Allen Dulles and his Nazi Pals in Ukraine 🇺🇦

[Guest]

1 minute ago, W. Niederhut said:

Chris,

      I, certainly, wish that more could have been done to prevent this terrible tragedy in Ukraine.

      No argument from me on that account.

      As for Putin, it is true that I have harbored a personal grudge against the man since his FSB goons seized the ROCOR in 2007, (including my own local parish.)

      He confiscated the last remnant of the Russian Orthodox Church that had not been corrupted and controlled by the KGB, and told ITASS at the time that, "religion is one of Russia's most important weapons of self defense."

      In other words, like his KGB predecessors, he cynically viewed the Church as a mere tool of the state.

I wish we could have all done more, too. Its another humanitarian catastrophe before our eyes. 😢 

It sounds very much that you have grounds to feel that way. 😞 
 

Consent sits with the masses. As 16th century French magistrate, Etienne de la Boetie explains in “The politics of obedience”, an essay he wrote whilst a student. As a population we have the opportunity to make our wishes clear by withdrawing consent for conflicts. Whether that is the sending of troops to Vietnam, weapons to Ukraine, buying oil from Russia or doing business with the Saudi’s. We, en mass, walk out of our homes and say no to government. Withdrawing consent or their mandate.

1) We have to care about what goes on outside of our immediate sphere, and have morals. 
2) We have to be educated and in todays age that involves us hunting high and low for it, in places beyond our politicians, google or MSM. 
3) We must resist propaganda, and the feelings that make us hate, or desire to vanquish an enemy, or the wish to feel the elation of victory over an opponent. If we embrace these emotions we are doomed to misery. This is what the masses are so easily walked into periodically when the people who profit from war are looking for the cassus belli. When a despot does invade a neighbour we must be measured and well considered in our response, considering the cost of any action or reaction. This is why I like JFK. He has his head screwed on, he was a great man. None of us can say how he’d have handled Ukraine, I would hazard a guess that he wouldn’t have let it get to this tragic stage, to the extent that it was in his control. 

[Paul Brancato]

4 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

I haven't seen anyone say otherwise.

Prior to Putin's invasion, how exactly would that have worked?

btw, the West is currently in the process of saving Ukraine and its democracy.

Yes, quite easily, and it isn't particularly complicated either.

NATO is not the European Union. It’s a defense treaty, in my view basically an arms bazar. It’s got nothing to do with democracy per se. Putin asked that Ukraine not be part of NATO, something the west was not willing to promise. On that level it’s easy for me to empathize with Russia, who have seen their sphere of influence shrink due to NATO expansion. That would have been the diplomatic way to avoid this war, though as you know the eastern part of Ukraine has been at war since 2014. Would you or anyone else agree that making such a promise would have been preferable to an escalating war? 

Edited January 23, 2023 by Paul Brancato

[Matt Allison]

No, because the accusations about NATO made by Putin apologists are all objectively ridiculous.

NATO doesn't invade sovereign countries.

NATO is there to protect other countries from the barbaric tradition of invasion by Russia.

Ukraine, one of the few countries not protected by NATO... got invaded by Russia.

[Guest]

On 1/23/2023 at 3:04 PM, Matt Allison said:

This is the absolute definition of gaslighting.

Read the psychology, Matt, and you’ll be able to join in the conversation as opposed to assuming the role of a neophyte heckler, which has no value. Also, be sure to practice what you preach. 
 

We are all vulnerable to powerful emotions, some more than others. 
If you want some simple 10 min videos explaining this process, let me know and I’ll post some in the thread. 

[Jeff Carter]

A good friend of my father is a Ukrainian emigre, but most definitely does not endorse the nationalist version of its history. In 2014 he stated it was utmost folly to fan the flames of division - which is unquestionably what the coup government did - as it would actualize longstanding and deep-seated hatreds and grievances, damage Ukraine’s plurality, and eventually lead to open conflict. In this, his views coincided with those of the “Realist” school of U.S./western foreign policy wonks. The childish insults and lazy conclusions littering this thread are ultimately a repudiation of the Realist position. In terms of intellectual breadth and real-world experience - let’s call it “wisdom” - I’ll take the Realists.

