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

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Is it asthma keeping you from going to Yemen?

This is showing your juvenile mind. I have already said I am against war. I seek detente, rapprochement, peace. If you’re struggling for the difference between you and I.

I support neither the war in Ukraine or Yemen. I don’t take sides. I can see when we have protagonists on both sides, and nuances. You, on the other hand, wilfully choose to take a side in Ukraine and turn a blind eye in Yemen, perhaps because your propaganda channel isn’t covering it (likely) or because you just don’t give a damn about brown people. The public can decide. 
 

8 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

We catch you making excuses for Putin’s genocide.

In your warped imagination, probably. You may want to do a dictionary search on “detente” and “rapprochement”. I have been as consistent in my views as anyone here. 
 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

This is showing your juvenile mind. I have already said I am against war.

You’re not against Putin’s genocide.  You offer rationale after rationale.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

seek detente, rapprochement, peace. If you’re struggling for the difference between you and I.

Everyone’s for peace.  You think you’re special?  Why aren’t you calling for Putin to withdraw?  How many anti-war protests have you marched in?

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

I support neither the war in Ukraine or Yemen. I don’t take sides. I can see when we have protagonists on both sides, and nuances. You, on the other hand, wilfully choose to take a side in Ukraine and turn a blind eye in Yemen, perhaps because your propaganda channel isn’t covering it (likely) or because you just don’t give a damn about brown people. The public can decide. 

There are many inequalities and atrocities in the world.  Because one doesn’t address them all at once it means they’ve turned a blind eye?

Talk about juvenile!

Edited May 8, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[John Cotter]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Cotter and Barnard think it’s a breeze for foreigners to fight in Ukraine...

More great reporting by one of best journalists on the scene:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/01/02/trapped-in-the-trenches-in-ukraine

Neither Chris nor I suggested that it’s a breeze for foreigners to fight in Ukraine. I don’t know where you got that idea.

The contrary is the case. Both of us have referred to the Ukraine conflict as a shambles or words to that effect.

Regarding your last substantial reply to me, I seem to have mistakenly interpreted your saying  “Point taken” as agreement. My apparent misinterpretation seems to have arisen from your deploring both Russian and US imperialism at another point.

Apropos the rest of your reply, I don’t see any point in rebutting it line by line, because I might as well be banging my head off a stone wall. Despite your commendable anti-war activism in your youth, you seem to have a blind spot regarding the Ukraine situation.*

As Chris suggested, the reason for that is quite clear. Like a lot of your compatriots (and mine), you seem unwilling or unable to problematise your Americocentric world view. The fact that you cite western propaganda regarding the Bucha incident as gospel is just one symptom of this cyclopean world view.

Have you never heard the saying, “The first casualty of war is the truth”? Do you know that Ukraine’s president Zelensky is an actor – you know, a make-believe professional?

I’ve asked Sandy repeatedly to identify any flaws he sees in Prof Mearsheimer’s reasoning and he has failed to do so. I haven’t seen you do so either. You’ve both thereby confirmed the validity of Mearsheimer’s thesis.

I would also refer you to Jeff Carter’s and Paul Brancato’s very informative posts, and I would suggest that you refrain from such wildly inaccurate and inflammatory accusations as referring to your opponents as apologists for genocide.

 

*The anti-war activism, past or present, of a minority, or even a majority, of Americans is irrelevant as far as Mr Putin is concerned. It’s not those people he has to worry about. It’s the aforementioned neocon nobheads – whom Chris Hedges called “the pimps of war”.

Edited May 8, 2023 by John Cotter

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You’re not against Putin’s genocide.  You offer rationale after rationale

I am against all genocide. Me pointing out ‘ethnic cleansing’ going on in the Donbas obviously falls on deaf ears to you. There is a pattern here with you. A lot if wars around the globe fall on deaf ears with you. You have your special ones that are well propagated and where US interests are at stake. Funny that. 🙂 

 

9 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

16 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

Everyone’s for peace.  You think you’re special?  Why aren’t you calling for Putin to withdraw?

We’re back to the nuances of the geopolitical situation that don’t occur to you in your cocoon. How on earth can there be any withdrawal without the fate of the Ukranians of Russian heritage decided? Seems like the USA might have quite a sizable bill for that pipeline sabotage, too. 
 

13 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

There are many inequalities and atrocities in the world.  Because one doesn’t address them all at once it means they’ve turned a blind eye?

From memory Yemen has been happening since 2014 (I could be wrong). I guess you have a queuing system and you’ll get around to it. Maybe they’ll be dead and you can pine about it retrospectively from your temple of faux-caring and virtue signalling mindlessness. If your defence you have been programmed to do it.  
 

 

 

[Jeff Carter]

54 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Thank you. Wanted clarification on that. There was no signed agreement then. You realize that in order for NATO to come to any agreement it requires approval by the NATO membership, which at that time were 16 members; these countries were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. A DISCUSSION between Clinton or Bush, verbal or not, is NOT an agreement.

