Jeffrey Sachs talks about the CIA, JFKA and the Church Committee

[Kirk Gallaway]

21 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

You apparently missed my answer to this question that I posted a few days ago:

• https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1097135961
   

I thought people here might like to read Jeff Sachs' account of what he did, first in Poland and then Russia, in the 90s

Sachs' 5 part plan worked to revive the Polish economy, which is why Yeltson asked him to help Russia.  The Russian task was much harder for several reasons.  Parliament stood in opposition and the US and international financial institutions didn't help, unlike in Poland.  The US viewed Poland as a potential ally.  Russia has always been the enemy.

The failure of the plan and Yeltsin's reversal of course paved the way for the rise of a group of oligarchs to in your phrase trash what remained of the economy.

Yes, We "apparently missed it". Of course whatever Roger posts is the definitive link about any subject! (as Cotter nods in agreement, hopefully he's actually read it.)

The questions are difficult, but to  approach it in any other manner than to say both sides wanted Russia to succeed as a capitalist nation is kind immature just as it is to blame it on the west or western banks, but typical here. It was a failure that all now regret. But as we see later, that's not what Sachs says at the time.

Some suggested at the time nothing short of a Marshall plan........ Oh, but that  was George Soros!, Come to think of it, isn't that just typical of that evil Liberal?

I'm sure that's what he planned all along!

Better millions of innocent Russians starve!

But let's acknowledge some blame by  Sachs. Turning around Russia was a lot more massive a problem then turning around Poland, where there also wouldn't be so much popular resistance. Let's  go back to 1993 (link below) , in a NYT article about the young wunderkind , touted as the single biggest western influence in turning around the new Russian economy.

I like these famous last words from Sachs.

"Poland, with its reforms in place, is the fastest-growing economy in Eastern Europe," says Sachs. "If Poland can do it, so can Russia."

The article:

Getting a handle on the magnitude of the problem is obviously difficult in a country that cannot even explain why life expectancy has fallen sharply in the last two decades. But some number is better than none. And by pressing officials to address this and other pivotal issues, Sachs hopes to accelerate the pace of reform.""Sachs's message of urgency is not universally accepted. Plenty of Western as well as Russian economists contend that a more gradual approach is not only possible but necessary." Economic reform is a political process," says Padma Desai at the Harriman Institute at Columbia University. "First, you must build consensus."And even his sympathizers acknowledge that Sachs's high profile and world-class impatience could generate a backlash in a nation still adjusting to the reality that it is no longer a superpower."

Not to be put off, more brazen quotes from Sachs.

"In fact, he is confident that revolution is the natural means of economic change. Sachs "If you look at how reform has occurred, it has been through the rapid adaptation of foreign models," he concludes, "not a slow evolution of modern institutions."

Instead of solely blaming the IMF, and the international banks, as Roger's article says Sachs does. For a more nuanced conversation, can we say Sachs blamed the Russian government and bureaucracy at the time? 

General Pinochet was a tyrant, Sachs says, but he did represent the interests of the Chilean middle class and was thus a strong supporter of market reforms. In Russia, by contrast, an authoritarian government would undoubtedly serve as a front for the military-industrial complex, which Sachs believes is the primary obstacle to a capitalist rebirth.

Now we get a more  insight into Sachs philosophy motivation, and background.Don't let that long, liberal face fool you. This guy's a killer for Capitalism!

The first goal for reformers, says Sachs, is to get across the message that democracy and capitalism are inextricable. Sachs, as a matter of principle, refuses to advise unelected governments: When approached by Poland's Communist junta to help renegotiate the country's foreign debts, he turned them down flat. Sachs's unbending stand, one must assume, has more than a little to do with the experience of his wife, Sonia Ehrlich, a pediatrician in Cambridge, Mass., who fled Communist Czechoslovakia with her family at age 12.

And as noted in 1993, the oligarchs are circling above.

The decisive political battle on privatization (and perhaps the entire economic reform effort) will not be over the fate of small businesses, however. It will turn on the privatization of the larger enterprises, particularly the ones that equipped the Red Army with the latest weaponry. Many have been formally converted to joint-stock companies, and Russians have all been given vouchers that they can use to bid for shares. A recent showcase sale of ZIL, the conglomerate that made the stretch limos used by Kremlin big shots, was widely acknowledged a big success.