In 2008, then U.S. Ambassador to Russia (and now Chief of CIA) William Burns specifically and accurately predicted exactly what would result from NATO expansion or skullduggery directed to Ukraine: “In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.” The memo was addressed to the upper level of the national security leadership, and was followed within a month or two by the Bush Jr administration’s announcement that the U.S. would go ahead with this regardless. It is a grade A primary document:

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

The Realist position is based on factual analysis and has been predictively correct. In contradiction, NATO expansion into the region has, from the Bush admin announcement in 2008 to the present, been a Neoconservative project - from Cheney through Nuland through Blinken-Sullivan. The Neoconservative record has been marked by bad faith, poor analysis, and a terrible predictive scoresheet. Further, Neoconservative projects always end in disaster. If someone could review the Burns memo and find fault then perhaps that would be more constructive than the rote dismissals.

[James DiEugenio]

There were splits in the upper levels of American foreign policy spheres over the issue..  

One part said that the encouragement of an American backed coup in Ukraine would run the risk of  splitting the country in two and perhaps causing a civil war.  Burns wrote this about the issues:  “In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.” 

And he was not the only one who said this, I can assure you.

But the realists with reservations were overrun by the Neocons who did not care if they ran such risks.

For me, to deny that there was not a Neo National Socialist strain in Ukraine is to deny history and the omnipresence of Bandera. Recall, it was the KGB who hunted him down and liquidated him for all the terrible crimes he took part in.  To say his following does not live on is simply to deny reality. 

IMO, Zelensky started out as a fairly decent guy.  But he got carried away on the tidal wave the Neocons built in order to deny any peaceful resolution that Putin offered, either in Minsk  1 or 2.  In fact Merkel and Johnson literally forced Zelensky not to negotiate.  Instead, they wanted him to use this as a time diversion in order to build up his forces.

I don't see how anyone can say that was a wise decision.

[Paul Brancato]

I don’t always agree with Jeff, or anyone for that matter, but he takes the time to present his views rationally and politely, which is something that you, Matt, tend not to do. In this case I think he is spot on, and your wisecrack response is dismissive, as you often are. Sorry to be so blunt. Because - no one thinks, or says, that they are in favor of Russian military offensives in Ukraine or elsewhere. Some of us, myself included, think it’s a crime that we ever got here, and we are willing to look at how that happened. If you think Russia is just bad to the bone, that peace with Russia is only possible on our terms, that the only good Russia is a destroyed Russia, that puts you in the company of JFK’s least favorite Joint Chiefs. So just how far are you and others willing to go to ‘win’ this war? 
 

[Matt Allison]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

For me, to deny that there was not a Neo National Socialist strain in Ukraine is to deny history and the omnipresence of Bandera.

That was 70 years ago.

 

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Zelensky started out as a fairly decent guy.  But he got carried away on the tidal wave the Neocons built in order to deny any peaceful resolution that Putin offered, either in Minsk  1 or 2. 

Zeelensky wasn't President when the Minsk agreements were made, and both pacts had long been broken by Putin and the separatists by the time he was elected in 2019.

[Matt Allison]

17 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

no one thinks, or says, that they are in favor of Russian military offensives in Ukraine or elsewhere. Some of us, myself included, think it’s a crime that we ever got here, and we are willing to look at how that happened.

Paul- What part of what happened remains a mystery to you?

19 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

If you think Russia is just bad to the bone, that peace with Russia is only possible on our terms, that the only good Russia is a destroyed Russia, that puts you in the company of JFK’s least favorite Joint Chiefs. So just how far are you and others willing to go to ‘win’ this war? 
 

I don't paint entire nations with that type of brush. We are talking about Putin. There is no mystery surrounding his agenda anymore. There just isn't.

If the Russian people do not stop the murderous rampage of their leader, who else do you think will?

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

That was 70 years ago.

 

Zeelensky wasn't President when the Minsk agreements were made, and both pacts had long been broken by Putin and the separatists by the time he was elected in 2019.

No it wasn’t just 70 years ago. It’s very real Matt, plenty of good journalists have investigate todays Ukrainian fascists. I did a deep dive about a year ago. I suggest you do the same, just for history’s sake, not to excuse Putin. I’m not arguing about Putin, I only care about how this could have been avoided, and what to do now other than escalate. 

