blungld said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

Of course it was a coup. Just like in the US, the Ukrainian parliament can't constitutionally oust a president by a simple legislative vote. Their constitution has an impeachment procedure that requires a 75% vote for removal. They didn't have the votes for impeachment so they just passed an ordinary resolution declaring Yanukovych deposed and installed a temporary government.

All of this was made possible by the Maidan uprising, which not only has US fingerprints all over it (the parties, NGOs, activists and media leading it had US ties and funding), it also had overt US participation with sitting US senators and state department officials giving speeches supporting the protestors and taking meetings with their leaders. There's even the leaked call between the State Dept and the US ambassador planning the post-coup government weeks before the unconstitutional parliament vote.

If you can't accept this as conclusive evidence of US participation in a coup which is unquestionably aligned with its foreign policy interest then you're placing an unreasonable standard of evidence that can only be met when documents are declassified decades after an event and when assessments can no longer have any practical effect on the matter.

It's not necessary to say this was exclusively a US or NATO coup. Obviously there's an authentic domestic Ukrainian component in play here too, just as there always is in all the other regime change ops the US has conducted since the start of the Cold War.

---

May I ask your expertise on this subject? Have you travelled to Ukraine or Russia? Are you a political scientist or historian? Work in intelligence?

What you are writing is appearing in a lot of right-wing news streams. Where exactly did you garner these opinions?

---

Would you accept my summary if it was issued from a position of authority? If I were an historian or worked in political science or intelligence, would you have been any more willing to engage with what I said without calling it propaganda than otherwise? If so you should consider what that means about the streak of intellectual authoritarianism residing in your mind.

John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Noam Chomsky, Yanis Varoufakis, Jeremy Corbyn and Jack Matlock are authoritative sources I can list off the top of my head whose analysis concur with mine. None of those are right-wing figures, two are International Relations experts, one is an historian who was US Ambassador to the Soviet Union under Reagan and Bush, and the others are three of most esteemed figures of the modern left. As for where I got my opinion, its informed by people like those listed above, but if you want documentation for any assertion of fact I made, all you have to do is ask.

Quote:

---

Your summary, like a lot of spin, has a truthiness to it, but completely mischaracterizes the context, and the final conclusion is more harmful than informative, and essentially becomes Russian propaganda in how it soft pedals their exclusive culpability for war crimes being committed right now and a direct assault on democracy while pointing fingers elsewhere in the West. I just have to wonder what is your ultimate point? What are you ultimately advocating? Those who disagree with you are not ultranationalist. That is absurd. Most progressives stand with Ukraine and are very wary of nationalism, but they know tyranny and fascism when they see it, and want to stand with the peoples of a democracy. I have very personal connections and understanding of this war, and I find your kind of "objective" analysis poorly drawn, insensitive, and wholly unnecessary.

---

Right now I'm advocating for nothing but a rational conversation on how we got here. That you can't broach such a conversation without being smeared as a Russian propagandist is where the ultranationalism can be found. Those you call progressives are really Pharisees of progressivism in the classic tradition handed down the Democratic Party from the days of "Wilsonian Idealism" to today. Liberal interventionists can see tyranny everywhere except in the mirror while they coup and bomb around the world in the name of democracy and peace.

Without challenging any assertion of fact I've made, you want me to hold my peace while you try to enforce social conformity with your sensibilities, which just happen to be the sensibilities of the statist ideologues in the Washington consensus who also want to silence "harmful" and "unnecessary" dissent in order to manufacture consent.

Want to practice democracy? Shut up about what offends your sensitivities and post your own analysis of the conflict which explicitly rebuts the factual assertions I made about US policy in post-Cold War Ukraine, particularly since Maidan.

blungld said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

Of course it was a coup. Just like in the US, the Ukrainian parliament can't constitutionally oust a president by a simple legislative vote. Their constitution has an impeachment procedure that requires a 75% vote for removal. They didn't have the votes for impeachment so they just passed an ordinary resolution declaring Yanukovych deposed and installed a temporary government.

All of this was made possible by the Maidan uprising, which not only has US fingerprints all over it (the parties, NGOs, activists and media leading it had US ties and funding), it also had overt US participation with sitting US senators and state department officials giving speeches supporting the protestors and taking meetings with their leaders. There's even the leaked call between the State Dept and the US ambassador planning the post-coup government weeks before the unconstitutional parliament vote.