And more misguided optimism that there would be massive foreign investment rather than being swept up by their own oligarchs.

Sachs is also more optimistic than his critics about the capacity of some Russian enterprises to swim with the foreign sharks. In fact, he sees an industrial comeback worthy of postwar Japan. Russian industrial exports now total about $5 billion. "I'll bet they reach $50 billion by the turn of the century."

******

Gil's thread here is actually at least the 3rd piece here about Jeffrey Sachs in the last 2 months because of Sach's statement that he  is now open to the idea of a JFKA government conspiracy. I think 2 of these pieces were written by Jim who 4 years earlier, when mistakenly taking up Oliver's Stone's mantle of unwittingly giving Putin excuse for what was to be his invasion of Ukraine" wrote about Sachs.

Jim :These rightwing nuts have made an absolute mess out of Ukraine, similar to what Yeltsin and Jeff Sachs did to Russia during their shock doctrine days.

Obviously now, quite a turnaround! Obviously in Jim's eyes, Sachs has now completely been reformed from his halcyon days revolutionizing the post Soviet economy.

 

Here we have an example of the MSM  that is the NYT,  actually cautioning Sachs that he might be going too fast! And they actually got it right!

Oh Lord!, how could that be? Someone call the mods!                                                          heh heh

But to Sachs, "Democracy and capitalism are inextricable!" and  "If you look at how reform has occurred, it has been through the rapid adaptation of foreign models," he concludes, "not a slow evolution of modern institutions."

https://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/27/magazine/dr-jeffrey-sachs-shock-therapist.html

[W. Niederhut]

      Yeah, Kirk, Jeffrey Sachs has become something of a MAGA darling lately, thanks largely to the Tucker Carlson interview, notwithstanding the fact that Sachs has accurately opined that Donald Trump was the worst POTUS in American history.

      I have been an admirer of Sachs' critiques of the CIA for the past ten years or so, after I first heard him talk about CIA Operation Timber Sycamore on MSNBC.

      Regarding Putin, I have noticed that several of my favorite "liberal" intellectuals-- including Oliver Stone-- still haven't realized that Putin and his KGB-aligned oligarchs have, essentially, established a Neo-Stalinist police state in the 21st century Russian Federation.

      They murder journalists and dissenters, bomb Ukrainian civilians, beat up gay rights protesters, and exfiltrate civilians to their Gulag.

      That is the great tragedy of 21st century Russia, IMO.

      Rather than joining the free world as a liberal democracy, Putin and his KGB/mafia goons hijacked the Russian government and turned it into a police state.

Edited September 4 by W. Niederhut

[W. Niederhut]

Addendum:   After thought on my morning walk.

      One of the many interesting things Solzhenitsyn discussed in the Gulag Archipelago was the fact that, in the Gulags and in society at large, the Soviets relegated conscientious dissenters to the lowest level of hell, while allowing the true sociopaths-- murderers, rapists, and thieves-- to ascend to the top of their social hierarchies.  (Stalin, himself, had robbed banks-- years before his Kulak genocide.)

      This happened because the Bolsheviks, and their successors, viewed criminals as victims of class warfare.

      So, for example, decorated Red Army Artillery Captain Solzhenitsyn got nine years in the Gulag for posting a joke about Stalin in a private letter from the Russian Front.

      Meanwhile, Putin's father was one of Stalin's Thought Police at the Front, serving in an NKVD Destruction Brigade.

      Similarly, Stalin automatically sent liberated Soviet POWs to the Gulag, along with Baptists, Poles, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, etc.

      The sociopaths-- like Putin and his KGB Boyars-- ascended to the upper echelons of the Soviet hierarchy.

      (Of course, the same thing is somewhat true in capitalist corporate culture.  Many CEOs are sociopaths.)

Edited September 4 by W. Niederhut

[Greg Doudna]

My naive solution to end conflict with Russia and the war. 

(1) offer Putin’s Russia membership in NATO, and Putin accept.

(2) all occupied and disputed territories in the current Ukraine war have plebiscite elections under international supervision and those territories become part of the nation a majority of the people in those territories vote. That will be the basis of new national boundary lines on the map.

No NATO members ever go to war with one another, and all member nations are secure from external aggression by being a member of that alliance.

