Allen Dulles and his Nazi Pals in Ukraine 🇺🇦

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Well, I would agree with that. Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014. Putin offered passports and citizenship to various sundry groups in Ukraine before that as a pretext and then used murder and mercenaries to destabilize an already shaky situation. That has been the modus operand in the continent for hundreds of years. They're not the only ones to do that. Because of the fluid settlement issue in Europe for centuries that method of destabilization is part of the landscape.

This is all covered in the Mearsheimer video I shared, including the history that predates that and including a ‘coup d’etat’ removing a democratically elected leader who was happy to deal with Russia. It also included the 14,000 people ethnically cleansed in Luhansk and Donetsk in the period between 2014 and 2022, which is probably worth noting, Bob. The US government would have rubbed its hands at such a glorious pretext for war if the shoe were on the other foot. That’s all we have seen since the 1950’s. Of course it was the Brits before that. 
 

14 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

I've asked before (and will again) what NATO member country has experienced sustained conflict within its borders? Nobody seems to be able to come up with that answer. Maybe you can. It's not a trick question.

Are we including Ireland/Northern Ireland? Or the Basque situation in Spain? 
 

(I have something else to add when I hear your answer.) 
 

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Chris Barnard

[Bob Ness]

13 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

This is all covered in the Mearsheimer video I shared, including the history that predates that and including a ‘coup d’etat’ removing a democratically elected leader who was happy to deal with Russia. It also included the 14,000 people ethnically cleansed in Luhansk and Donetsk in the period between 2014 and 2022, which is probably worth noting, Bob. The US government would have rubbed its hands at such a glorious pretext for war if the shoe were on the other foot. That’s all we have seen since the 1950’s. Of course it was the Brits before that. 
 

Are we including Ireland/Northern Ireland? Or the Basque situation in Spain? 
 

(I have something else to add when I hear your answer.) 
 

 

You call that cross border sustained combat? Separatists fighting among themselves and their host? Can you fill me in on the Alien Enemy Law also? That has a history of about 700 years. Still common law everywhere. Under this law, enemy aliens can be subject to arrest, internment, and deportation. It's common especially after your native country has attacked your host country.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Bob Ness

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Bob Ness said:

You call that cross border sustained combat? Can you fill me in on the Alien Enemy Law also? That has a history of about 700 years. Still common law everywhere.

You’ve changed your question, Bob. 🙂 

Your exact words:

”I've asked before (and will again) what NATO member country has experienced sustained conflict within its borders? Nobody seems to be able to come up with that answer. Maybe you can. It's not a trick question.”

 

[Guest]

@Bob Ness

Lets get down to brass taxes. What’s your point? Please try to make it as directly as possible. 
 

(If you have one). 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Chris Barnard

[Kirk Gallaway]

16 hours ago, John Cotter said:

There's only one country in the world whose foreign policy is full spectrum (ie global) dominance.

It's not Russia.

Bob: If I need buzzwords, I'll et you know.

John, i understand Bob's response.  I've noticed you've used  this phrase as a crutch probably 5 times as if just the act of  invoking it gives you some sort of mystical power.  Of course, it doesn't.

I am aware of a number of levers that the western powers use of persuasion or coercion to get their way, but it's incumbent upon you to explain specifically what you're talking about.

I do like your subsequent "hegemony" post in that I think it has some meat on the bones there, and agree with some of it. Though I don't agree with your conclusion necessarily, and I want to address it later.

****

Bob as far as your conversation with Chris. I understand some of your frustration with Chris's tendency to evasive long winded non answers. But I do think in your initial question to him, you are a bit vague.

Bob: Just curious. What do you call what Putin is doing? Anxiously waiting...

I understand Chris's need for clarification there. But this current impasse.

Bob:I've asked before (and will again) what NATO member country has experienced sustained conflict within its borders? Nobody seems to be able to come up with that answer. Maybe you can. It's not a trick question.

Chris, this  is a straightforward question. Stop trying to finesse a non answer!

 

I do think Chris is well within his right to ask you questions about what he's posted as well, Bob.

I'm butting in because I do get very frustrated here at the inability, from whatever persuasion to follow a course from a to b to c and develop any consensus of an agreed upon reality.

[Bob Ness]

53 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

@Bob Ness

Lets get down to brass taxes. What’s your point? Please try to make it as directly as possible. 
 

(If you have one). 

"Goes see this link" is direct? Like YOU make a point by referring to other people's links and expecting me to waste my time? The fact is NATO countries have never been subject to attack (within its borders) from other countries since its formulation. European countries have uniformly joined when given the opportunity. That has largely been because the US has provided an umbrella of security that those countries have benefitted from since that time. My family has blood on the ground in Europe defending some idiot Royal or the other's sensibilities in the interminable fighting that goes on in the most violent place on earth (Europe). 

