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

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

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?

 

If you don’t thinK thats a fair deal that NATO signed, then you are welcome to lament it, Cliff. Just make sure that you are mad at NATO. For signing it and breaking it.  

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

If you don’t thinK thats a fair deal that NATO signed, then you are welcome to lament it, Cliff.

No, I don’t think Great Powers are entitled to dictate alliances to smaller countries.  The former Soviet Bloc states had plenty to fear of Russia and every right to tell the Great Powers to stick it.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

Just make sure that you are mad at NATO. For signing it and breaking it.  

The peoples of the former Soviet Bloc were entitled to seek the Western defense umbrella.  Ditto Finland and Sweden.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

No, I don’t think Great Powers are entitled to dictate alliances to smaller countries.  The former Soviet Bloc states had plenty to fear of Russia and every right to tell the Great Powers to stick it.

Unfortunately, this is the world we find ourselves in, we have 3 super powers doing exactly that, its corrupt and it isn’t a level playing field. 
 

Bear in mind its NATO who made the agreement and NATO who broke it. If you break peace accords, expert war. That’s the tragedy here. 
 

5 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The peoples of the former Soviet Bloc were entitled to seek the Western defense umbrella.  Ditto Finland and Sweden.

Not according to NATO in the agreement they signed. Your frustration should be directed there and at those dangling carrots and making false promises. 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Unfortunately, this is the world we find ourselves in, we have 3 super powers doing exactly that, its corrupt and it isn’t a level playing field. 

The former Soviet Bloc states desired the Western defense umbrella.  You don’t deny the Donbass Russians their right to seek Russia’s help, why should Russia’s neighbors be denied *their* self-determination?  Because Great Powers know better?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

3 hours 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.

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

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

 

Chris,

You've shown exactly why it is I want to ask you the questions so I can figure out why you guys can't bring yourselves to admit that Putin is a brutal autocrat. If I let you say what you want to say, rather than simply answering my questions, you wander all over the place with your grievances and I am left still not understanding the problem.

So please answer my question, yes or no. Here it is again:

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.

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The former Soviet Bloc states desired the Western defense umbrella.  You don’t deny the Donbass Russians their right to seek Russia’s help, why should Russia’s neighbors be denied *their* self-determination?  Because Great Powers know better?

 

You’re arguing at cross purposes, Cliff. Your frustration should be directed at NATO, the organisation that you want these countries to join. 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

You’re arguing at cross purposes, Cliff. Your frustration should be directed at NATO, the organisation that you want these countries to join. 

They already joined, years ago. Your position is contradictory.  What’s good for the Donbass Russians ain’t good for the Poles?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

They already joined, years ago. Your position is contradictory.  What’s good for the Donbass Russians ain’t good for the Poles?

No. Its false equivalence on your side, Cliff.
 

You think that a country seeking NATO membership, and wishing to join a  military union, collective of nations, when a peace deal has been signed by that military union (NATO) with Russia, previously decreeing that it will NOT cross the Elbe river, and expand east, is the same as a minority group within a country being ethnically cleansed and crying for help.

Good one. 
 

What I will say is; I see someone has already abandoned a debate with you this evening. I won’t waste my time with you being obtuse or inane. You can either up the quality of your side of the discussion, or I’ll just leave you on your lonesome. 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Given that Putin attacked Ukraine without any provocation

Thats total BS, Sandy. I have taken the time to write you a detailed post explaining the provocations, Did you miss them, or just to ignore them? That’s not a debate, thats what we call a Michael Griffith 😉

 

TBH I am quite happy to call Putin a brutal autocrat, as long as the definition doesn’t suggest he is “irrational” or “unreasoning”. I have actually also called him a “dictator” in the Yahtzee thread. Of course you know that, because you did me the courtesy of reading it. Just like you watched it he Mearsheimer video so that you could have a full perspective and understanding of the situation. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

No. Its false equivalence on your side, Cliff.
 

You think that a country seeking NATO membership, and wishing to join a  military union, collective of nations, when a peace deal has been signed by that military union (NATO) with Russia, previously decreeing that it will NOT cross the Elbe river,

The chauvinism is egregious.  

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

and expand east, is the same as a minority group within a country being ethnically cleansed and crying for help.

Good one. 

Russia routinely engages in ethnic cleansing— and had no right to sign a treaty dictating former Soviet Bloc alliances.  That treaty was chauvinistic, unenforceable (obviously) and contrary to the rights of nations to determine their own alliances.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The chauvinism is egregious.  

Russia routinely engages in ethnic cleansing— and had no right to sign a treaty dictating former Soviet Bloc alliances.  That treaty was chauvinistic, unenforceable (obviously) and contrary to the rights of nations to determine their own alliances.

Thanks, Cliff. You’ve made your feelings clear that you think it was unfair. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Thanks, Cliff. You’ve made your feelings clear that you think it was unfair. 

Ukraine give up their nukes in 1994 under the agreement that Russia wouldn't invade. The Budapest Memorandum.  That one didn’t count?

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Ukraine give up their nukes in 1994 under the agreement that Russia wouldn't invade. The Budapest Memorandum.  That one didn’t count?