Too simple? Won’t work? I suppose so, better (?) to continue with the present horrors and risk of unimaginable nuclear holocaust, much more realistic and will work out so much better… ☹️ 

[Greg Doudna]

As long as I’m veering off-topic, why not offer a naive solution to Gaza as well.

(1) United Nations trusteeship (multinational troops under UN command) take over administration and rebuilding of Gaza, indefinitely until a peaceful Palestinian state and civil society is in place.

(2) Israel renounce territorial ambitions for Palestinian territory.

(3) Palestinians renounce violence against Israel and renunciation of practical contesting of existing borders (ie end of practical pursuit of lost territorial claims). On existing settlements, negotiated combination of partial withdrawal and compensation for annexation. 

(4) Israel agrees to negotiate partial compliance with right of return.

(5) Hamas disbands, civil functions formerly carried out by Hamas transferred to new, peaceful institutions, no role for former leaders of Hamas.

(6) any Palestinian party which advocates violence against Israel is outlawed.

(7) If West Bank goes seriously unstable, same for West Bank (ie UN trusteeship takeover replacing Israeli troops).

(8) through sports and cultural interchanges and economic redevelopment as baby first steps, begin long slow process of healing from current horrors. 

(9) In extremis, if both sides security were deemed to not be attainable any other way, put up a wall. You stay on your side, and you stay on yours. Until things settle down and fifty years from now tear the damn wall down when no longer serving any purpose. 

Not practical? Won’t work? Naive? Well, probably all true. Never mind, it was just a passing thought. Please, resume regular programming. 
 

[W. Niederhut]

20 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

As long as I’m veering off-topic, why not offer a naive solution to Gaza as well.

(1) United Nations trusteeship (multinational troops under UN command) take over administration and rebuilding of Gaza, indefinitely until a peaceful Palestinian state and civil society is in place.

(2) Israel renounce territorial ambitions for Palestinian territory.

(3) Palestinians renounce violence against Israel and renunciation of practical contesting of existing borders (ie end of practical pursuit of lost territorial claims). On existing settlements, negotiated combination of partial withdrawal and compensation for annexation. 

(4) Israel agrees to negotiate partial compliance with right of return.

(5) Hamas disbands, civil functions formerly carried out by Hamas transferred to new, peaceful institutions, no role for former leaders of Hamas.

(6) any Palestinian party which advocates violence against Israel is outlawed.

(7) If West Bank goes seriously unstable, same for West Bank (ie UN trusteeship takeover replacing Israeli troops).

(8) through sports and cultural interchanges and economic redevelopment as baby first steps, begin long slow process of healing from current horrors. 

(9) In extremis, if both sides security were deemed to not be attainable any other way, put up a wall. You stay on your side, and you stay on yours. Until things settle down and fifty years from now tear the damn wall down when no longer serving any purpose. 

Not practical? Won’t work? Naive? Well, probably all true. Never mind, it was just a passing thought. Please, resume regular programming. 
 

Greg,

     This is more or less what Jeffrey Sachs proposed earlier this year-- UN intervention, with Hamas and Netanyahu removed from the negotiations.

     Some people don't know that the Likud Party charter opposes any Two State solution.

     As for Putin, he actually entertained the possibility of NATO membership for Russia years ago, before consolidating dictatorial power in his Neo-Stalinist police state and launching asymmetrical warfare against Western democracies.

     Some people don't know that Putin has expressed open contempt for liberal Western democracy.

     I can't picture him agreeing to any plebiscites that he and his KGB goons don't control.

     I'm reminded of Stalin's old trope-- "It's not the votes that count, it's who counts the votes."  🙄

[Greg Doudna]

7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Some people don't know that Putin has expressed open contempt for liberal Western democracy.  

And nearly half of America is willing to vote for the object of a personality cult who expresses the same here. By the way, I read Gulag Archipelago, all three volumes, long ago, had a powerful impact on me. In Akron where I grew up, two houses away a family from the former Yugoslavia moved in, could barely speak English. The father had deserted the Army and the small children told of how they were told by their parents to be very quiet because their lives depended on it the night their family made their escape across a border. A family that had its problems, hard-working man. Something once came up, I don't remember what it was, but my father suggested to them to call the police, and the mother reacted with involuntary terror at the idea of getting a visit from the police. My Dad tried to explain she didn't need to fear the police, they would take a report and be polite, it was OK, but the terror of police was wired into her. Don't know why I thought of that, except something of your comments. Just all the millions--billions-- of average everyday people, and all these goddamn wars and holocausts. 