If you can't accept this as conclusive evidence of US participation in a coup which is unquestionably aligned with its foreign policy interest then you're placing an unreasonable standard of evidence that can only be met when documents are declassified decades after an event and when assessments can no longer have any practical effect on the matter.

It's not necessary to say this was exclusively a US or NATO coup. Obviously there's an authentic domestic Ukrainian component in play here too, just as there always is in all the other regime change ops the US has conducted since the start of the Cold War.

---

Have you watched Winter on Fire which is streaming free on Netflix right now?

---

Not surprising to me that the first piece of media you choose to share to make your case is the most trite, insipid, superficial, emotionally manipulative and uninformative "artsy" propaganda to be found, specially targeted for the wine and cheese Venice Film Festival "opinion making" crowd, produced and distributed by US corporate media.

How about you post something substantive just to show you have that club in your bag?

kal kommie said:

---

sycasey said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

sycasey said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Do you think Russia would have invaded if Trump was still President?

I don't think so, because Trump is just as crazy as Putin.

Besides, Trump would sing Putin's praises.

---

You've got to be kidding.
Trump was constantly bashing NATO and looking to dismantle it.

---

Go on YouTube & watch some of those group photo-ops! Trump was like a fish out of water, desperately trying to strike up a conversation with anyone who would give him the time of day. Pathetic. Everyone knew he was there to advocate for Putin's interests against NATO, but he was completely incapable of articulating them.

---

except he wasn't? Trump had harsher sanctions on Russia than Obama did. We won't talk about how Biden's son was profiting off Ukrainian oil money to influence dear old dad.

---

True enough. Trump is notorious for advocating for both sides of nearly every issue at different times.

Biden was Ukraine's viceroy, designated by Victoria Nuland and the State Dept to be the point guy to "shepherd" the U.S./NATO/EU coup aftermath. Having son Hunter accept the offer of a BoD seat for Burisma was corrupt, and "bad optics" at best, but not illegal.

However, it does illustrate the degree to which the U.S. was involved in the 2014 Ukraine coup and its aftermath.

---

There was no NATO coup. Ukraine's population threw out its own government.

---

Just like Jan 6 was no coup attempt, right? Just the population trying to throw out a corrupt election?

---

Hang on. It may well be fair to describe the 2014 Ukrainian government overthrow as a coup*, but that's not my main point here. My main point is that there's no evidence NATO or the US was behind it. Notice I said "no NATO coup."

*That said, I'm not sure you can fairly describe that 2014 overthrow of Yanukovych as a "coup" regardless of who did it. As far as I can tell, there were protests, some of them violent, but then the President was ousted by a vote of Parliament. They had a temporary government for a time, and then a new election that allowed the people to choose the new President. If you call this a "coup" then you'd have to call an impeachment of the US President a coup, despite it following the process laid out in our Constitution. I don't think that's a coup.

---

Of course it was a coup. Just like in the US, the Ukrainian parliament can't constitutionally oust a president by a simple legislative vote. Their constitution has an impeachment procedure that requires a 75% vote for removal. They didn't have the votes for impeachment so they just passed an ordinary resolution declaring Yanukovych deposed and installed a temporary government.

All of this was made possible by the Maidan uprising, which not only has US fingerprints all over it (the parties, NGOs, activists and media leading it had US ties and funding), it also had overt US participation with sitting US senators and state department officials giving speeches supporting the protestors and taking meetings with their leaders. There's even the leaked call between the State Dept and the US ambassador planning the post-coup government weeks before the unconstitutional parliament vote.

If you can't accept this as conclusive evidence of US participation in a coup which is unquestionably aligned with its foreign policy interest then you're placing an unreasonable standard of evidence that can only be met when documents are declassified decades after an event and when assessments can no longer have any practical effect on the matter.

It's not necessary to say this was exclusively a US or NATO coup. Obviously there's an authentic domestic Ukrainian component in play here too, just as there always is in all the other regime change ops the US has conducted since the start of the Cold War.

---

I'm going to address this and the other long post you made all at once here. I have two basic objections to your line of thinking: one a bit semantic and the other philosophical.

First off: In general, I've found that when people invoke the claim of a "NATO or US backed coup" in Ukraine in 2014 they are usually claiming that the US or other Western powers orchestrated or executed the action of deposing a government. Very often these claims are raised along with invocations of Iraq or Vietnam or other similar US actions in which they either deposed the existing leadership or attempted to, through military action. I'm saying that I don't see evidence for similar things happening in Ukraine.