That is not true of Russia and its satellites. Hungary, Yugoslavia, Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, etc etc etc have all been trashed by Russia at one time or the other and you seem to support that. The invasion of Ukraine was an outright invasion of a sovereign country. The blood bath is on Russia. Not NATO. The position seems to be that someone holding a gun to your head and saying "let's negotiate" is somehow virtuous and explains the reason why Putin invaded when Ukraine declined. It's not up to Russia to determine the policies of the Ukrainian government.

Their move is simply good old European colonialism dressed up for ignorant people to swallow and unfortunately will likely give rise to more repression of innocent people. Do you really think that after trashing the Ukraine Putin will pull back and fix it up? No. He's there for good unless they beat him back and then the US and NATO countries will be asked to pay for it.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Bob Ness

[Bob Ness]

27 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I am aware of a number of levers that the western powers use of persuasion or coercion to get their way, but it's incumbent upon you to explain specifically what you're talking about.

Exactly. Not long ago I posted a link to Moby Dick claiming Melville states Oswald didn't do it and he says it in here - go check for yourself! (Here's the link if you don't believe me. It's only a thousand pages. Moby Dick : Herman Melville : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive). It would be simple for me to go find a contrary opinion, post that as my evidence, and have a nice day. It's BS. If people can't explain their positions and use the best facts they can assemble, I'm not interested. Posting links to other people's assertions is lazy and dishonest, by and large. Lori's a journalist and can't even source information (I wouldn't expect her to a lot of that for a forum...).

I also tend to search for on-the-ground sources through forums and blogs and so on (Maidan and Syria in the past come to mind) to get those perspectives rather than rely on academics but that's harder to do now because conversation has been cut off in troubled areas and wasn't not too long ago. If people can't summarize their claims (at least Carter does that) and footnote their sources if needed why should I do that for them?

To me the entire situation is obvious. I'm not unaware of the shenanigans the West has engaged in and am somewhat sympathetic to the Russian defensiveness toward their neighbors. History is on their side in that regard. But borders of sovereign countries should be respected because if they are not, the results can be catastrophic. As is the case in Ukraine today.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Bob Ness

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

You’ve changed your question, Bob. 🙂 

Fair enough. What NATO country has been attacked within its borders by another country which resulted in sustained conflict? Not terrorists. Not separatists. 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Bob Ness

[Matthew Koch]

Kirk, Ron, Matt, Niederhut and Bob seem to be using the "He Crossed State Lines" argument they learned from the MSM during the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. So let's use that as an analogy: Kyle Rittenhouse is Russia since he crossed state lines, Madison city is Donbas, Jacob Blake is Azov, BLM is NATO. The incident stated with Jacob Blake sexually assaulting his exgirfriend and attempting to steal a car a knife point with children in it after fighting Madison police officers he was shot 7 times in the back. Following it BLM activists rioted and set fire to buildings. The next day Kyle Rittenhouse crossed state lines and set up a with other activists to guard businesses. BLM activist attempting to push a dumpster which was on fire into a gas station, causing Kyle Rittenhouse to use a fire extinguisher on the dumpster then causing BLM activists to threaten and chase Kyle, during this someone fire a gun into the air. Kyle interpreting someone telling him they were going to kill them and hearing a gun shot, proceeded to defend himself being firing on the person who was then attempting to forcible take his fire arm. This provocation was then used as justification by BLM to attack Kyle to which he further proceeded to defend himself, his actions were in response to actions already taken towards him... Now does that make it right, no, but it isn't murder and in a similar way, what Russia is doing is similar; it is defending itself. I am only making this analogy to show that it's a mitigating circumstance that does not rise to the level that the "He crossed muh state lines" are arguing that it's criminal Serial Killer behavior only to murder. In both cases the muh state lines people seem to leave out the aggressions that lead up to the crossing of state lines like a sniper coup. 

For the people mentioned above why should Russia tolerate a country on it's border which was put in power by in an illegal Coup de Tat, backed by NeoCon&NeoLibeals in DC,EU,and NATO? All of whom are unfriendly towards Moscow, seems rather foolish to let something unfriendly come closer. That Ukrainian Coup government then proceeded to pass anti slavic legislation like banning the Russian language making it harder for Ethnic Russians to work and earn a living. That caused the Separatists in Donbas to form their own government and break off. This Ukrainian coup government then funded the Neo(((N)))azi Azov Battalion militia to attack Russian Militias that formed in response to separating from Kiev. NATO is using the same strategy against Russia as the Pentagon used against the USSR. They are attempting to bankrupt Russia via it having to spend it's money on military and proxy wars, where as NATO countries share the cost. NATO then uses this as a damned if you do damned if you don't, policy of aggression towards Russia. 

