Oliver Stone: "Putin is a great leader for his country."

[John Cotter]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

John,

The "moralistic finger pointing" you've seen here has been directed at Putin, not Russia.

Do you think that Putin is a great leader? If so, why? Keep in mind the he unjustifiably attacked Ukraine (what did Ukraine do to Russia?) and is a proven war criminal.

 

Sandy,

I agree with Oliver Stone that Putin is a great leader for his country. I've explained why here and elsewhere, and others including Professor John Mearsheimer have also explained why.

Edited May 6, 2023 by John Cotter

[John Cotter]

18 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Nice one, John! 😄

Yeah , very cute, coming from you John. Do you know Ireland is the world's #1 tax haven stealing profits made from the U.S. from corporations like Apple and other tech companies and adding it to Ireland''s GDP?

Of course, maybe John''s bitterness is because he and the other everyday Irish people don't really see this great wealth but the Irish banks just use it for credit for their international dealings. Obviously John, like the everyday chump is scarcely aware of this and  actually is teasing us about the U.S. about being a kleptocracy.

So John's driven to conspiracy websites where he can muse from on high with very little detail and play the role of his esteemed "philosopher king" dealing out nuggets of wisdom.

Cush job, John.

Kirk,

I have criticised Ireland for the reasons you mention here and elsewhere. As an anti-authoritarian democrat (with a small 'd') and vegan, I totally reject Irish, American and western kleptocracy and ecocide.

Edited May 6, 2023 by John Cotter
This post was meant to be addressed to Kirk, not Chris, and I have amended it accordingly.

[Paul Brancato]

I don’t know what Stone or others mean when they call Putin a great leader for Russia. He is an autocrat. But generally I would say ‘both and’ if that makes any sense. Both hypocritical for Americans to be singularly focused on the crimes of Putin, and his Ukraine war is a war crime. Both that and the crimes of NATO and NATO members. Can we empathize with a Russia that feels beleaguered on all sides by NATO, and still call Putin what he is? Why is it either or? It’s both. 

[W. Niederhut]

24 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I don’t know what Stone or others mean when they call Putin a great leader for Russia. He is an autocrat. But generally I would say ‘both and’ if that makes any sense. Both hypocritical for Americans to be singularly focused on the crimes of Putin, and his Ukraine war is a war crime. Both that and the crimes of NATO and NATO members. Can we empathize with a Russia that feels beleaguered on all sides by NATO, and still call Putin what he is? Why is it either or? It’s both. 

Paul,

     I have said this all along in our discussions here about Putin, Ukraine, NATO, and the U.S.

     Nor have most of us been "singularly focused on the crimes of Putin."

     To be logically consistent, we should be appropriately critical of the crimes of both the U.S. military industrial complex, and the crimes of Putin and his totalitarian police state.

     The puzzling thing is that some people in the West still seem to view the homicidal dictator, Vlad Putin, as some sort of enlightened autocrat-- "a great leader."

     The truth is that Putin has turned the Russian Federation's fledgling democracy into a neo-Soviet police state, where the media is, once again, an organ of state propaganda, and dissenters are sent to the Gulag.

     And Putin has also been using his propaganda machinery to foment discord and division in liberal Western democracies, in accord with the Dugin playbook for "the Geopolitical Future of Russia" -- isolating the U.K. from the EU, and fracturing the U.S. along racial and cultural fault lines.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Do you believe Putin is a brutal autocrat? Yes or no.

I think he certainly is an autocrat, Sandy. In terms of the adjective you have used, Which definition do you think characterises him: 

Adjective

1. savage; cruel; inhuman: a brutal attack on the village.
2. crude; coarse: brutal language.
3. harsh; ferocious: brutal criticism; brutal weather.
4. taxing, demanding, or exhausting: They're having a brutal time making ends meet.
5. irrational; unreasoning.
6. of or relating to lower animals

    

   In some of the word I might characterise the Russian people with. They have been made hard by their history, without a doubt. 

[W. Niederhut]

39 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Paul,

     I have said this all along in our discussions here about Putin, Ukraine, NATO, and the U.S.

     Nor have most of us been "singularly focused on the crimes of Putin."

     To be logically consistent, we should be appropriately critical of the crimes of both the U.S. military industrial complex, and the crimes of Putin and his totalitarian police state.

     The puzzling thing is that some people in the West still seem to view the homicidal dictator, Vlad Putin, as some sort of enlightened autocrat-- "a great leader."

     The truth is that Putin has turned the Russian Federation's fledgling democracy into a neo-Soviet police state, where the media is, once again, an organ of state propaganda, and dissenters are sent to the Gulag.

     And Putin has also been using his propaganda machinery to foment discord and division in liberal Western democracies, in accord with the Dugin playbook for "the Geopolitical Future of Russia" -- isolating the U.K. from the EU, and fracturing the U.S. along racial and cultural fault lines.

Addendum:  Ironically, Paul, the problem with our Education Forum discussions about Putin is precisely the opposite of what you have described.

    To wit, the Putin apologists have been "singularly focused" on the crimes of the U.S. and NATO, while adamantly refusing to study or discuss the history of Putin's neo-Soviet police state in the 21st century!