Above, you are talking about the US trying to influence the decisions made by the Ukrainian government and/or citizens. You use the term "participation" to describe these actions. I don't dispute that the US has done that (so have a lot of countries), but to say they performed a "coup" in Ukraine is a bridge too far IMO, unless you have more concrete evidence. The USA is not the country that sent its troops into Ukraine.

Second: I have an issue with analyses like this, in that the above narratives tend to ignore the fact that other countries besides America also have their own agency in geopolitical matters. Ukraine has agency. Russia has agency. In fact, pretty much everything you describe the US doing to "participate" in Ukrainian politics was also done by Russia, probably even more so. Would it have been better for the USA or the EU to just stay out of it and let Russia have its way with Putin's own imperialist ambitions? I don't see how. I also don't see how the Ukrainian people were ever going to stand for that. Pretty much everything that's happened there since 2014 indicates that they want to be aligned with the West and not with Russia: subsequent elections, requesting military aid, their current resistance, etc. Eventually they were going to come asking for NATO help either way. What about what Ukraine wants?

To me your kind of thinking is JUST as "America First" as the idiotic conservative arguments that Putin attacked because the West is too woke and uses non-gender-specific pronouns or something. Left-wingers aren't susceptible to that nonsense, but they are susceptible to a different type of broad argument: that everything the US does in geopolitics is bad or that everything bad that happens can be traced back to the USA. Again, this is ALSO coming at the problem with the assumption that the United States can police the world and control other countries' actions, just as the neocons came at geopolitical problems with the same assumptions (only they had different solutions). Yours is ALSO an America-centric frame. Putin has his own agency here. His borders were not under attack. He made his own choice to invade. Recontextualizing this action as America's fault is westsplaining.

I notice you've invoked the analysis of John Mearsheimer a couple of times here. I would have more respect for his past predictions if he had not ALSO predicted, repeatedly, that Putin had no interest in invading all of Ukraine or trying to take Kyiv. You could see those same claims made, right up until the last day before Russia invaded, by nominally lefty or anti-imperialist voices on this very forum (cbbass and Anarchistbear), and also by other supposed left-wingers throughout American media (Greenwald, Taibbi, etc.). Clearly other countries' powerful leaders are not as predictable as the likes of Mearsheimer would like to believe. If they're not, then his entire framework crumbles. The West could NOT have known that Putin was going to do this as a result of their actions, and to blame them for what he does is foolish.

sycasey said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

sycasey said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

sycasey said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Do you think Russia would have invaded if Trump was still President?

I don't think so, because Trump is just as crazy as Putin.

Besides, Trump would sing Putin's praises.

---

You've got to be kidding.
Trump was constantly bashing NATO and looking to dismantle it.

---

Go on YouTube & watch some of those group photo-ops! Trump was like a fish out of water, desperately trying to strike up a conversation with anyone who would give him the time of day. Pathetic. Everyone knew he was there to advocate for Putin's interests against NATO, but he was completely incapable of articulating them.

---

except he wasn't? Trump had harsher sanctions on Russia than Obama did. We won't talk about how Biden's son was profiting off Ukrainian oil money to influence dear old dad.

---

True enough. Trump is notorious for advocating for both sides of nearly every issue at different times.

Biden was Ukraine's viceroy, designated by Victoria Nuland and the State Dept to be the point guy to "shepherd" the U.S./NATO/EU coup aftermath. Having son Hunter accept the offer of a BoD seat for Burisma was corrupt, and "bad optics" at best, but not illegal.

However, it does illustrate the degree to which the U.S. was involved in the 2014 Ukraine coup and its aftermath.

---

There was no NATO coup. Ukraine's population threw out its own government.

---

Just like Jan 6 was no coup attempt, right? Just the population trying to throw out a corrupt election?

---

Hang on. It may well be fair to describe the 2014 Ukrainian government overthrow as a coup*, but that's not my main point here. My main point is that there's no evidence NATO or the US was behind it. Notice I said "no NATO coup."

*That said, I'm not sure you can fairly describe that 2014 overthrow of Yanukovych as a "coup" regardless of who did it. As far as I can tell, there were protests, some of them violent, but then the President was ousted by a vote of Parliament. They had a temporary government for a time, and then a new election that allowed the people to choose the new President. If you call this a "coup" then you'd have to call an impeachment of the US President a coup, despite it following the process laid out in our Constitution. I don't think that's a coup.

