Allen Dulles and his Nazi Pals in Ukraine 🇺🇦

[Benjamin Cole]

10 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

JFK clearly rejected the kind of rabid Russophobia which is a dominant feature of western propaganda about the war in Ukraine.

John-

Xenophobia is never an admirable trait. 

Somehow, the US left was hoodwinked into clumping Trump and Putin together, and that meant Putin was bad. Undoubtably, a US intel-state triumph of PR. 

That said, I cannot excuse Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

Never say never, but who would invade Russia? They have nukes, they have tactical nukes, they have 12,000 tanks, and Russians, like people everywhere, would fight to the death for homeland. 

And what would be the upside? Russia has oil, that's about it. And they sell their oil anyway. 

I feel sheepish, as an American, saying this, as the US public was hoodwinked into invading Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, none of which is even close to the US. The justification for those invasions was to make America safer. 

Although I sharply disagree with you, I accept your commentary. On some issues, we just have to agree to disagree. 

 

 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

In the first place why not promise no NATO for Ukraine?

Well as I remember it Paul. Biden did say there were no plans for Ukraine to join Nato.  I think it was couched like that.

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

In the second why not just put defensive forces in before the invasion to prevent it, while focusing all the worlds attention on it diplomatically.

Of course prior to the invasion bringing defensive forces would be seen as a provocative escalation.

In some ways, it was a dicey situation. But  Biden definitely  promised that there would be no "American boots on the ground" and for example. forum super hawk , immediate "no fly zone" Ben disparaged Biden at the time for giving Putin the green light for invasion with no impunity. But Ben wasn't alone in saying Biden gave away the store. There were some hawk generals in the media.

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Did the US think he wouldn’t invade so why bother?

At first, i think the general consensus was that Putin wouldn't invade.  Of course, to the end we had Oliver Stone and Jeff Carter telling us Putin would absolutely not invade. 

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

No, every day the media was flashing red, telling us all that Putin was about to invade

I didn't interpret the media as knowing positively Putin was going to invade. But they latch on to the story 24 hours a day, and hammer the potential danger in your head. I can see where people would.  But it seemed to me like that was the "unthinkable" by a lot  of the pundits. But there was a lot of confusion. But to your point, I didn't recall anyone talking of preventative actions. The ball was to be left solely in Putin's court.

Then Biden said we had intelligence saying the invasion was going to happen. And the West applauded Biden for "forcing Putin's hand."

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

I have often wondered, since the invasion, if Biden and NATO made a major mistake by refusing to negotiate with Putin about the issue of barring possible NATO expansion into Ukraine.

Yes, I thought that too. But do you think that's all Putin really wanted? That and recognition of Crimea? i don't think so. 

It's funny, but I believe it was Doug that shared a Henry Kissinger post, I believe it was in the early days of the war. Isn't Kissinger credited by those who justify Putin's invasion as a guy who warned against Nato expansion?

Anyway I think Kissinger said he was confident if Ukraine would agree to not join Nato. Russia should then agree to get out of the Donbass and out of Crimea as well! That struck me as rose colored glasses and so unrealistic at the time! But I think that was the gist of his proposal.

Edited January 27, 2023 by Kirk Gallaway

[John Cotter]

52 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

John, I shared this in the Trump thread earlier, but it is relevant for explaining the where the attitudes for the RussiaPhobia came from explained by Adam Maté.

William you might want to watch and take notes.. 

Thanks for that, Matthew. It corroborates what any reasonably intelligent objective observor could see for themselves what was happening. Blaming Russia for Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump in 2016 was a misdirection from the Democrats' chronic betrayal of the people and principles they claim to represent.

 

[John Cotter]

58 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

John-

Xenophobia is never an admirable trait. 

Somehow, the US left was hoodwinked into clumping Trump and Putin together, and that meant Putin was bad. Undoubtably, a US intel-state triumph of PR. 

That said, I cannot excuse Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

Never say never, but who would invade Russia? They have nukes, they have tactical nukes, they have 12,000 tanks, and Russians, like people everywhere, would fight to the death for homeland. 

And what would be the upside? Russia has oil, that's about it. And they sell their oil anyway. 

I feel sheepish, as an American, saying this, as the US public was hoodwinked into invading Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, none of which is even close to the US. The justification for those invasions was to make America safer. 

Although I sharply disagree with you, I accept your commentary. On some issues, we just have to agree to disagree. 

 

 

 

I agree with most of your previous post, Benjamin, but I must ask the question, at what point does it become justifiable for the bear being poked to fight back?

[Benjamin Cole]

19 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

I agree with most of your previous post, Benjamin, but I must ask the question, at what point does it become justifiable for the bear being poked to fight back?

John-

Well, from the comfort of my remote location, I would say when it appeared that NATO appeared serious in intentions to militarily invade Russia. 

Again, I feel sheepish as an American saying this. 

We all know the postwar US history of endless occupations of far-flung nations, to "protect" the US. 

From what I see (and I only know what I read on the internet), there was nothing even remotely resembling a NATO plan to invade Russia. 