[Greg Doudna]

On 9/2/2024 at 9:05 PM, Roger Odisio said:

I thought people here might like to read Jeff Sachs' account of what he did, first in Poland and then Russia, in the 90s

Sachs' 5 part plan worked to revive the Polish economy, which is why Yeltson asked him to help Russia.  The Russian task was much harder for several reasons.  Parliament stood in opposition and the US and international financial institutions didn't help, unlike in Poland.  The US viewed Poland as a potential ally.  Russia has always been the enemy.

The failure of the plan and Yeltsin's reversal of course paved the way for the rise of a group of oligarchs to in your phrase trash what remained of the economy.

Speaking of the history of “shock" transformation to free-market policies, one example of interest is in the 1980s in New Zealand with the David Lange Labour Party government. I was in New Zealand twice for a total of eight months in 1987-1989 so saw this firsthand, in utter amazement.

The amazement was not simply the lightning speed with which the Labour Finance minister, Roger Douglas, implemented privatization of New Zealand's formerly state-owned and run major enterprises, but that this was done by New Zealand's major left party, the Labour Party. It was not done by the major center-right party, the National Party, which usually was in power.

David Lange was the popular Labour prime minister--razor-sharp wit, charismatic--elected on a widely-supported platform to make New Zealand the first nuclear-free zone country in the world. (Actually it would be the second, Denmark already was, but that was OK because that was worked out confidentially with the U.S. without being publicly advertised. The US was infuriated at New Zealand going to just have the nerve to do this on their own, and publicly.) That is, no nuclear armed ships allowed in New Zealand's harbors any more than New York City would allow nuclear armed ships in its harbor.

Lange got elected, and the Labour Finance minister Roger Douglas started a shock free-market divestment of government enterprises. To imagine how bizarre this was, imagine if Bernie Sanders had been elected president on a wave of popularity and then the left-platformed Democratic Party Sanders administration implemented a shock doctrine with libertarian economists moving farther and faster than Reaganomics toward free-market policies and rolling back the role of government in the economy. The bizarreness was that this was coming from the left Labour Party (roughly analogous to the left wing of the US Democratic Party), not the more conservative National Party (roughly analogous to the traditional US Republican Party).

In the US the libertarian mantra was always "government cannot run things efficiently". That mantra was shown nonsense in the case example of New Zealand Air, the government-owned and run airline of New Zealand, year after year after year regarded the world over as the most excellent flight travel experience of any airline in the world. I flew on New Zealand Air. Real china and silverware and excellent meals during the flight, quality service and comfort, amenities, absolute best way to fly, and every tourist booking agency in the world knew it. And when I price-shopped (budget mattered to me) the fare rates were no different for New Zealand Air than market fares for the other airlines. It was a no-brainer to go New Zealand Air. But, but, but... (fuse blown in libertarian mantra brain circuits) ... how could that be? ... it was GOVERNMENT run! And governments cannot run anything well, so the libertarian doctrine went. 

Finance minister Roger Douglas sold off New Zealand Air. Then among other shock announcements which seemed to be in the newspapers every day it was announced Roger Douglas was going to sell off New Zealand Steel, the major steel company in New Zealand which up to then had been run by the government, a major employer in New Zealand. Then, it was announced a buyer had been found for New Zealand Steel, but the identity of the buyer for some unclear reasons was being kept secret.

The press was up in arms--who was the secret buyer of New Zealand's national steel company? Why the secrecy? 

Well, I was in Auckland the day I, and everyone else in New Zealand, learned who and why. It came out immediately after Tianmanen Square, the Chinese government's violent suppression of demonstrators. The world saw it on TV. The Chinese government had let demonstrations go on for a bit, then cracked down hard and bloodily, and that was the end of that reform movement in China, or rather, it was forced to go underground after that.

Anyway, lo and behold ... wonders of the glorious free market at work! ... the secret buyer Roger Douglas's finance ministry team had lined up to buy New Zealand Steel turned out to be the government of Communist China! If it had not been for Tianmanen Square, and if it had not been stopped for some other reason from going forward (in the news it was presented as a "done deal" which was going to be done), that would have happened. 

Well, if you're a libertarian, I suppose that's the logical consequence, if a freely-consenting foreign communist government wants to buy something from a freely-consenting finance minister who thinks unfettered free market is the way to go.