---

Of course it was a coup. Just like in the US, the Ukrainian parliament can't constitutionally oust a president by a simple legislative vote. Their constitution has an impeachment procedure that requires a 75% vote for removal. They didn't have the votes for impeachment so they just passed an ordinary resolution declaring Yanukovych deposed and installed a temporary government.

All of this was made possible by the Maidan uprising, which not only has US fingerprints all over it (the parties, NGOs, activists and media leading it had US ties and funding), it also had overt US participation with sitting US senators and state department officials giving speeches supporting the protestors and taking meetings with their leaders. There's even the leaked call between the State Dept and the US ambassador planning the post-coup government weeks before the unconstitutional parliament vote.

If you can't accept this as conclusive evidence of US participation in a coup which is unquestionably aligned with its foreign policy interest then you're placing an unreasonable standard of evidence that can only be met when documents are declassified decades after an event and when assessments can no longer have any practical effect on the matter.

It's not necessary to say this was exclusively a US or NATO coup. Obviously there's an authentic domestic Ukrainian component in play here too, just as there always is in all the other regime change ops the US has conducted since the start of the Cold War.

---

I'm going to address this and the other long post you made all at once here. I have two basic objections to your line of thinking: one a bit semantic and the other philosophical.

First off: In general, I've found that when people invoke the claim of a "NATO or US backed coup" in Ukraine in 2014 they are usually claiming that the US or other Western powers orchestrated or executed the action of deposing a government. Very often these claims are raised along with invocations of Iraq or Vietnam or other similar US actions in which they either deposed the existing leadership or attempted to, through military action. I'm saying that I don't see evidence for similar things happening in Ukraine.

Above, you are talking about the US trying to influence the decisions made by the Ukrainian government and/or citizens. You use the term "participation" to describe these actions. I don't dispute that the US has done that (so have a lot of countries), but to say they performed a "coup" in Ukraine is a bridge too far IMO, unless you have more concrete evidence. The USA is not the country that sent its troops into Ukraine.

Second: I have an issue with analyses like this, in that the above narratives tend to ignore the fact that other countries besides America also have their own agency in geopolitical matters. Ukraine has agency. Russia has agency. In fact, pretty much everything you describe the US doing to "participate" in Ukrainian politics was also done by Russia, probably even more so. Would it have been better for the USA or the EU to just stay out of it and let Russia have its way with Putin's own imperialist ambitions? I don't see how. I also don't see how the Ukrainian people were ever going to stand for that. Pretty much everything that's happened there since 2014 indicates that they want to be aligned with the West and not with Russia: subsequent elections, requesting military aid, their current resistance, etc. Eventually they were going to come asking for NATO help either way. What about what Ukraine wants?

To me your kind of thinking is JUST as "America First" as the idiotic conservative arguments that Putin attacked because the West is too woke and uses non-gender-specific pronouns or something. Left-wingers aren't susceptible to that nonsense, but they are susceptible to a different type of broad argument: that everything the US does in geopolitics is bad or that everything bad that happens can be traced back to the USA. Again, this is ALSO coming at the problem with the assumption that the United States can police the world and control other countries' actions, just as the neocons came at geopolitical problems with the same assumptions (only they had different solutions). Yours is ALSO an America-centric frame. Putin has his own agency here. His borders were not under attack. He made his own choice to invade. Recontextualizing this action as America's fault is westsplaining.

I notice you've invoked the analysis of John Mearsheimer a couple of times here. I would have more respect for his past predictions if he had not ALSO predicted, repeatedly, that Putin had no interest in invading all of Ukraine or trying to take Kyiv. You could see those same claims made, right up until the last day before Russia invaded, by nominally lefty or anti-imperialist voices on this very forum (cbbass and Anarchistbear), and also by other supposed left-wingers throughout American media (Greenwald, Taibbi, etc.). Clearly other countries' powerful leaders are not as predictable as the likes of Mearsheimer would like to believe. If they're not, then his entire framework crumbles. The West could NOT have known that Putin was going to do this as a result of their actions, and to blame them for what he does is foolish.

---

kal kommie said:

---

Not surprising to me that the first piece of media you choose to share to make your case is the most trite, insipid, superficial, emotionally manipulative and uninformative "artsy" propaganda to be found, specially targeted for the wine and cheese Venice Film Festival "opinion making" crowd, produced and distributed by US corporate media.

---

Wow. I did not know that you were a straight jerk. What a really horrible response. I guarantee you I have far more experience and knowledge in the region and in the media and what constitutes trite insipid content.