Edited January 24, 2023 by Paul Brancato

[Matt Allison]

Paul- it is my opinion that Putin's claim that Ukraine needed to be invaded because of Nazis is complete and total BS ruse.

I have read plenty about the situation, and I've seen nothing to change my mind. Disagree with it as you wish, but that's my stance.

[James DiEugenio]

2 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

That was 70 years ago.

 

Zeelensky wasn't President when the Minsk agreements were made, and both pacts had long been broken by Putin and the separatists by the time he was elected in 2019.

Matt, I think you are missing a point that is important.  Putin was negotiating with Zelensky in Istanbul in April of last year. They were on the verge of signing something.  When Boris Johnson swept in and made Zelensky back out.

This was my point.   In my opinion, Zelensky should have given Boris the finger and said, "I want to save my country from a massive Russian invasion."

It was after this that the Russians decided they had to escalate with more troops, rocketry, and artillery.

Edited January 24, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Matt, I think you are missing a point that is important.  Putin was negotiating with Zelensky in Istanbul in April of last year. They were on the verge of signing something.  When Boris Johnson swept in and made Zelensky back out.

This was my point.   In my opinion, Zelensky should have given Boris the finger and said, "I want to save my country from a massive Russian invasion."

It was after this that the Russians decided they had to escalate with more troops, rocketry, and artillery.

No one forced Putin's hand. This is entirely his doing. His dream has been to reconstitute the Soviet Union, and there is no Soviet Union without Ukraine. 

I am shocked that so many are willing to Monday-morning quarterback this, and wring their hands over what so and so should have done to prevent this. 

But that's just me. I'm biased. I grew up with Ukrainians. My best friend devoted his life to helping Ukraine prepare itself for the invasion he knew was coming. He'd lived in Kyiv and Moscow and knew it was just a matter of time before the bear decided to eat the salmon. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

I spent last June in East Europe, I rented a car and went through Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia Herzegovina, and Montenegro. Everyone was friendly. I would engage people in conversation about the War in Ukraine and people were opinionated and quite willing to talk about it. The overwhelming response expressed was solidarity with Ukraine, a complete distrust of Putin, and an expression of relief that at least it wasn't there country being invaded by Putin.   In a couple of small Balkan mountain towns, the word would quickly get around that an American was in town. And everyone was very friendly to me. But I had that same experience with people throughout the Western  Mediterranean earlier on my trip. Interestingly,I just happen to be in Cannes on the opening day of the festival!

 

After the fall of the Soviet Union, there were 10 previous Soviet satellites that joined Nato from 1999-2004. Probably to the West's surprise and delight, there was not the slightest mention of disapproval by Putin until 2007! Since then, in the last 19 years, there have been only 3 new previous Soviet satellites countries admitted to Nato.

Where were the protest when the bulk of previous satellites defected? Clinton and Bush said they  never heard a word of protest from Putin until 2007.

Obviously a great opportunity for World peace was missed. This could have been handled much better. It's obvious on the ground where the hearts of the people of the region I visited lies, with all their divisions. But I can also understand people not wanting to continue indefinitely  to write checks to just further the war as well.

[Bob Ness]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Matt, I think you are missing a point that is important.  Putin was negotiating with Zelensky in Istanbul in April of last year. They were on the verge of signing something.  When Boris Johnson swept in and made Zelensky back out.

This was my point.   In my opinion, Zelensky should have given Boris the finger and said, "I want to save my country from a massive Russian invasion."

It was after this that the Russians decided they had to escalate with more troops, rocketry, and artillery.

And you seriously think Putin was negotiating in good faith? Go talk to to his flying Doctors about that.

I told you at the time of his Crimea adventure this was the long play and other than the fact Ukrainians won't put up with it Putin would have installed Yankovich in a New York minute. Now I see you and Carter once again blessing the invasion by blaming the victims. Resurecting the bones of Bandera to justify the appalling slaughter we see is an outright lie and gross.

It's nice RT does pithy interviews with you but for that to be coloring your intellectual pratfall regarding the invasion is an outrage.

Are you serious? "Putin wouldn't have incinerated your women and children if you surrendered your country?"

Just stop it.