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, John Cotter said:

I'm still here, Cliff.

You previously indicated otherwise:  “I don’t have any more time or energy to go through it all again.”  Odd comment when *you* were the one who brought up The Bear and accused people of running away from the issue.

5 hours ago, John Cotter said:

It's just that there are worlds beyond your time zone where people have different circadian rhythms.

Fair enough.  I think you need to re-work your metaphor.  In 2014 Obama and pro-Western Ukrainians poked the Bear at Maidan Square and Putin ripped an arm off — Crimea.  

He should have been satisfied with that. Crimea had been part of Russia for 160 years or so with a majority Russian population.  I think that annexation was justified.  Russia kept its Black Sea port at Sevastopol, and Ukraine had a pro-Western government in line with the wishes of its people.

But in 2022 Putin sought to destroy the rest of Ukraine with no justification.  Now he’s looking at Finland in NATO.  Slick move, Vlad!

[Jeff Carter]

On my bookshelf is a collection of interviews conducted by the great Italian journalist Ariana Fallaci (Interview With History 1976). She talks with everyone - Kissinger and Giap, Golda Meier and Yassir Arafat - and no one at the time condemned her work for providing a platform for propaganda or argued she shouldn’t speak to certain leaders. At the time, hearing from “the other side” was something to be welcomed as a tool to promote “understanding”. Times have changed!

I believe Oliver Stone did a tremendous service by seeking out demonized adversaries and allowing them a space to set out “where they are coming from”, particularly at a time when media consolidation has resulted in a narrowed and agenda-driven information sphere.Stone’s effort has been subject to criticism more because it tends to reveal these adversaries as rational actors whose policies reflect particular understandings of national interest, as opposed to pathological evil-doers who cannot be reasoned with. Maybe its just me, but in my opinion criticizing Stone for conducting an interview reveals more of an authoritarian mindset than anything else from the process does.

It’s also interesting that Stone’s brief comment on Putin - which appears as objectively correct considering the social, economic, and political condition of the Russian Federation circa 2000 - was a throwaway aside offered during a press interview for his nuclear energy documentary. The Guardian’s editorial decision to feature it as the headline appears as a form of clickbait and irrelevancy which neatly diverges the conversation from the actual topic in question, and furthers the silly tendency to get all huffy over the actual conduct of journalism and inquiry.

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

On my bookshelf is a collection of interviews conducted by the great Italian journalist Ariana Fallaci (Interview With History 1976). She talks with everyone - Kissinger and Giap, Golda Meier and Yassir Arafat - and no one at the time condemned her work for providing a platform for propaganda or argued she shouldn’t speak to certain leaders. At the time, hearing from “the other side” was something to be welcomed as a tool to promote “understanding”. Times have changed!

I believe Oliver Stone did a tremendous service by seeking out demonized adversaries and allowing them a space to set out “where they are coming from”, particularly at a time when media consolidation has resulted in a narrowed and agenda-driven information sphere.Stone’s effort has been subject to criticism more because it tends to reveal these adversaries as rational actors whose policies reflect particular understandings of national interest, as opposed to pathological evil-doers who cannot be reasoned with. Maybe its just me, but in my opinion criticizing Stone for conducting an interview reveals more of an authoritarian mindset than anything else from the process does.

It’s also interesting that Stone’s brief comment on Putin - which appears as objectively correct considering the social, economic, and political condition of the Russian Federation circa 2000 - was a throwaway aside offered during a press interview for his nuclear energy documentary. The Guardian’s editorial decision to feature it as the headline appears as a form of clickbait and irrelevancy which neatly diverges the conversation from the actual topic in question, and furthers the silly tendency to get all huffy over the actual conduct of journalism and inquiry.

Well said, Jeff.

I agree with your general point about Oliver Stone providing a valuable service by his willingness to interview "demonized adversaries" of the U.S.-- Fidel, Chavez, Putin, et.al.

It's consistent with Oliver's invaluable role in telling the Untold History" of the U.S. Deep State and military industrial complex.

In Putin's case, I agree that he did a remarkable job of stabilizing the sinking Russian Federation ship of state after 1995, and I actually admired the man prior to 2007.

My point is that many people in the West, (including the Trump/Fox cult) seem to have overlooked the dark side of Putin's history during the past 15-20 years-- the step-wise transformation of the fledgling post-Soviet democracy into the present day Neo-Stalinist police state.

Edited May 6, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Sandy Larsen]

On 5/6/2023 at 5:26 AM, John Cotter said:

Sandy,

I agree with Oliver Stone that Putin is a great leader for his country. I've explained why here and elsewhere, and others including Professor John Mearsheimer have also explained why.

 

John,

I went through everything you've said in the thread and you have never explained why you think Putin is a great leader for his country. Only that you agree with Oliver Stone and Professor John Mearsheimer.

