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

[Cliff Varnell]

If Putin had a choice, would he have preferred Ukraine in NATO rather than Finland?

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

5 hours 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?

 

Chris,

How is it a provocation of Ukraine against Russia for Russia to secretly and illegally send Russian troops into the Donbas region of Ukraine in an attempt to annex it? It was Russia that did the provoking, not Ukraine.

And what's this thing about an agreement where NATO expansion wouldn't cross the Elbe River? There was never such an agreement.... just some wishful thinking maybe.

 

[John Cotter]

7 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

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

It’s disingenuous to use the term “defense” in referring to US foreign policy, because the core tenet of that policy is global dominance – in other words, aggression, not defence.

Hence, as Prof Mearsheimer and other US foreign policy experts explained (and any gobdaw with two functioning brain cells could clearly see), NATO expansion in eastern Europe was an existential threat to Russia.

In that context, Russia had no choice but to defend itself against further such expansion while there was still time to do so.

Mischaracterising Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine as aggression rather than defence is convenient for US neocon nobheads, but it’s disastrous for Ukraine because it underestimates Russian determination to stay the course there.

Edited May 8, 2023 by John Cotter

[John Cotter]

53 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Chris,

How is it a provocation of Ukraine against Russia for Russia to secretly and illegally send Russian troops into the Donbas region of Ukraine in an attempt to annex it? It was Russia that did the provoking, not Ukraine.

And what's this thing about an agreement where NATO expansion wouldn't cross the Elbe River? There was never such an agreement.... just some wishful thinking maybe.

 

Sandy,

Perhaps you should answer the question I asked you about what flaw(s) you see in Prof Mearsheimer's reasoning, rather than deflect by asking questions of others. 

Edited May 8, 2023 by John Cotter

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

It’s disingenuous to use the term “defense” in referring to US foreign policy, because the core tenet of that policy is global dominance – in other words, aggression, not defence.

Point taken.  It’s a generic term for a nation’s military capability.  The Russian presence in Ukraine is hardly “defensive” but we can still speak of the Donbass Russians preferring a Russian defense umbrella.

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Hence, as Prof Mearsheimer and other US foreign policy experts explained (and any gobdaw with two functioning brain cells could clearly see), NATO expansion in eastern Europe was an existential threat to Russia.

And Russia was an existential threat to the States of the former Soviet Bloc.  What a chauvinistic conceit that NATO and Russia thought they could dictate alliances to these newly freed States.

Russia had a bad rep in Eastern Europe, after all.

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

In that context, Russia had no choice but to defend itself against further such expansion while there was still time to do so.

The last time NATO expanded was 2009.  Finland in NATO is a far graver concern than Ukraine — there’s a highly efficient Finnish military 60 miles over the border from the only supply road up to the Russian nuke sites in Murmansk, in the Arctic Circle.

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Mischaracterising Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine as aggression rather than defence is convenient for US neocon nobheads, but it’s disastrous for Ukraine because it underestimates Russian determination to stay the course there.

You do understand Putin targets civilians, don’t you?

For centuries Russia kept Finland from forming a Western Alliance.  Putin screwed the pooch.

[Michael Griffith]

I haven't bothered to look, and I almost hesitate to ask, Are some people still defending or excusing Stone's bizarre, disgraceful statement? Certain things are beyond the pale of decency and reason, and defending Putin is certainly one of those things.

Except for the leaders and sycophants of totalitarian regimes, virtually everyone on the planet recognizes that Putin is a murderer, a tyrant, and an aggressor. Russian journalists who dare to question his policies end up dead or in jail. He has shredded every semblance of an elective/democratic process in Russia. He has ordered countless assassinations. He invaded the peaceful, liberal democracy of Ukraine with no provocation or justification.

The barbaric warfare he is waging in Ukraine is a shockingly cruel type of aggression that civilized people never expected to see waged in the 21st century by an advanced nation. Thousands of Russian young men have lost their lives carrying out Putin's Hitleresque orders against Ukraine. And thousands of innocent Ukrainian civilians have been murdered by Putin's deliberate bombardment of schools, shopping centers, and residential areas, and by his cutting off of electricity and food supplies in several areas.

 

Edited May 8, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Chris,

How is it a provocation of Ukraine against Russia for Russia to secretly and illegally send Russian troops into the Donbas region of Ukraine in an attempt to annex it? It was Russia that did the provoking, not Ukraine.

And what's this thing about an agreement where NATO expansion wouldn't cross the Elbe River? There was never such an agreement.... just some wishful thinking maybe.

 

The provocation begins in 1999, Sandy. This is why I sent you the Mearsheimer video. It explains it. Have any US troops been to Ukraine, any weapons coming from NATO countries? You know the answer and it makes the case that John and I have been making. That its super powers playing the game of world domination. I agree with Mearsheimer that more blame must he attributed to the west for the way it has handled it since the mid 90’s. 

You seem to be the only person who is unaware that NATO signed an agreement with Russian that prohibited NATO expansion. What was east of the Elbe River in 1997, non-NATO countries. All explained in the linked NATO analysis. Even Kissinger of all devils agreed with it. 
 