 

[Matt Allison]

46 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

I agree with most of your previous post, Benjamin, but I must ask the question, at what point does it become justifiable for the bear being poked to fight back?

Hmm, this sounds like John thinks Ukraine should finally be allowed to strike back at Russia, after a year of Russia sending missiles into Ukraine and there being no retaliation by Ukraine.

Tell us, John, is that what you mean?

[Bob Ness]

4 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Never say never, but who would invade Russia? They have nukes, they have tactical nukes, they have 12,000 tanks, and Russians, like people everywhere, would fight to the death for homeland. 

Exactly. The immediate issue was about joining the EU not NATO, although that was certainly a consideration. The biggest problem Putin has is countries setting an example he has no intention of emulating. NATO is the preeminent source of stability in Europe and almost without exception neighboring countries and former Warsaw pact members prefer joining NATO and removing themselves from Putin's grasp. For Putin it has nothing to do with border security and everything to do with reconstituting Russian hegemony over its former satellites. We have Trident submarines 100 miles or less away from Russia that could turn it into a glass bowl in a day. The same goes for them and the US.

 

[Matthew Koch]

Looks like nothing was learned from the Iraq war, when you are on the side of JP Morgan, Black Rock, Westinghouse.. you are probably supporting the bad guys.. 

 

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

John, I shared this in the Trump thread earlier, but it is relevant for explaining the where the attitudes for the RussiaPhobia came from explained by Adam Maté.

William you might want to watch and take notes.. 

 

Mathew,

    You, obviously, never studied the detailed references that I posted for you in response to this lame video-- from the Atlantic, the U.S. Senate Intel Report, and the Mueller Report-- about Russian interference in our 2016 election.

     It's an example of willful ignorance.

     As for the repeated poppycock on this thread about criticism of Putin being a result of "Russophobia" resulting from Western propaganda, it's truly ridiculous.  I know all about Russophobic Cold War propaganda.  This ain't it.

     I was a cantor in the Russian Orthodox Church for years.  My criticism of Putin is a result of direct experience during the past quarter century, and knowledge of Putin's totalitarian police state-- not Western propaganda or Russophobia.  If anything, I'm a spiritual (White) Russian-- not a Russophobe.

    Has anyone else around here studied the writings of former KGB Lt. Col. Konstantin Preobrazhensky?

    Catherine Belton's book, Putin's People?

     Can we hear what Putin apologists have to say about Putin's serial murders of journalists in Russia during the past 20 years?  No big deal?  Fake news?

     How about Putin's history of shutting down the free press and turning the Russian media into an organ of state propaganda?  No big deal?

     How about Putin's serial murders and incarcerations of critics and opposition politicians?  No big deal?

     How about Putin's obvious war crimes in Ukraine-- his mass murders of civilian non-combatants?

Edited January 27, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Matt Allison]

C'mon W, you're just being a genocidalmaniacaphobe.

[Matthew Koch]

56 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Mathew,

    You, obviously, never studied the detailed references that I posted for you in response to this lame video-- from the Atlantic, the U.S. Senate Intel Report, and the Mueller Report-- about Russian interference in our 2016 election.

     It's an example of willful ignorance.

     As for the repeated poppycock on this thread about criticism of Putin being a result of "Russophobia" resulting from Western propaganda, it's truly ridiculous.  I know all about Russophobic Cold War propaganda.  This ain't it.

     I was a cantor in the Russian Orthodox Church for years.  My criticism of Putin is a result of direct experience during the past quarter century, and knowledge of Putin's totalitarian police state-- not Western propaganda or Russophobia.  If anything, I'm a spiritual (White) Russian-- not a Russophobe.

    Has anyone else around here studied the writings of former KGB Lt. Col. Konstantin Preobrazhensky?

    Catherine Belton's book, Putin's People?

     Can we hear what Putin apologists have to say about Putin's serial murders of journalists in Russia during the past 20 years?  No big deal?  Fake news?

     How about Putin's history of shutting down the free press and turning the Russian media into an organ of state propaganda?  No big deal?

     How about Putin's serial murders and incarcerations of critics and opposition politicians?  No big deal?

     How about Putin's obvious war crimes in Ukraine-- his mass murders of civilian non-combatants?

I have friends from Russia who live in Denver and don't feel the way you do, so to me that is anecdotal. You're a Spiritual White Russian and an Anti War Hippie type? Sounds oxymoronic, just like your inability to articulate how the committee that ruled against "Collusion" but in your mind if you actually read the report you will understand how there really was collusion. I'll be honest William I don't believe you read the report, and like your Idol Schiff, you are prevaying misinformation due to your inability to separate your emotions of your personal life from Schiff's disinformation and MSM's misinformation about Russia Collusion. Putin or Comey didn't sway the election, Wiki Leaks and Podesta Emails did.  So once again I invite you to cite something other than the Atlantic ( the owner was involved with Epstein and Maxwell), I mean I read the Warren Report which was 888pgs and I could tell you what the summary of the summary was and what specifics that the commission ruled, you seem to be unable to do that with this report. Why? 