I challenged your post, and you feel what you wrote is an appropriate response? You are now on my ignore. You are not a person worth dialoging with.

I haven't read or heard a single dissenter's analysis that equates how the US effected regime change in Ukraine to how it did in Iraq. Perhaps you can link one here. Iraq wasn't a coup, it was a conquest followed by the installation of an occupation government.

The really illuminating comparison is between the US-participated coup in Ukraine and that in Brazil in 1964, where the US backed a Brazilian military takeover that toppled a democratic left-wing government and replaced it with a fascist dictatorship. Naturally the US denied involvement there too, and maintained that denial even after documents were published in 1974 that proved the US had foreknowledge of the coup.

They could still hide behind the fact that there ended up being no overt US participation - the military units were all Brazilian, the coup had the support of the Brazilian Senate, and there were "pro-democracy" demonstrations on the ground. The army supplies and naval support the Johnson administration had prepared for the coup proved unnecessary and were ultimately unemployed. Only in 2004 with the release of classified documents by the US government did what had long been known become undeniable through "concrete" evidence. Without the exposure of internal documents, deniability of US participation could be maintained even today.

Note that in Brazil, the US did not orchestrate or execute the coup either. Brazilian generals came to the Johnson administration for support and executed the coup autonomously. Imagine how much more difficult it would have been for the US to deny involvement if it was known they had funded organizations that led the coup that was obviously aligned with US interests, if sitting US Senators and State officials had given speeches in Brazil to the pro-fascist demonstrators and taken meetings with their leaders in the US Embassy, and if internal discussions like those between the Assistant Secretary of State and the US Ambassador planning the post-coup government of Ukraine had been leaked.

Acknowledging the US participation in the coup is the minimum bar of candor that should be required to enter into this discussion. Pretending there's some line between providing money and public support for an action and being a participant is a joke. If you're unwilling to accept the US activity in Ukraine that can already be substantiated as evidence of participation then you're placing an unreasonable burden of proof that will typically be impossible to meet until decades later and serves as nothing other than running interference for state power.

Ultimately the fact that regime change in Ukraine was accomplished via coup is beside the point. It only makes the US conduct more formally egregious. The US should not have been machinating in Ukraine at all. A Democratic Party partisan should be the first to recognize the malicious nature of a foreign power interfering in the domestic politics of another country. How are we respecting democracy or the agency of Ukraine by funding its political actors including partisan media and allowing US government officials to openly politick inside their country? Just imagine the hysteria that would have come from Democrats if Russia had funded the Republican Party and "independent" partisan TV channels, and senior Russian government officials had attended Trump rallies including the "Save America" rally at the White House and gave rousing speeches.

This is the climax of a program that started immediately after the fall of the USSR to separate Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence and incorporate it into the western bloc. The reason we should not have been doing this is because this program threatens Russia's core security interests. This is another fact that is being evaded with a complete lack of candor.

Everyone knows how the US would react to a Russian program to make Mexico a client state with the intention of eventually forming a military alliance replete with the stationing of nuclear weapons. We would go ballistic, literally if necessary, long before the conflict reached the point it had in Ukraine as of February 2022. We claim the entire western hemisphere as our sphere of influence and would brook no challenge to what we consider our core security by Russia or China or anyone else. Yet commentators are denying that Russia should or even does feel the same about a US client relationship and alliance with Ukraine?

There is no denial of anyone's agency here. The Russian agency is acknowledged by giving account to their national security concerns, which Putin reiterated countless times over the last two decades. I already acknowledged Ukrainian agency in this thread when I declared that there was obviously an authentic domestic Ukrainian force seeking to control the government which wishes to be allied with the west. This BS over denial of agency is indicative of the vacuous quality of the arguments offered by those who claim a reasonable interpretation of the situation like the one I've offered is Kremlin propaganda, right alongside the accusations of "westspaining". How can the same message be "westsplaining" and "Kremlin propaganda"?

Although it is unquestionable that US meddling in Ukraine's internal politics for decades has contributed to the installation of regimes that seek alliance with and integration into the west, the government that now exists as a fait accompli in Ukraine is entitled to pursue the foreign policy of its choice. So are we. We have agency too, and of course the US, the EU and Ukraine would all have been better off if the US had never pursued this program of drawing Ukraine away from Russia, or had chosen to negotiate at any time after the coup.