 

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

"Goes see this link" is direct? Like YOU make a point by referring to other people's links and expecting me to waist my time? The fact is NATO countries have never been subject to attack (within its borders) from other countries since its formulation. European countries have uniformly joined when given the opportunity. That has largely been because the US has provided an umbrella of security that those countries have benefitted from since that time. My family has blood on the ground in Europe defending some idiot Royal or the other's sensibilities in the interminable fighting that goes on in the most violent place on earth (Europe). 

That is not true of Russia and its satellites. Hungary, Yugoslavia, Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, etc etc etc have all been trashed by Russia at one time or the other and you seem to support that. The invasion of Ukraine was an outright invasion of a sovereign country. The blood bath is on Russia. Not NATO. The position seems to be that someone holding a gun to your head and saying "let's negotiate" is somehow virtuous and explains the reason why Putin invaded when Ukraine declined. It's not up to Russia to determine the policies of the Ukrainian government.

Their move is simply good old European colonialism dressed up for ignorant people to swallow and unfortunately will likely give rise to more repression of innocent people. Do you really think that after trashing the Ukraine Putin will pull back and fix it up? No. He's there for good unless they beat him back and then the US and NATO countries will be asked to pay for it.

Thank you, Bob, I appreciate it. 

I don't expect you to waste your time, Bob, I don't even expect you to further educate yourself, it's entirely optional. I do think it's prudent to study your opponents argument. I see by your silence that you realise your lack of specificity in the initial question has caused this to be more drawn out than needed. NATO is essentially a military alliance (or teaming up of forces) has prevented anyone within that pact from being attacked by a non member of this military club. Is that all that surprising? 

I am going to post this once more, purely because it explains context and what NATO has been doing, which may well give you clarity, Bob. At worst, you'll see where the people you are debating are coming from. 

NATO is being used as a mechanism to expand the liberal hegemony and bring to fruition the US policy of full spectrum dominance. NATO agreed after the break up of the Soviet Union that they would NOT expand east past the Elbe River. They've kept expanding, breaking that promise to Russia. The Ex communist/Soviet states have mostly been used as the front for a mostly silent war between two superpowers. You can look at all these missile silos and tremendous build up on NATO countries / Russia's borders as 'a security umbrella' if you wish? Are the weapons offensive or defensive? It opens a wider question; is the best form of defence, attack? 

I'll repeat myself again and say; Putin said in a speech a few years back on an international platform that "The USA has over 1000 overseas bases and military installations. Russia has 3 of these bases and I am sure two of them are in places where the world would want them. The USA spends ten times more on arms than any other country, and Russia is called the aggressor." Surely, at some point the American people must understand what their foreign policy has been about for decades?
 

24 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

The invasion of Ukraine was an outright invasion of a sovereign country.

True - We agree. 
 

25 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

The blood bath is on Russia. Not NATO.

False 

The responsibility is shared between the West, the Ukraine government & Russia. As outlined in Mearsheimer's lecture. The case has been made multiple times in this thread. 

 

29 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

It's not up to Russia to determine the policies of the Ukrainian government.

The trouble with a statement like this is, in a fair and just world, this should be so. Unfortunately, the one country the world looks to as an example is the USA, the most powerful military power on earth. The USA has been doing exactly what you accuse Russia of for many decades. Which is maintaining a 'Monroe Doctrine", where it declares a sphere of influence. The US sphere seems to be engulfing much of the world. It's exactly what you speak of, they hold a gun to a weaker countries head as an incentive to negotiate, or they destabilise the country, using subversive means which we have all learned about from the JFK era. If that doesn't work, there is a coup or invasion. This all starts with a pretext for war, which might be that Saddam Hussain is a bad guy and has WMD's, or Zelensky is ethnic cleansing people of Russian heritage in multiple regions. It had occurred to me that if you just changed the names USA and Russia, the modus operandi would be almost, if not identical. The USA is far better at the psychological war IMO. 

What is neglected in your side of the debate is the strategic importance of Ukraine to Russia. Would the USA be ok if Canada and Mexico suddenly said they were forging closer ties with Putin and arming up, putting troops on the US border and pointing its missiles at DC, New York and California? Russia is being encircled strategically. Much like China is on its eastern seaboard. Russia regards Ukraine becoming a NATO country as an existential threat to its survival. What it is entitled to think is that NATO will keep chipping away at regions just inside Russia, until the nation further contracts. What you are seeing is a very long incremental strategy play out. You've read the Gladio stuff haven't you? 

So, what myself a handful of others have been trying to point out here is; this isn't heroes and villains, it's much more nuanced and super powers are vying for territory and control, it's rather like two tectonic plates rubbing together right now. 

46 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Do you really think that after trashing the Ukraine Putin will pull back and fix it up? No. He's there for good unless they beat him back and then the US and NATO countries will be asked to pay for it.