The Russian Federation well knows that this is NOT an agreement and not does not have any internationally recognized legal authority. It represents a position by both parties to form a diplomatic resolution to differences related to the region which have dated back generations. Further, the RF also knows that due to our institutions there are no fixed continuity policy discussions UNLESS there are SIGNED STIPULATIONS that carry forward the interval agreements in negotiations. That is dipolmacy 101 which of course most people, Oliver Stone included, won't know.

The continuation of RF talking points about the "agreement" or "treaty" that never existed ignores the ABSOLUTE legal authority of the CONTINUOUSLY RECOGNIZED borders of Ukraine which includes Crimea. These borders have been recognized by the USSR and subsequently by the Russian Federation and was legally agreed to by the Russian Federation Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, agreeing to respect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine, refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine, and to return the nuclear weapons stored in Ukraine to Russia.

Again: The USSR recognized the borders of Ukraine in 1990. This recognition was stipulated in the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, which was signed by the USSR SUPREME SOVIET. This recognition was reaffirmed in the 1997 NATO-Ukraine Charter and the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, both of which Russia signed.

There is a reason to agreed upon borders in the nuclear age (and before really). It gives everyone the information, regardless of position in whatever controversy, the basic definition of the line that gets crossed that becomes aggression or invasion, take your pick.

Just in case you weren't aware: the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was a sovereign state within the Soviet Union since about 1922. It had its own constitution and government, and was responsible for its own internal affairs and foreign policy.

So it has been legally recognized by the USSR AND RF for 100 years and that includes the disputed areas.

And there ya go.

Bob, there was a breach in the legal authority of the national Ukraine government in 2014. This breach was meant to be resolved by the Minsk Agreements, endorsed by the UN Security Council, but the Agreements were never realized and Ukraine’s government - within which the Donbass region has no representation - formally rejected / withdrew from these accords. So the legal breach of national authority/legitimacy has yet to be resolved. In light of this, appeals to preexisting legal authorities aren’t quite as cut and dried as you suggest.

In terms of Crimea, and its referendum to leave Ukraine, international law supports both sovereignty and the right to self-determination, although it is rare that the apparent contradiction assumes such stark contrast.

The assurances that NATO would not expand eastward were widespread and unambiguous. The argument “didn’t get it in writing” is more akin to a used car salesman than international diplomats. As veteran Cold warrior George Kennan pointed out in the late 90s, the disavowal of these pledges would have serious ramification in international relationships and trust, and has contributed to the widespread feeling in much of the world that the US and its partners are not presently “agreement-capable”.

[Guest]

Thanks to @Paul Brancato & @Jeff Carter for some lucid thoughts and informative posts. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

Neither Chris nor I suggested that it’s a breeze for foreigners to fight in Ukraine. I don’t know where you got that idea.

You both called me a coward for not fighting in Ukraine.  Your rhetoric has the full scent of desperation.

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

The contrary is the case. Both of us have referred to the Ukraine conflict as a shambles or words to that effect.

But justified, according to you both.

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

Regarding your last substantial reply to me, I seem to have mistakenly interpreted your saying  “Point taken” as agreement. My apparent misinterpretation seems to have arisen from your deploring both Russian and US imperialism at another point.

The states of the former Soviet Bloc wanted to join NATO — that’s not US imperialism.

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

Apropos the rest of your reply, I don’t see any point in rebutting it line by line, because I might as well be banging my head off a stone wall. Despite your commendable anti-war activism in your youth, you seem to have a blind spot regarding the Ukraine situation.*

Yet another fig leaf to cover Putin’s genocidal mania.

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

As Chris suggested, the reason for that is quite clear. Like a lot of your compatriots (and mine), you seem unwilling or unable to problematise your Americocentric world view. The fact that you cite western propaganda regarding the Bucha incident as gospel is just one symptom of this cyclopean world view.

You’re accusing Luke Mogelson of acting as a western propagandist.  Maybe you should do some research on him before you smear.

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

Have you never heard the saying, “The first casualty of war is the truth”? Do you know that Ukraine’s president Zelensky is an actor – you know, a make-believe professional?

I’ve asked Sandy repeatedly to identify any flaws he sees in Prof Mearsheimer’s reasoning and he has failed to do so. I haven’t seen you do so either. You’ve both thereby confirmed the validity of Mearsheimer’s thesis.

Mearsheimer’s thesis posits the right of Great Powers to dictate the alliances of smaller countries.  No such right exists.

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

I would also refer you to Jeff Carter’s and Paul Brancato’s very informative posts, and I would suggest that you refrain from such wildly inaccurate and inflammatory accusations as referring to your opponents as apologists for genocide.

I’ve rebutted Paul’s assertion that the US torpedoed a peace deal.

Stop apologizing for Putin's invasion if you don’t want to get called out for it.

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

 

*The anti-war activism, past or present, of a minority, or even a majority, of Americans is irrelevant as far as Mr Putin is concerned. It’s not those people he has to worry about. It’s the aforementioned neocon nobheads – whom Chris Hedges called “the pimps of war”.