Obviously, as bad as China looked with Tianmanen Square, as soon as the news broke on that, and that New Zealand Steel was about to be sold to China, the deal was dead in the water, called off (it was announced the Chinese buyers had withdrawn, is how it was publicly worded). I believe New Zealand Steel's selloff went forward with a different corporate buyer which was New Zealand based, China out of the picture. But I remember when that all played out in the news.

What became of Roger Douglas? Belatedly, prime minister Lange decided to fire him. Roger Douglas then formed his own minor party, which continues today in New Zealand and is very far to the right. (The reason Roger Douglas had credibility in the Labour Party to begin with is his father was a famous union leader and Labour leader. Roger Douglas went to the US, learned free market ideology from some US economists, and returned to New Zealand to implement it through a Labour government as finance minister.)

For anyone interested in this trivia note to history on the shock doctrine issue as it played out in different countries, here is an article from New Zealand a few days ago which refers and reflects back on those days: https://thestandard.org.nz/roger-douglas-has-a-lesson-for-the-left/#comments. 

Edited September 5 by Greg Doudna

[Kirk Gallaway]

No one person can get everything they want, so it's wrong to blame the 15 year Russian economic chaos 1990 -2005 solely on Jeffrey Sachs. But now i see a tendency more recently for Sachs to blame everybody but himself. I think he's a basically good guy with good intentions.  Maybe he's trying to reassure the Russians  that he's misunderstood and he wasn't part of a group whose policies were out to screw them all along? 

But I've seen a few inaccuracies in some of his statements and there is a very relevant group of people that no one mentions who very much take Sach's statements to task in this Open letter to Jefferey  Sachs. This is from the group of Authors Society of Ukraine. (link below)

First off they  don't see their revolution in 2014 as at all being the work of the U.S. and the CIA (as Jim Di and Oliver Stone contend, whose probably never been there but believes what he believes probably solely from his 10 hour interview with Putin) but they do expect their right as a sovereign nation to make their own choices in direction. 

Let us set the record straight on the historical events from 2013-2014, at which you hint in the aforementioned misinformative statements: The Euromaidan had nothing to do with NATO, nor the US. Initial protest was sparked by Viktor Yanukovych’s decision not to sign the European Union-Ukraine Association Agreement, despite said agreement passing the Ukrainian Parliament with an overwhelming majority and enjoying broad support among the Ukrainian population. Yanukovich’s regime’s choice to respond by brutally beating peaceful protesters (mostly students) on the night of November 30, 2013, only further alienated the population and intensified the protests. After the adoption of a set of laws forbidding the freedom of press and assembly (commonly termed the “dictatorship laws”) by Yanukovych in January 2014, the Euromaidan turned into a broader movement against government abuse of power and corruption, police brutality, and human rights violation – which we now refer to as the Revolution of Dignity. Ukraine’s accession to NATO was never a goal of this movement. Hence, your attempts to trace the beginning of the war to “NATO” are historically inaccurate. Furthermore, treating Ukraine as a pawn on the US geo-political chessboard is a slap in the face to millions of Ukrainians who risked their lives during the Revolution of Dignity.

2. "Nato provoked Russia"  A cornerstone of Sach's assertions.   Being long time historical neighbors to Russia, they do not accept Sach's assertion that Russia is a victim at all but has  history of not respecting the sovereignty of it's much smaller neighbors and brutally invading them.

You repeatedly emphasize that the expansion of NATO provoked Russia (e.g., “NATO should not enlarge, because that threatens the security of Russia,” from your interview to Isaac Chotiner at the New Yorker from February 27, 2023).

We want to alert you to a few facts. In 1939, it was the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that invaded Poland. In 1940, it was the Soviet Union that invaded the Baltic countries. In 1940, it was the Soviet Union that annexed parts of Romania. In 1956, it was the Soviet Union that invaded Hungary. In 1968, it was the Soviet Union that invaded Czechoslovakia. Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Hungary or Czechoslovakia did not invade Russia or the Soviet Union. No threat emanated from these countries. But these countries were attacked by the USSR/Russia. This is why these countries wanted to join NATO. Since joining NATO, none of these countries have been attacked by Russia again.