Your wondering "how the Ukrainian people were ever going to stand for" our not spending billions of dollars trying to build political forces inside their country that would repudiate their relationship with Russia requires you to start Ukrainian history after the 2014 coup. For the first 13 years of its post-Soviet history, Ukraine was governed by pro-Russian administrations. In 2004 the first pro-Western president was elected, the fruit of billions spent by the US "building democracy" in Ukraine - ie, being a party in its electoral politics. After one term of pro-western control, the pro-Russian bloc again won power until its democratically elected government was toppled by the 2014 coup (for the egregious crime of choosing a superior economic package offered by Russia over one offered by the EU), triggering the Russian annexation of Crimea and the civil war in Donbas. Without decades of US "democracy building", it's questionable whether any pro-western administration would ever have gained power at all. If you require us to start our analysis in 2014, I ask you what was Ukraine going to do if we told them we were going to pursue a neutralization agreement with Russia? They would have no other option than go along.

Mearsheimer (and others) did err when he said in the weeks before the invasion he did not believe Putin intended to invade, but Mearsheimer spent the last 8 years repeatedly saying an alliance between Ukraine and US-led NATO was unacceptable to Putin (and any other Russian leader) and that the potential for a dangerous conflict was ever-present on this account (Chomsky said the same, as did many others). Mearsheimer also said that if Putin feels Ukraine will join NATO, he can always wreck the country. That Mearsheimer was wrong that this was the year that the conflict would boil over is irrelevant. The analysis was fundamentally correct.

Even with a pro-western regime in Kyiv, it was possible to avert open war by a formal agreement between the US and Russia to militarily neutralize Ukraine. Claiming that such an agreement (if honestly adhered to by measures like cease arming Ukraine and training its military including its neo-Nazi units) would not have prevented this invasion relies only on a belief in Putin as a Hitler-like warlord who could not be accommodated by the kind of diplomatic settlement that Putin himself had publicly advocated for years and even in the last months before the invasion. It was the US who refused to negotiate on this basis, fronting the same frivolous arguments about Ukraine's agency and right of choice as people like you are peddling now, as though the US cares at all about the agency and sovereignty of other countries. Anyone who tries to lend credence to the notion that the US is defending any ideal here is either mendacious or a complete fool.

As for my thinking being the same "America First" framework that so-called conservatives use, that's both mistaken and situationally irrelevant. It's mistaken because unlike "conservatives" I do assign a non-zero value to the well-being of people in foreign countries. I don't know precisely how to weigh the interests of my country with humanist interests if they would truly conflict, but fortunately in this instance there is no dilemma. A diplomatic settlement would have been best for the people in every country: the US, EU, Ukraine and Russia. The outcome we have received thanks to our own obstinance is terrible for the people of all countries, especially Ukrainians.

You have it wrong when you say I am blaming the west for what Putin does. I am blaming the west for what we have done with foreknowledge of the likely consequences. The US has spent the last 30 years working toward this catastrophe for Ukrainians. Our natsec heads know that Russia regards Ukraine as vital to their core security, but we purposefully fostered political forces in Ukraine that wished to separate from Russia, integrate with the EU, and join NATO. We did this knowing that it was bound to cause conflict with Russia over a country that is on their border and has been historically joined to them for centuries while it is thousands of miles away from us. We sent the conflict into overdrive by participating in the overthrow of a democratically elected pro-Russian regime, and then we rejected Russian entreaties to negotiate a diplomatic settlement and armed Ukraine all the while knowing that if the Russians invade we will not stand by our proxy. Now we have so-called progressives gullibly defending this sociopathic policy that has completely hung Ukraine out to dry, is guaranteed to produce mass economic misery, and threatens to expand into an even larger conflict.

blungld said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

Not surprising to me that the first piece of media you choose to share to make your case is the most trite, insipid, superficial, emotionally manipulative and uninformative "artsy" propaganda to be found, specially targeted for the wine and cheese Venice Film Festival "opinion making" crowd, produced and distributed by US corporate media.

---

Wow. I did not know that you were a straight jerk. What a really horrible response. I guarantee you I have far more experience and knowledge in the region and in the media and what constitutes trite insipid content.

I challenged your post, and you feel what you wrote is an appropriate response? You are now on my ignore. You are not a person worth dialoging with.

---

Your "challenge" to my post was condescending, dismissive, and castigating without offering a single substantive counterargument. Whining about me being a jerk after you came in like a jackass is pathetic. If you feel insulted by my reply then I'm glad to know I hit the mark.