All he has to do is withdraw.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

I am against all genocide. Me pointing out ‘ethnic cleansing’ going on in the Donbas obviously falls on deaf ears to you.

Not at all.  Your assertion of the right of the Donbas Russian enclaves to defend themselves clashes with your denunciation of other Eastern Europeans exercising the same right.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

There is a pattern here with you. A lot if wars around the globe fall on deaf ears with you. You have your special ones that are well propagated and where US interests are at stake. Funny that. 🙂 

You have turned a blind eye to Sudan.  How long have you hated black people?

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

We’re back to the nuances of the geopolitical situation that don’t occur to you in your cocoon. How on earth can there be any withdrawal without the fate of the Ukranians of Russian heritage decided?

More apologetics for genocide.

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

Seems like the USA might have quite a sizable bill for that pipeline sabotage, too. 
 

From memory Yemen has been happening since 2014 (I could be wrong). I guess you have a queuing system and you’ll get around to it.

You’ve turned a blind eye to the Uyghurs.  How long have you hated Asians?

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

Maybe they’ll be dead and you can pine about it retrospectively from your temple of faux-caring and virtue signalling mindlessness. If your defence you have been programmed to do it.  
 

 

 

You’ve turned a blind eye to drug cartels in Latin America.  How long have you hated Hispanics?

Btw, how many anti-war demonstrations have you marched in?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Not at all.  Your assertion of the right of the Donbas Russian enclaves to defend themselves clashes with your denunciation of other Eastern Europeans exercising the same right.

Quote me verbatim. Don’t make things up. I have already pointed out false equivalence from you in this conversation, don’t make me do it again. 🙂 

2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

39 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

You have turned a blind eye to Sudan.  How long have you hated black people?

You’re missing a trick here. I am not the one pretending go be something that I am not. I am not a virtue signaller crying about one conflict zone and not another. Thats you dude. Interestingly the one you care about is almost exclusively white caucasian. Sorry to point that out. Its staggering hypocrisy at the least from you, of course at worst its.... 
 

7 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

More apologetics for genocide.

That’s your mindless opinion. Nothing I say will change it or improve your mental state. It illustrates your programming and the reason why you are not effective in the world. 
 

9 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You’ve turned a blind eye to the Uyghurs.  How long have you hated Asians?

More false equivalence. Cool. Your defence to your own prioritising war and compassion based them having the same skin colours, is saying those who point out your racial preferences are prejudiced themselves. That’s precious isn’t it? Haha 

 

14 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You’ve turned a blind eye to drug cartels in Latin America.  How long have you hated Hispanics?

Btw, how many anti-war demonstrations have you marched in?

More madness and false equivalence. I am sensing that you are on the edge of another of you breakdowns. I would take a break from the keyboard, try to relax. Compose yourself, and come back with something coherent. 
 

 

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

The answer isn’t more bombs, its back to the table.

Yes. That's why the RF invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is absolutely untenable. That's what many of us have been saying. Not that the US or NATO are a Lilly White Roses.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Yes. That's why the RF invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is absolutely untenable. That's what many of us have been saying. Not that the US or NATO are a Lilly White Roses.

Lets hope it happens soon, Bob. As this just becomes a bigger disaster by the day.

[Bob Ness]

Just now, Chris Barnard said:

Lets hope it happens soon, Bob. As this just becomes a bigger disaster by the day.

Agreed. The RF has nothing to do other than stop shooting. That's it. Or at least was. I suspect it's too late for that now.

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Former Israeli prime minister rebuts claim, boosted by Russia, that the US blocked a Ukraine peace agreement: 'It's unsure there was any deal to be made'

https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-bennett-walks-back-claim-west-blocked-ukraine-russia-peace-deal-2023-2?op=1

Oh my Lord - Cliff, quoting Business Insider. I thought you knew what propaganda was. I’m disappointed. The story has been walked back for sure. So which is true? The earlier one of course, which was widely distributed elsewhere but not here. When it finally broke through a year late it engendered damage control. Come on Cliff. Israel is still not on board and still as far as I know not sending weapons to Ukraine. 
I noticed as well that none of you want to tackle the Pentagon leaks.

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Bob, there was a breach in the legal authority of the national Ukraine government in 2014.

Who decided on that breech, Jeff? The RF? Your sentence sums it up. The Ukraine Legal Authority. Not the RF. The Ukraine is its own legal authority regardless of how you like to peddle it and their borders are legally established by international law.

You keep saying that it is up to Russia to determine the outcome of people's lives in the Ukraine which I find offensive and ignorant. Get a grasp on what you're preposing.

[James DiEugenio]

To the Mods:

This has gotten back to the whole pie in the face routine over Ukraine.

I don't know if that was Caddy's intent.  Maybe, maybe not. 

But that is what it has become.

It has nothing to do with the JFK case and it simply demeans this site when this kind of thing happens. For the simple reason that the issue has become so  polarized by the MSM that there is no reasonable debate possible.

I would move to lock the thread or just eliminate it.

So many custard pies are flying that it reminds me of Soupy Sales.