Just like these countries, Ukraine (whose military budget was a mere $2.9 bn in 2013, prior to Russia’s military aggression against it) wants to have security and peace. It does not want to be attacked again by Russia (whose military budget in 2013 stood at $68 bn). Given that Ukraine’s agreement to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994 in exchange for security “assurances” from the US, UK and Russia (!) did nothing to prevent Russian aggression, currently the only credible guarantee is NATO membership.

We also want to draw your attention to the fact that Finland and Sweden applied for NATO membership in response to Russian aggression, and yet Russia did not complain about these two countries joining NATO. You do not seem to be particularly concerned about these two countries joining NATO either. This differential treatment of Ukraine vs. Finland/Sweden legitimizes “spheres of influence,” a notion that seems appropriate for the age of empires and not for the modern era.

They go on to address Russia's invasion of Crimea, and the Russian myth that they are a divided nation with a huge Neo Nazi contingent, which should be obvious by now when  in 2018  in a free and fair election the Bandera, Azov candidate got only 2% of the vote.

They don't seem unrealistic in their expectations but don't believe if they were to concede  Crimea and Donbass to Putin, that that would be the end of it.

Actually a very good read for anyone here whose weighed in on these topics. Or people who view the political game as so hierarchical that Ukraine's individual plight is not at all significant.

 

https://voxukraine.org/en/open-letter-to-jeffrey-sachs/

 

 

 

 

Edited September 7 by Kirk Gallaway

[John Cotter]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

No one person can get everything they want, so it's wrong to blame the 15 year Russian economic chaos 1990 -2005 solely on Jeffrey Sachs. But now i see a tendency more recently for Sachs to blame everybody but himself. I think he's a basically good guy with good intentions.  Maybe he's trying to reassure the Russians  that he's misunderstood and he wasn't part of a group whose policies were out to screw them all along? 

But I've seen a few inaccuracies in some of his statements and there is a very relevant group of people that no one mentions who very much take Sach's statements to task in this Open letter to Jefferey  Sachs. This is from the group of Authors Society of Ukraine. (link below)

First off they  don't see their revolution in 2014 as at all being the work of the U.S. and the CIA (as Jim Di and Oliver Stone contend, whose probably never been there but believes what he believes probably solely from his 10 hour interview with Putin) but they do expect their right as a sovereign nation to make their own choices in direction. 

Let us set the record straight on the historical events from 2013-2014, at which you hint in the aforementioned misinformative statements: The Euromaidan had nothing to do with NATO, nor the US. Initial protest was sparked by Viktor Yanukovych’s decision not to sign the European Union-Ukraine Association Agreement, despite said agreement passing the Ukrainian Parliament with an overwhelming majority and enjoying broad support among the Ukrainian population. Yanukovich’s regime’s choice to respond by brutally beating peaceful protesters (mostly students) on the night of November 30, 2013, only further alienated the population and intensified the protests. After the adoption of a set of laws forbidding the freedom of press and assembly (commonly termed the “dictatorship laws”) by Yanukovych in January 2014, the Euromaidan turned into a broader movement against government abuse of power and corruption, police brutality, and human rights violation – which we now refer to as the Revolution of Dignity. Ukraine’s accession to NATO was never a goal of this movement. Hence, your attempts to trace the beginning of the war to “NATO” are historically inaccurate. Furthermore, treating Ukraine as a pawn on the US geo-political chessboard is a slap in the face to millions of Ukrainians who risked their lives during the Revolution of Dignity.

2. "Nato provoked Russia"  A cornerstone of Sach's assertions.   Being long time historical neighbors to Russia, they do not accept Sach's assertion that Russia is a victim at all but has  history of not respecting the sovereignty of it's much smaller neighbors and brutally invading them.

You repeatedly emphasize that the expansion of NATO provoked Russia (e.g., “NATO should not enlarge, because that threatens the security of Russia,” from your interview to Isaac Chotiner at the New Yorker from February 27, 2023).

We want to alert you to a few facts. In 1939, it was the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that invaded Poland. In 1940, it was the Soviet Union that invaded the Baltic countries. In 1940, it was the Soviet Union that annexed parts of Romania. In 1956, it was the Soviet Union that invaded Hungary. In 1968, it was the Soviet Union that invaded Czechoslovakia. Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Hungary or Czechoslovakia did not invade Russia or the Soviet Union. No threat emanated from these countries. But these countries were attacked by the USSR/Russia. This is why these countries wanted to join NATO. Since joining NATO, none of these countries have been attacked by Russia again.