One one hand I am surprised that after looking at western foreign policy through a magnifying glass in the JFK case, that some of you still believe the US war machine is virtuous. That you still believe that NATO is a defensive organisation after the Gansers NATO secret armies and terror stuff has been known, some of which Sibel Edmunds went through in detail. 
On the other hand; I am not surprised that the Operation Mocking Bird media programming is still working effectively: seems like there is a 20 year lag on most people waking up to reality, some don’t at all.

This who watching your country behave as empire for 60+ years, this neo-colonialism, expansionism, bringing the word under its heel, exploitation of resources, perpetual war.... and all of a sudden you guys are like back to default state telling us you are the good guys protecting the word from evil, the world police trope. You’re directly profiting from the war. 
 

https://www.instagram.com/p/Crbg1NegxJ-/?igshid=ZWIzMWE5ZmU3Zg==
 

 

[John Cotter]

4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Point taken.  It’s a generic term for a nation’s military capability.  The Russian presence in Ukraine is hardly “defensive” but we can still speak of the Donbass Russians preferring a Russian defense umbrella.

And Russia was an existential threat to the States of the former Soviet Bloc.  What a chauvinistic conceit that NATO and Russia thought they could dictate alliances to these newly freed States.

Russia had a bad rep in Eastern Europe, after all.

The last time NATO expanded was 2009.  Finland in NATO is a far graver concern than Ukraine — there’s a highly efficient Finnish military 60 miles over the border from the only supply road up to the Russian nuke sites in Murmansk, in the Arctic Circle.

You do understand Putin targets civilians, don’t you?

For centuries Russia kept Finland from forming a Western Alliance.  Putin screwed the pooch.

In your first point you acknowledge the validity of Prof Mearsheimer’s argument, with which I agree, that the Ukraine shambles is the result of US aggression.

I agree with your second point, as would Mearsheimer. Mearsheimer has argued that a fair and rational solution to the conflictual situation in eastern Europe would have been a buffer zone of independent states between the west and Russia. But of course, US aggression precluded that option.

There is no reliable evidence that Putin targets civilians. That kind of baseless claim is of a piece with the Manichean rhetoric which has been used to “justify” US aggression for much of the past century.

Regarding Finland, there’s nothing Putin could do about Finland joining NATO.

As Mearsheimer also said, the Ukraine shambles wouldn’t have happened under a US president of JFK’s stature, which is clear from JFK’s American University speech of June 1963 in which he spoke about the need to end the Cold War, not win it.

JFK was thus at least 60 years ahead of his time in advocating a multipolar world order instead of a unipolar US dominated world. As James Douglass has cogently elucidated, the heretical nature of that advocacy in the eyes of the US national security state marked JFK out for assassination.

Edited May 8, 2023 by John Cotter

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

In your first point you acknowledge the validity of Prof Mearsheimer’s argument, with which I agree, that the Ukraine shambles is the result of US aggression.

I agree with your second point, as would Mearsheimer. Mearsheimer has argued that a fair and rational solution to the conflictual situation in eastern Europe would have been a buffer zone of independent states between the west and Russia. But of course, US aggression precluded that option.

There is no reliable evidence that Putin targets civilians. That kind of baseless claim is of a piece with the Manichean rhetoric which has been used to “justify” US aggression for much of the past century.

Regarding Finland, there’s nothing Putin could do about Finland joining NATO.

As Mearsheimer also said, the Ukraine shambles wouldn’t have happened under a US president of JFK’s stature, which is clear from JFK’s American University speech of June 1963 in which he spoke about the need to end the Cold War, not win it.

JFK was thus 60 years ahead of his time in advocating a multipolar world order instead of a unipolar US dominated world. As James Douglass has cogently elucidated, the heretical nature of that advocacy in the eyes of the US national security state marked JFK out for assassination.

Here here.

The avid supporters of JFK here are inadvertently feeding the perpetual war and neo-colonialist infrastructure that he was against. They can’t put their MSM whipped up outrage aside for long enough to see it. Aside from Griffith, who just loves a bit of neocon Machiavellianism abroad. Its so interesting he cites Ukranian’s without electricity and basic amenities. He’s silent on the shelling of the Donbas and marginalisation of a minority group, just like he is about the plight of the Palestinians. He has the gall to call himself a Christian. Oh wait, maybe one of those crusader types?! 

Not a single one of these hypocrites has said a word about Yemen or anywhere else. Maybe their compassion is solely along racial lines?! 🤷‍♂️ 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Have any US troops been to Ukraine, any weapons coming from NATO countries?

 

Yes, NATO countries have sent an enormous amount of supplies and armaments to Ukraine. There is nothing wrong with that. I hope you're not saying that that is what provoked Russia into invading Ukraine... that would be a ridiculous notion.

Let me state this again so that there can be no misunderstanding. Ukraine did nothing to provoke Russia into invading it.

If Putin didn't like the expansion of NATO, well that is just tough sh*t. Nations have the right to organize in a way to protect themselves.