I would recommend you watch the 2015 John Mearsheimer lecture also. It’ll help familiarise you with the timeline of events, highlighting who invalidated the peace accords and when. Its very clear.

 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

4 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

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. 

 

 

Something I'm sure you won't hear from Mearsheimer is that the conflict was winding down before Putin's invasion.

 

Between 2014 and 2022, There were 29 failed ceasefires. About 14,000 people were killed in the war: 6,500 Russian and Russian proxy forces, 4,400 Ukrainian forces, and 3,400 civilians on both sides of the frontline. The vast majority of civilian casualties were in the first year!

 

The info is spotty but I'm able to retrieve civilian deaths year by year. Which should reflect a correlation to combatant totals to an extent, as a indicator of the amount of the war's direct engagement.  And it shows the conflict sharply de escalating after 2014. Things were getting steadily better.

This is also very congruent with the fact that, I believe there were 11  countries who joined NATO up to 2004, and only 3 since, in 18 years!, prior to the Russian invasion.

Which begs the question to Putin, Why now? Look at how the civilian casualties slowed to almost a standstill prior to the Russian invasion.

 

Civilian deaths (2014-2021)

2014-----2084

2015-----1955

2016-----112

2017-----117

2018-----58

2019-----27

2020-----26

2021-----25

 

 

 

Of course getting a dependable neutral source on the deaths since Russia invaded is very hard and there is no consistent neutral source.  U.S. documentation, for whatever it's worth estimates are below. Obviously I make no claim for the accuracy of these totals..

If one has concern about protecting lives. There's little doubt that the overall number of deaths since Putin's invasion is over 4 times the total of the projected of deaths (14,000) in the region between 2014-2021! And perhaps 10-20 times the casualties!

Though I don't have that specific information the casualties.

 

Russian combat casuallties and killed

189,500–223,000 casualties

(35,500–43,500 killed in action

 

Ukraine combat casualties and killed

124,500–131,000 casualties

(16,000–17,500 killed)

 

The United Nations estimates Ukraine civilian casualties

8,709 killed, 14,666 wounded
(conf. minimum, thought higher)

 

 

https://ukraine.un.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/Conflict-related civilian casualties as of 31 December 2021 (rev 27 January 2022) corr EN_0.pdf

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Something I'm sure you won't hear from Mearsheimer is that the conflict was winding down before Putin's invasion.

 

Between 2014 and 2022, There were 29 failed ceasefires. About 14,000 people were killed in the war: 6,500 Russian and Russian proxy forces, 4,400 Ukrainian forces, and 3,400 civilians on both sides of the frontline. The vast majority of civilian casualties were in the first year!

 

The info is spotty but I'm able to retrieve civilian deaths year by year. Which should reflect a correlation to combatant totals to an extent, as a indicator of the amount of the war's direct engagement.  And it shows the conflict sharply de escalating after 2014. Things were getting steadily better.

This is also very congruent with the fact that, I believe there were 11  countries who joined NATO up to 2004, and only 3 since, in 18 years!, prior to the Russian invasion.

Which begs the question to Putin, Why now? Look at how the civilian casualties slowed to almost a standstill prior to the Russian invasion.

 

Civilian deaths (2014-2021)

2014-----2084

2015-----1955

2016-----112

2017-----117

2018-----58

2019-----27

2020-----26

2021-----25

 

 

 

Of course getting a dependable neutral source on the deaths since Russia invaded is very hard and there is no consistent neutral source.  U.S. documentation, for whatever it's worth estimates are below. Obviously I make no claim for the accuracy of these totals..

If one has concern about protecting lives. There's little doubt that the overall number of deaths since Putin's invasion is over 4 times the total of the projected of deaths (14,000) in the region between 2014-2021! And perhaps 10-20 times the casualties!

Though I don't have that specific information the casualties.

 

Russian combat casuallties and killed

189,500–223,000 casualties

(35,500–43,500 killed in action

 

Ukraine combat casualties and killed

124,500–131,000 casualties

(16,000–17,500 killed)

 

The United Nations estimates Ukraine civilian casualties

8,709 killed, 14,666 wounded
(conf. minimum, thought higher)

 

 

https://ukraine.un.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/Conflict-related civilian casualties as of 31 December 2021 (rev 27 January 2022) corr EN_0.pdf

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

I think you’re right to post this, Kirk. As it presents one side of an argument. Then we must ask if it can indeed be trusted or verified. Are all of the variables take. Into account? 
 

For example; the drop in civilian casualties dying seems very logical given women, children, and elderly flee conflict, as well as those who don’t want to fight and die. Some 130k have fled to Russia as refugees but, the total number of displaced peoples is huge, even by 2016. Can those number be relied on from humanitarian groups? Not sure. 

I think you’re bound to see the exodus and diminishing numbers in that category. It can mean mostly just combatants are left IMO. 

 Why did Russia invade when they did. There are multiple reasons and provocations, some obvious and some more esoteric (much of which we’ve covered in the yahtzee dulles thread. The whole thing in my opinion relates to Russia having enough. I see it like two tectonic plates that have been rubbing against eachother. 
 

Peace would be nice.