Just like these countries, Ukraine (whose military budget was a mere $2.9 bn in 2013, prior to Russia’s military aggression against it) wants to have security and peace. It does not want to be attacked again by Russia (whose military budget in 2013 stood at $68 bn). Given that Ukraine’s agreement to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994 in exchange for security “assurances” from the US, UK and Russia (!) did nothing to prevent Russian aggression, currently the only credible guarantee is NATO membership.

We also want to draw your attention to the fact that Finland and Sweden applied for NATO membership in response to Russian aggression, and yet Russia did not complain about these two countries joining NATO. You do not seem to be particularly concerned about these two countries joining NATO either. This differential treatment of Ukraine vs. Finland/Sweden legitimizes “spheres of influence,” a notion that seems appropriate for the age of empires and not for the modern era.

They go on to address Russia's invasion of Crimea, and the Russian myth that they are a divided nation with a huge Neo Nazi contingent, which should be obvious by now when  in 2018  in a free and fair election the Bandera, Azov candidate got only 2% of the vote.

They don't seem unrealistic in their expectations but don't believe if they were to concede  Crimea and Donbass to Putin, that that would be the end of it.

Actually a very good read for anyone here whose weighed in on these topics. Or people who view the political game as so hierarchical that Ukraine's individual plight is not at all significant.

 

https://voxukraine.org/en/open-letter-to-jeffrey-sachs/

 

 

 

 

And so, Kirk, your desperate attempt to discredit Jeffrey Sachs continues.

Very few people who signed that document you posted seem to be actually from Ukraine. One of the signatories, Pauric Brophy, is an Irish person who runs a strange looking company whose role seems to be to democratise, in a manner of speaking, countries in the general vicinity of Russia. One can draw ones own conclusions from that.

The authors of that thing talk a lot about events in Eastern Europe during World War II but manage to avoid mentioning Hitler’s overall plan for the Third Reich to annex and enslave Russia, the Nazis’ invasion of the USSR in June 1941 with over three million troops, and the death of over 20 million Russians resulting from that invasion.

They also manage to avoid mentioning the US’s global dominance, its serial regime changing and destruction of “uncooperative” countries, and its military aggression towards Russia in the form of NATO’s eastward expansion. There is also no mention of the term “proxy war”.

Why are you posting this kind of blatantly disingenuous propaganda, Kirk?

Which eastern European countries did you visit on your travels there and what exactly were you doing there?

Edited September 7 by John Cotter

[James DiEugenio]

Here is a longer version of what happened when Sachs tried to reform the Russian economy after the successful attempt in Poland.

Neither the Republicans under Bush 1, Or Clinton wanted to do what he had done in Poland.

https://www.racket.news/p/a-true-shock-economist-jeffrey-sachs?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=8p9xl&triedRedirect=true

Which proves my previous point, that the Neocons, by the late nineties had taken over both parties.

The JFK of American University was completely forgotten..

[Kirk Gallaway]

16 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Very few people who signed that document you posted seem to be actually from Ukraine

Ok, John, you're justified to mention. Lots of European and Ukrainian migrants or refugees in the mix as well as native West writers. .

But do you honestly think this doesn't represent the sentiments of the overwhelming number of Ukrainians John? Or does that matter to you?

John:The authors of that thing talk a lot about events in Eastern Europe during World War II but manage to avoid mentioning Hitler’s overall plan for the Third Reich to annex and enslave Russia,

They they do manage  to chronicle:  In 1939, it was the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that invaded Poland. In 1940, it was the Soviet Union that invaded the Baltic countries. In 1940, it was the Soviet Union that annexed parts of Romania. In 1956, it was the Soviet Union that invaded Hungary. In 1968, it was the Soviet Union that invaded Czechoslovakia. Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Hungary or Czechoslovakia did not invade Russia or the Soviet Union. No threat emanated from these countries.

John, Maybe relatively, you just got here. But U.S. intervention in foreign countries since WW2 has not been given short shrift on this forum at all. You're essentially preaching to the choir.

35 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Which eastern European countries did you visit on your travels there and what exactly were you doing there?

Oh really John? , So this is a foray into questioning anther forum members allegiances to the CIA?, just as your desperate "spycomix" drive in the "Political forum" to link the   U.S, "Deep State" to the Trump assassination attempt that dried up? You can't get one Republican, Trump or even conspiracy fave Tulsi Gabbard to buy that!