IMO he won't relinquish Crimea because of its strategic importance, and he (Putin) looks intent on keeping or giving independence to the two breakaway regions that are occupied by ethnic Russians. They have been seeking independence since the 2014 conflict. Which is a whole complicated issue, Bob which will yield an unsatisfactory outcome for one part of the other. 

It could have all been avoided, which is the tremendous tragedy. People like myself have been saying; detente, rapprochement and peace. It's been falling on deaf ears. As always, the people are the victims. It's very dangerous when people are more concerned with winning than saving lives. 



 

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Fair enough. What NATO country has been attacked within its borders by another country which resulted in sustained conflict? Not terrorists. Not separatists. 

I can't think of one by these definitions. The Falklands is excluded because of article 6 by an arbitrary rule. I have explained my thoughts in a recent lengthy post, which I hope you understand. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Bob: If I need buzzwords, I'll et you know.

John, i understand Bob's response.  I've noticed you've used  this phrase as a crutch probably 5 times as if just the act of  invoking it gives you some sort of mystical power.  Of course, it doesn't.

I am aware of a number of levers that the western powers use of persuasion or coercion to get their way, but it's incumbent upon you to explain specifically what you're talking about.

I do like your subsequent "hegemony" post in that I think it has some meat on the bones there, and agree with some of it. Though I don't agree with your conclusion necessarily, and I want to address it later.

****

Bob as far as your conversation with Chris. I understand some of your frustration with Chris's tendency to evasive long winded non answers. But I do think in your initial question to him, you are a bit vague.

Bob: Just curious. What do you call what Putin is doing? Anxiously waiting...

I understand Chris's need for clarification there. But this current impasse.

Bob:I've asked before (and will again) what NATO member country has experienced sustained conflict within its borders? Nobody seems to be able to come up with that answer. Maybe you can. It's not a trick question.

Chris, this  is a straightforward question. Stop trying to finesse a non answer!

 

I do think Chris is well within his right to ask you questions about what he's posted as well, Bob.

I'm butting in because I do get very frustrated here at the inability, from whatever persuasion to follow a course from a to b to c and develop any consensus of an agreed upon reality.

Thanks, Kirk, This is largely fair of you. I did answer N.Ireland / Ireland based on the original wording. I have since supplied another answer. 

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Lori Spencer said:

The Sy Hersh Nordstream sabotage story was a good read — thanks. 

Gotta admit it was solid reporting. I usually take Hersh’s work with several grains of salt (because I still haven’t forgiven him for that poorly sourced crap book on JFK), and I always double-check his work. In this case, it checks out. My own research and sources led me to the same conclusion months ago. 
 

This certainly comes as no surprise to anyone old enough to remember that time the CIA blew up the Trans Siberian Pipeline in 1982. They sabotaged it using a primitive computer virus which caused a pressure explosion that was, at the time, the largest non-nuclear explosion in history. 
 

This was done to stop the Russians from selling natural gas to Europe (sound familiar?). 
 

Of course, Reagan and the CIA denied it at the time — just like Biden and the CIA are denying they did Nordstream 1&2 — then they admitted it 30 years later. 
 

To refresh your memory about the Trans Siberian pipeline episode, here’s a brief video from the Smithsonian channel about it. Ring a familiar bell 🔔? 
 

Lol I’m sure the CIA would NEVER do such a thing again! 😉 💥 💣 

Thank you for sharing this video, Lori. 

[Pat Speer]

The bullies where I grew up used to play a game. They would reach towards your face till you grabbed their hand. Now in control of your hand, they would slap you in the face with your hand while saying something like "Why are you doing that?" And then, if you broke free, they would accidentally on purpose hit you with their own hand, and say "See what you made me do?" 

You were hit by your own hand. And your breaking free caused you to get hit by the bully's hand. But it wasn't your fault. It was the bully's fault. 

Putin is the bully in this situation. The whole world knows it. 

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

I am sorry, William. That isn’t adequate as a response. Treat it as a stand alone question if you so wish. Again:

 

PS. I answered your questions directly. You have now redefined their meaning and asked further questions to me. Lets establish a ‘quid pro quo’ here. I am happy to answer any questions you have in order, once you extend me that courtesy, agreed? 
 

 

Chris,

    I posted my original comments and questions about defending democracy in Europe in response to the outrage about the sabotage of the Nordstream pipeline.

    First, can we agree that the Russian Federation is, in fact, a totalitarian dictatorship that is waging a brutal war on a sovereign democratic nation in Europe?

    That Putin has been openly contemptuous of Western democracy?

    Next, if Putin is funding his brutal war against a sovereign, democratic nation with revenue from the Nordstream pipeline, does it make sense to cut off that source of Russian military funding in time of war?

    In other words, is democracy in Europe worth defending?

    My father, uncles, and great uncles, certainly thought so, when they served in the U.S. military in Europe during WWI and WWII.