And everything I said about Winter on Fire is true. It's straight propaganda, not a serious account. It's not surprising if you can't tell the difference.

kal kommie said:

---

I haven't read or heard a single dissenter's analysis that equates how the US effected regime change in Ukraine to how it did in Iraq. Perhaps you can link one here. Iraq wasn't a coup, it was a conquest followed by the installation of an occupation government.

The really illuminating comparison is between the US-participated coup in Ukraine and that in Brazil in 1964, where the US backed a Brazilian military takeover that toppled a democratic left-wing government and replaced it with a fascist dictatorship. Naturally the US denied involvement there too, and maintained that denial even after documents were published in 1974 that proved the US had foreknowledge of the coup.

They could still hide behind the fact that there ended up being no overt US participation - the military units were all Brazilian, the coup had the support of the Brazilian Senate, and there were "pro-democracy" demonstrations on the ground. The army supplies and naval support the Johnson administration had prepared for the coup proved unnecessary and were ultimately unemployed. Only in 2004 with the release of classified documents by the US government did what had long been known become undeniable through "concrete" evidence.. Without the exposure of internal documents, deniability of US participation could be maintained even today.

Note that in Brazil, the US did not orchestrate or execute the coup either. It was Brazilian generals who came to the Johnson administration for support (knowing they were receptive) and executed the coup entirely autonomously. Imagine how much more difficult it would have been for the US to deny involvement if it was known they had funded the organizations that led the coup (as they did in Ukraine) that is obviously aligned with US interests, if sitting US Senators and State Dept officials had given speeches in Brazil to the pro-fascist demonstrators and taken meetings with their leaders in the US Embassy, and if internal discussions like those between the Assistant Secretary of State and the US Ambassador planning the post-coup government of Ukraine had been leaked.

Acknowledging the US participation in the coup is the minimum bar of candor that should be required to enter into this discussion. Pretending there's some line between providing money and public support for an action and being a participant is a joke. If you're unwilling to accept the US activity in Ukraine that can already be substantiated as evidence of participation then you're placing an unreasonable burden of proof that will typically be impossible to meet until decades later and serves as nothing other than running interference for state power.

Ultimately the fact that regime change in Ukraine was accomplished via coup is beside the point. It only makes the US conduct more formally egregious. The US should not have been machinating in Ukraine at all. A Democratic Party partisan should be the first to recognize the malicious nature of a foreign power interfering in the domestic politics of another country. How are we respecting democracy or the agency of Ukraine by funding its political actors including partisan media and allowing US government officials to openly politick inside their country? Just imagine the hysteria that would have come from Democrats if Russia had openly funded the Republican party and "independent" private partisan TV channels, and senior Russian government officials had attended Trump rallies including the "Save America" rally at the White House and gave rousing speeches.

This is the climax of a deliberate program that started immediately after the fall of the USSR to separate Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence and incorporate it into the western bloc. The reason we should not have been doing this is because this program threatens Russia's core security interests. This is another fact that is being evaded with a complete lack of candor.

Everyone knows how the US would react to a Russian program to make Mexico a client state with the intention of eventually forming a military alliance replete with the stationing of nuclear weapons. We would go ballistic, literally if necessary, long before the conflict reached the point it had in Ukraine as of February 2022. We claim the entire western hemisphere as our sphere of influence and would brook no challenge to what we consider our core security by Russia or China or anyone else. Yet commentators are denying that Russia should or even does feel the same about a US client relationship and alliance with Ukraine?

There is no denial of anyone's agency here. The Russian agency is fully acknowledged by giving account to their national security concerns, which Putin has reiterated countless times over the last two decades. I already acknowledged Ukrainian agency in this thread when I declared that there was obviously an authentic domestic Ukrainian force in the country seeking to control the government and which wishes to be allied with the west. This bull**** over denial of agency is indicative of the vacuous quality of the arguments offered by those who claim a reasonable interpretation of the situation like the one I've offered is Kremlin propaganda, right alongside the idiotic accusations of "westspaining". How the same message be "westsplaining" and parroting "Kremlin propaganda"?

Although it is unquestionable that US meddling in Ukraine's internal politics for decades has contributed to the installation of regimes that seek alliance with and integration into the west, the government that now exists as a fait accompli in Ukraine is entitled to pursue the foreign policy of its choice. So are we. We have agency too, and of course the US, the EU and Ukraine would all have been better off if the US had never pursued this program of drawing Ukraine away from Russia, or had chosen to negotiate at any time after the coup.

