds, of defending Ukraine against Russian aggression, and will be at the invitation and cooperation of the Ukraine government. Sort of like South Vietnam inviting the US and its allies to defend South Vietnam from Ho Chi Minh aggression.

In this analysis (in my state of acknowledged ignorance on the finer points), what is said is that the NATO forces lined up on the other side of Ukraine are (a) not going to go into Ukraine to go to war with Putin if he invades; and (b) are there (mobilized and built up) for the purpose of preventing Putin from invading anyone beyond Ukraine. 

To which it occurred to me that there is a "c" going on not named: (c) preparation to move into west Ukraine justified as defending against the Putin threat.

End result: either NATO forces inside all of Ukraine with Putin having none of Ukraine, or NATO forces have west Ukraine and Putin has east Ukraine, partition. 

In terms of humanitarian concern, NATO in Ukraine would be better for the people living there because war is so horrifyingly destructive which is what it would be from Ukrainian resistance if Putin invades.

I have done business with a hair salon stylist locally who is from Latvia. She has told me in recent years of the situation in Latvia where her family and friends are. According to her, they just expect and assume that at some point Russia (Putin) is going to invade. I thought, how that must feel to live in areas of the world under fear and threat of invasion, something that we in the US do not experience.

I think back to Gorbachev of the old Soviet Union--and his vision of a Russia rejoining Europe and becoming a peaceful democratic-socialist nation re-integrated with Europe, working together with the US and the other major powers of the world toward solving common problems of the world. It was like Kennedy's American University speech except Gorbachev was making breathtaking significant strides toward achievement of that vision, but of course Gorbachev lost power and that was the end of that.

I hope one day another party in a post-Putin Russia will be a "second Gorbachev" in reuniting Russia with Europe. Of one thing I am very convinced: pan-european organizations such as the EU and NATO (not that they are the same) have prevented devastating european wars for the most part and are in principle the way to prevent future european wars which have so ravaged europe's history. Whatever problems and criticisms that exist in EU and NATO, I believe the situation is an improved EU and NATO, not an end to EU and NATO.  

But what do you think of the idea of an endgame to what we see being NATO forces either in part of or all of Ukraine, and second question, if that happens, on some level that may have been planned as distinguished from entirely brought about ad hoc in response to Putin's current actions? 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

My suspicion is that the talk of a Russian false flag (as plausible as it is) may be cover for an upcoming false flag or pretext from our own side, but whether or not that is the case it just looks to me

My feelings also, the stage has been set. Hope I am wrong.

[Jeff Carter]

There is no Russian invasion of Ukraine. If the rebel provinces are seriously attacked then the Russians will intervene, and have the capability to do so without moving personnel physically across a border.

The current dispute is actually over broader security guarantees. There is a material record of the history of this, and I have shared where to find it. (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu). American diplomats warned back in the mid to late 90s of the crisis which is today occurring. The Russian case is not unreasonable, it follows in part the logic advanced by the Kennedy administration during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and it is consistent with signed treaties. The current American / NATO position is belligerent, and appears designed to recreate the walled-off tensions of the Cold War 1980s. This is confirmed by proposed Congressional legislation and attendant declarations directed at Russia (available on Congressional website), and by the statements of NATO head Stoltenberg a few days ago that a state of permanent tension and military readiness is the “new normal” for Europe moving ahead (https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2937821/russia-forces-a-new-normal-on-europe-stoltenberg-says/).

Greg said: “Gorbachev was making breathtaking significant strides toward achievement of that vision, but of course Gorbachev lost power and that was the end of that.”  That’s not exactly the case. Americans had tremendous influence in Russia during the Yeltsin years (i.e. most of the 90s). Unfortunately, their advice resulted in an oligarchical kleptocracy whereby the human development index of an industrialized country notably declined for the first time in history. This occurred in tandem with a series of broken promises regarding NATO expansion, and a general dismissal of articulated Russian security concerns (as can be confirmed at the National Security Archive). The decade culminated with NATO’s attack on Russian ally Serbia, conducted outside of international legal protocols and based on assertions which have been called into question.

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 2/15/2022 at 7:23 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

From Newsweek, hitherto sort of CIA-lib mouthpiece-- 

Is the Durham Filing the Smoking Gun That Undoes Hillary Clinton?

BY ALEXANDRA HUTZLER ON 2/15/22 AT 3:05 PM EST

 

---30---

 

Perhaps the Clintons, who are smart and extremely well-connected (think establishment globalists), managed to weaponize part of the Deep State against a rival pol.  They used cut outs, and possibly lawyers, who have attorney-client privilege, to effect the bogus Trump-Russia narrative. 

 

Well, that would not be the first time the Deep State helped to torpedo a political candidate or office holder. 

 

(This does not mean Trump is a nice guy, or that the Koch brothers are saintly. It only means the Clintons weaponized the Deep State against a political rival. I would hope people in the JFKA would be interested in the ongoing role of the Deep State in politics--whether or not it goes against the Donks or the 'Phants.)

 

"Gangsta Phant" BenC,  let down again while trying to shoot the HC low hangin' fruit!

 

This is the Hilary Clinton   story that Trump has said the Clintons should be "executed" over. Which I'm sure lends credibility to the Hillary spying story for BenC and Fox News, but now Fox news hero Prosecutor John Durham (a foremost proponent that facial hair is more attractive than lips) has repudiated Fox News for exaggerating his results, after no less than a week of Fox News spinning the results that Hillary was at last, going to jail.

I get it, what TV journalists have time to read these days?

It was a lot of fun while it lasted!

 

Warning: Content may contain clips of Hilary Clinton  and for Pizzagate believers, Parental Guidance is Advised

 

 

Also this,       https://www.alternet.org/2022/02/durham/

 

Hilary is threatening to sue. It's probably too late now!l

 

Edited February 20, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Denny Zartman]

Newsweek is a liberal mouthpiece? Since when?