But Okay Okay John!  I was in Budapest  and met some people, who instantly knew I was an a American and befriended me. I swear I didn't know them before!!  It turned out they were CIA agents, and we partied for a few days.

They told me they were laying the ground work for a plan to disrupt Hungary and overthrow Viktor Orban and "get closer to Putin". They called the plan "Kiev2" after their successful coup in Ukraine! They said they expect  the operation to be a "slam dunk" and even easier than the overthrow of Guatemala in 1953!

They were great guys! Very capable and intelligent! I don't know how else to say it but, they made me so comfortable around them, I felt like one of Karl's "Secret Team" that he says were part of Trump's assassination attempt, but for the record. I don't condone that!

They told me it was about 2 years in the making, so my guess is that it should happen any day now!

Please don't breathe a word of this outside of the forum or I fear I could lose my life!

 

 

 

Only on this forum, would I expect to be asked such a stupid question!

[John Cotter]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Ok, John, you're justified to mention. Lots of European and Ukrainian migrants or refugees in the mix as well as native West writers. .

But do you honestly think this doesn't represent the sentiments of the overwhelming number of Ukrainians John? Or does that matter to you?

John:The authors of that thing talk a lot about events in Eastern Europe during World War II but manage to avoid mentioning Hitler’s overall plan for the Third Reich to annex and enslave Russia,

They they do manage  to chronicle:  In 1939, it was the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that invaded Poland. In 1940, it was the Soviet Union that invaded the Baltic countries. In 1940, it was the Soviet Union that annexed parts of Romania. In 1956, it was the Soviet Union that invaded Hungary. In 1968, it was the Soviet Union that invaded Czechoslovakia. Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Hungary or Czechoslovakia did not invade Russia or the Soviet Union. No threat emanated from these countries.

John, Maybe relatively, you just got here. But U.S. intervention in foreign countries since WW2 has not been given short shrift on this forum at all. You're essentially preaching to the choir.

Oh really John? , So this is a foray into questioning anther forum members allegiances to the CIA?, just as your desperate "spycomix" drive in the "Political forum" to link the   U.S, "Deep State" to the Trump assassination attempt that dried up? You can't get one Republican, Trump or even conspiracy fave Tulsi Gabbard to buy that!

But Okay Okay John!  I was in Budapest  and met some people, who instantly knew I was an a American and befriended me. I swear I didn't know them before!!  It turned out they were CIA agents, and we partied for a few days.

They told me they were laying the ground work for a plan to disrupt Hungary and overthrow Viktor Orban and "get closer to Putin". They called the plan "Kiev2" after their successful coup in Ukraine! They said they expect  the operation to be a "slam dunk" and even easier than the overthrow of Guatemala in 1953!

They were great guys! Very capable and intelligent! I don't know how else to say it but, they made me so comfortable around them, I felt like one of Karl's "Secret Team" that he says were part of Trump's assassination attempt, but for the record. I don't condone that!

They told me it was about 2 years in the making, so my guess is that it should happen any day now!

Please don't breathe a word of this outside of the forum or I fear I could lose my life!

 

 

 

Only on this forum, would I expect to be asked such a stupid question!

Kirk, old chap, since the US and its vassal states have poured over $350 billion in military and other aid into Ukraine since February 2022, please explain how the Ukraine war is not a US proxy war.

Edited September 7 by John Cotter

[W. Niederhut]

31 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Kirk, old chap, since the US and its vassal states have poured over $350 billion in military and other aid into Ukraine since February 2022, please explain how the Ukraine war is not a US proxy war.

John, old chap, those of us who have tried to discuss Russian history with you on the forum-- and have referred you to some remedial historical references-- are quite familiar with your stubborn ignorance about the subject.

Can you explain how the war in Ukraine is not the legitimate resistance of a sovereign, democratic nation to an illegal invasion by a brutal, totalitarian police state?

Most Europeans don't seem to share your weird delusions about Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine -- especially Putin's closest neighbors.

 

[John Cotter]

Since your only response to many of my replies to you was to delete them...

But by way of enabling you to reply in a more relevant and less insulting manner, perhaps you might ask someone to explain to you the concept of a proxy war.

Edited September 8 by John Cotter