 

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

You seem to be the only person who is unaware that NATO signed an agreement with Russian that prohibited NATO expansion. What was east of the Elbe River in 1997, non-NATO countries. All explained in the linked NATO analysis. Even Kissinger of all devils agreed with it.

 

There has never been a signed agreement that prohibits NATO expansion. Try to prove me wrong and you will fail. It is just the wishful thinking of guys like Mearsheimer.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

In your first point you acknowledge the validity of Prof Mearsheimer’s argument, with which I agree, that the Ukraine shambles is the result of US aggression.

I made no such argument.  Putin is responsible for this war of aggression.

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

I agree with your second point, as would Mearsheimer. Mearsheimer has argued that a fair and rational solution to the conflictual situation in eastern Europe would have been a buffer zone of independent states between the west and Russia. But of course, US aggression precluded that option.

Eastern European hostility toward Russia precluded that option.  

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

There is no reliable evidence that Putin targets civilians. That kind of baseless claim is of a piece with the Manichean rhetoric which has been used to “justify” US aggression for much of the past century.

The ghosts of Bucha call bullish-t.

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Regarding Finland, there’s nothing Putin could do about Finland joining NATO.

He could have NOT invaded Ukraine.  The only reason Finland abandoned its long held neutrality was out of the existential fear of Russian expansion.

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

As Mearsheimer also said, the Ukraine shambles wouldn’t have happened under a US president of JFK’s stature, which is clear from JFK’s American University speech of June 1963 in which he spoke about the need to end the Cold War, not win it.

Ah yes, the Great Powers always know what’s best for smaller countries. <gag>

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

JFK was thus at least 60 years ahead of his time in advocating a multipolar world order instead of a unipolar US dominated world. As James Douglass has cogently elucidated, the heretical nature of that advocacy in the eyes of the US national security state marked JFK out for assassination.

That’s another discussion.

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Not a single one of these hypocrites has said a word about Yemen or anywhere else. Maybe their compassion is solely along racial lines?! 🤷‍♂️ 

Don’t hurt yourself bending over backwards to call us racists.  Since you only advocate for ethnic Russian self-determination the hypocrisy is all yours.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Let me state this again so that there can be no misunderstanding. Ukraine did nothing to provoke Russia into invading it.

Well, you’re wrong. I have explained why, repeatedly, which you choose to ignore. If you want to believe a heroes and villains narrative, go ahead, I’ll hardly fall of my chair with surprise. I guess its much simpler than having to examine the nuances of the situation and face the idea that its the same old US geo-politics. 
 

24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

There has never been a signed agreement that prohibits NATO expansion. Try to prove me wrong and you will fail. It is just the wishful thinking of guys like Mearsheimer.

You’re playing with the truth there, Sandy. Are you not aware that the agreement was verbal? Some notes from it were revealed last year or the year before from the US side. Are you not aware that Clinton even said to Yeltsin any NATO expansion would be slow, and yet just a few years down the line in 1999, NATO was adding new members left right and centre? Because Russia was weak. We get to the crux of it again, NATO’s bad faith agreement, they betrayed Russia. If you betray diplomacy, go against your word, you a situation where all bets are off.

Do you really think your acumen and understanding in this area stands up to Mearsheimer and co? 
 

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Don’t hurt yourself bending over backwards to call us racists.  Since you only advocate for ethnic Russian self-determination the hypocrisy is all yours.

Well, just a bit peculiar that none of you guys seems to give a toss about Yemen, or other conflicts going on in this timescale. I am sick of the faux compassion and virtue signalling. As John said, if you guys really cared, you’d pack your bags and get out there and help fight, or encourage your sons to do so. It’s stinking hypocrisy and cowardice. You all turn a blind eye to record profits from fossil fuel providers, from defence contractors who are raping the tax payer and revelling in every extra second that this conflict continues in Ukraine. They are laughing at the poor and middle classes as they play out the same trick over and over again, with success

You’re not mad at them. You’re mad at people pointing out the corruption. You’re a propagandists dream. 
 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Well, just a bit peculiar that none of you guys seems to give a toss about Yemen, or other conflicts going on in this timescale.

That subject hasn’t come up.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

I am sick of the faux compassion and virtue signalling.

Then quit doing that, by all means.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

As John said, if you guys really cared, you’d pack your bags and get out there and help fight, or encourage your sons to do so.

Why aren’t you in Yemen fighting on the side of the Houthi?

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

It’s stinking hypocrisy and cowardice.

Projection much?

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

You all turn a blind eye to record profits from fossil fuel providers, from defence contractors who are raping the tax payer and revelling in every extra second that this conflict continues in Ukraine.

Putin could end it very quickly by withdrawing.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

They are laughing at the poor and middle classes as they play out the same trick over and over again, with success

You’re not mad at them.

That’s a different conversation, your stab at self-righteous piety not withstanding.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

You’re mad at people pointing out the corruption. You’re a propagandists dream. 
 

 

Said the pro-genocide propagandist.