But never mind that. As Paul has recently said, a leader can be both good and bad. I'm sure Putin has done some good things for Russia,

But let me ask you this: Would you also say that Putin is a brutal autocrat? Given that he is complete control of Russia and that he attacked Ukraine without provocation from them. And is killing thousands of them and letting thousands of others go hungry, etc.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 5/6/2023 at 8:12 AM, Chris Barnard said:

On 5/6/2023 at 1:42 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Do you believe Putin is a brutal autocrat? Yes or no.

On 5/6/2023 at 8:12 AM, Chris Barnard said:

I think he certainly is an autocrat, Sandy. In terms of the adjective you have used, Which definition do you think characterises him:

 

Okay, good. You characterize Putin as an autocrat.

Now, given that Putin attacked Ukraine without any provocation from them, and is killing thousand of them, letting thousands of others go without food, etc., would you say that he is brutal?

 

bru·tal

 (bro͞ot′l)

adj.

1. Extremely ruthless or cruel.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 5/6/2023 at 5:31 AM, John Cotter said:

Kirk,

I have criticised Ireland for the reasons you mention here and elsewhere. As an anti-authoritarian democrat (with a small 'd') and vegan, I totally reject Irish, American and western kleptocracy and ecocide.

 

Don't you reject Russian and eastern kleptocracy and ecocide as well? I mean, just to be consistent.

BTW, you say that you're anti-authoritarian. Doesn't that make you anti-Putin?

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Okay, good. You characterize Putin as an autocrat.

Now, given that Putin attacked Ukraine without any provocation from them, and is killing thousand of them, letting thousands of others go without food, etc., would you say that he is brutal?

 

bru·tal

 (bro͞ot′l)

adj.

1. Extremely ruthless or cruel.

 

I don’t know what planet some of you guys are living on? 14,000 have died in Ukraine since the CIA organised 2014 coup d’etat (orange revolution) and this 2022 conflict began. A lot are people of Russian heritage living in the Donbass. It amounts to ‘ethnic cleansing’ by the Ukraine government. These people have been appealing for an intervention from Russia, help, support, and a declaration that they are autonomous for that period. Its their home too. 
 

Historically the US and Britain has been compelled to intervene over much less in its illegal wars. Of course it used the slogan that it was fighting for freedom and democracy, great. 
 

Of course that’s not enough betraying the Minsk accords. What about breaking the mid 90’s Clinton agreement where NATO promised not to expand further east past the Elbe river? Someone in the west thought that was a genius of an idea while Russia where suffering economic problems, whats the worst than can happen? 🚀 💣 
 

It loathes me to have to post this one more time:

Try to understand that there is another position other than “pro-Russia” or pro-NATO/USA/Ukraine”. I have desired a detente, rapprochement and lasting peace from the start. I don’t think provoking nuclear exchanges is bright. Are you Curtis Le May or JFK?
Is there room for you in the NORAD bunker, or is it just for the important politicians cheerleading this diplomatic disaster and financial racket? 
 

You guys just carry on not seeing your country exploiting it for all its worth economically. My country is buying Russian oil from India. Yours is selling Europe more expensive gas because they blew up the Russian pipeline. The fossil fuel cartel is publishing record profits. At least lots of weapons are being sold, thats at least good for Raytheon, Halliburton, Northrup Gruman and co. I am sure they are grateful for your support and consent. I guess the plus side is the west have done a fine job of making Russia turn east to China, selling them their wares. Sanctions worked a beauty didn’t they? Nobody saw that coming, aside from every trader who did predict it. 
Cheers 

 

PS its all in the Yahtzee Allen Dulles thread. 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

. A lot are people of Russian heritage living in the Donbass. It amounts to ‘ethnic cleansing’ by the Ukraine government. These people have been appealing for an intervention from Russia, help, support, and a declaration that they are autonomous for that period. Its their home too. 

The Russian enclaves in Donbass were justified seeking the Russian defense umbrella — but the the former Soviet Bloc states shouldn’t have been allowed to join NATO?

[John Cotter]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

John,

I went through everything you've said in the thread and you have never explained why you think Putin is a great leader for his country. Only that you agree with Oliver Stone and Professor John Mearsheimer.

But never mind that. As Paul has recently said, a leader can be both good and bad. I'm sure Putin has done some good things for Russia,

But let me ask you this: Would you also say that Putin is a brutal autocrat? Given that he is complete control of Russia and that he attacked Ukraine without provocation from them. And is killing thousands of them and letting thousands of others go hungry, etc.

 

Sandy,

I’ve already explained why Putin has to be a ruthless autocrat. If he wasn’t, the CIA would have plotted his overthrow and the dismemberment of Russia years ago.

That was the point of my reference to Che Guevara’s advice to Fidel Castro that he couldn’t afford to have an open society in Cuba. Guevara’s advice was based on what he had seen in Guatemala in 1954 when he had to take refuge in the Argentinian Embassy during the slaughter following the CIA-instigated coup against Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz.

The USA is a ruthless kleptocracy which has imposed this form of dystopia on much of the rest of the world.

You keep saying the Russian special military operation in Ukraine was unprovoked. Professor John Mearsheimer has explained why that’s not true.

Can you please point out the flaw(s) in Prof Mearsheimer’s reasoning?