With the Russiaphobia, Imo Matt is a Russiphobe. And he is also unable to separate his emotions because he believes Putin rigged the election. That's logic I can't understand given the lack of citation and facts. Reality is Schiff is being taken off his Committee because Russia Collusion isn't true Kevin McCarthy explained it and Aaron Maté who is hardly a conservative confirmed that is correct. 

As for your bulletin points about Putin apologists, I am an America First'er and an isolationist and you could interchange Putin with Saddam and I feel the same way. America should not be involved past sending the kind of aid that was allowed to Nicaragua during the civil war there. NATO provoked an invasion based on fighting in the Donbas which was led by the Azov battalion. So really Ukraine and Nato started it and fanned the flames and Russia is now solving the conflict militarily. No one expected Zelensky to fight to the last man, so Russia now have to do an Iraq style take over of the country and oust the government. 1 million new troops are going to be interjected into the supply line and those troops will move up to the front to support the final stage of the special operation. I don't blame them at this point given the unfriendly overthrow of Ukraine, proxy conflict in Donbas and the attempted seizing of Russia's Naval Port in Crimea. Tulsi Gabbard is able to see the Ukrainian corruption, it seems to be across the political spectrum. Zelensky is banning Churches in Ukraine sounds like Diem in Vietnam, who whole thing seems like that to me.. like America and the CIA are propping up a corrupt leader that is having a civil war that the Deep State's enemy is fighting in. 

 

 

Edited January 27, 2023 by Matthew Koch

[Karl Kinaski]

 edit

 

Edited January 27, 2023 by Karl Kinaski

[John Cotter]

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

John-

Well, from the comfort of my remote location, I would say when it appeared that NATO appeared serious in intentions to militarily invade Russia. 

Again, I feel sheepish as an American saying this. 

We all know the postwar US history of endless occupations of far-flung nations, to "protect" the US. 

From what I see (and I only know what I read on the internet), there was nothing even remotely resembling a NATO plan to invade Russia. 

 

Benjamin, 

So as far as you're concerned, the US foreign policy of full spectrum dominance, which has included serial regime change and NATO expansion in eastern Europe, is only a figment of Russian imagination.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Just thought I'd add this tidbit in again

Ah, sorry Chris. Trying to put together a movie or TV show in Hollywood that has significant criticism of Russia or China is difficult in my experience. Too much money in the pipeline from those sources' limits interest in that sort of production. It's not impossible but if you're not Fox or somebody it's not likely to happen. Money that washes around in Hollywood is often mixed up with dark money looking for a hiding place.

Thanks for the clarification. I guess Rocky IV, The Hunt For Red October, The frequent Bond films featuring Soviets, Red Dawn, etc. More recently movies like the Equalizer depicts Russian gangsters which may link in to Pat’s impressions. All of it nonetheless does shape public opinion. 
 

WaPo have done an article on this topic, roughly. Its not an outlet that I read unless someone here posts a link:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2022/04/22/russians-are-hollywoods-go-to-film-villains-thats-unlikely-change/

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I think the CIA long ago realized the propaganda value of films and has helped with the production of a number of them. As I recall, Zero Dark Thirty was created with the CIA's assistance. There is a problem with assuming all propaganda of this type is a lie, of course, just as there is a problem with assuming everything that is spun by the White House or a spokesperson for big tobacco or big oil is a lie. But it should make one think twice, IMO. 

As a one-time member of the Writers Guild, I can assure you that the stereotype for writers--leftists, progressives, etc, is mostly true. A lot of people get interested in writing and story-telling because they want to change attitudes and change  the world--that's just a fact.

In my lifetime, I've seen a lot of movement as far as race relations, along with a much more tolerant attitude towards gays. Gay marriage would have been unthinkable in 1965, or 1975, or even 1985. But the straight public's exposure to people such as Elton John, Ellen DeGeneres, and Neil Patrick Harris led to a softening of this stance, and a realization that gay people deserve a chance to be married and raise children. 

As far as myself, I was raised in white suburbia, in the 1960's. I didn't know any black people, outside of one or two kids at school. But I remember seeing MLK on TV, and he seemed pretty smart, and I watched TV and sports and appreciated the talent and/or warmth and humanity of people like Leslie Uggams, Diahann Carroll, Bill Cosby, Wiilie Mays, Maury Wills, Willie Davis, Gale Sayers and Elgin Baylor. I couldn't imagine a world in which they would be forbidden from being my neighbor, or where their kids would be prohibited from attending my school. 

So media exposure makes a difference. It changes minds and changes the world. 

 

I agree, Pat. Thank you for taking the time to chip in with this. There is a book I have been meaning to get through sat on my desk, which specifically addresses the use of propaganda in Hollywood. I am sure it’ll reveal more than smoking actresses to sell cigarettes. I’ll add something further if it is of value. Did you read “Chasing The Lights” by Oliver Stone? It was very interesting how difficult it was to get Platoon made and other movies. He eludes that it was a little more than just pressure about what would or wouldn’t sell.