Your wondering "how the Ukrainian people were ever going to stand for" our not spending decades and billions of dollars trying to build political forces inside their country that would repudiate their relationship with Russia requires you to start Ukrainian history after the 2014 coup. For the first 13 years of its post-Soviet history, Ukraine was governed by pro-Russian administrations. In 2004 the first pro-Western president was elected, the fruit of billions spent by the US "building democracy" in Ukraine - ie, being a party in its electoral politics. After one term of pro-western control, the pro-Russian block again won power until its democratically elected government was toppled by the 2014 coup (for the egregious crime of choosing a superior economic package offered by Russia over one offered by the EU), triggering the Russian annexation of Crimea and the civil war in Donbas. Without decades of US "democracy building", it's questionable whether any pro-western administration would ever have gained power at all. If you require us to start our analysis in 2014, I ask you what was Ukraine going to do if we told them we were going to pursue a neutralization agreement with Russia? They would have no other option than go along.

Mearsheimer (and others) did err when he said in the weeks before the invasion he did not believe Putin intended to invade, but Mearsheimer spent the last 8 years repeatedly saying an alliance between Ukraine and US-led NATO was unacceptable to Putin (and any other Russian leader) and that the potential for a dangerous conflict was ever-present on this account (Chomsky said the same, as did many others). Mearsheimer also said that if Putin feels Ukraine will join NATO, he can always wreck the country. That Mearsheimer was wrong that this was the year that the conflict would boil over is irrelevant. The analysis was fundamentally correct.

Even with a pro-western regime in Kyiv, it was possible to avert open war by a formal agreement between the US and Russia to militarily neutralize Ukraine. Claiming that such an agreement (if honestly adhered to by measures like cease arming Ukraine and training its military including its neo-Nazi units) would not have prevented this invasion relies only on a belief in Putin as a Hitler-like warlord who could not be accommodated by the kind of diplomatic settlement that Putin himself had publicly advocated for years and even in the last months before the invasion. It was the US who refused to negotiate on this basis, fronting the same frivolous arguments about Ukraine's agency and right of choice as people like you are peddling now, as though the US cares at all about the agency and sovereignty of other countries. Anyone who tries to lend credence to the notion that the US is defending any ideal here is either mendacious or a complete fool.

As for my thinking being the same "America First" framework that so-called conservatives use, that's both mistaken and situationally irrelevant. It's mistaken because unlike "conservatives" I do assign a non-zero value to the well-being of people in foreign countries. I don't know precisely how to weigh the interests of my country with humanist interests if they would truly conflict, but fortunately in this instance there is no dilemma. A diplomatic settlement would have been best for the people in every country: the US, EU, Ukraine and Russia. The outcome we have received thanks to our own obstinance is terrible for the people of all countries, especially Ukrainians.

You have it wrong when you say I am blaming the west for what Putin does. That is false. I am blaming the west for what we have done with foreknowledge of the likely consequences. The US has spent the last 30 years working toward this catastrophe for Ukrainians. Our security heads know that Russia regards Ukraine as vital to their core security interests, but we purposefully fostered political forces in Ukraine that wished to separate from Russia, integrate with the EU, and join NATO. We did this knowing that it was bound to cause conflict with Russia over a country that is on their border and has been historically joined to them for centuries while it is thousands of miles away from us. We sent the conflict into overdrive by participating in the overthrow of a democratically elected pro-Russian regimes, and then we rejected Russian entreaties to negotiate a diplomatic settlement and armed Ukraine all the while knowing that if the Russians invade we will not stand by our proxy. Now we have so-called progressives gullibly defending this sociopathic policy that has completely hung Ukraine out to dry, is guaranteed to produce mass economic misery, and threatens to expand into an even larger conflict.

---

Do you get paid by the word?

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

I haven't read or heard a single dissenter's analysis that equates how the US effected regime change in Ukraine to how it did in Iraq. Perhaps you can link one here. Iraq wasn't a coup, it was a conquest followed by the installation of an occupation government.

The really illuminating comparison is between the US-participated coup in Ukraine and that in Brazil in 1964, where the US backed a Brazilian military takeover that toppled a democratic left-wing government and replaced it with a fascist dictatorship. Naturally the US denied involvement there too, and maintained that denial even after documents were published in 1974 that proved the US had foreknowledge of the coup.

They could still hide behind the fact that there ended up being no overt US participation - the military units were all Brazilian, the coup had the support of the Brazilian Senate, and there were "pro-democracy" demonstrations on the ground. The army supplies and naval support the Johnson administration had prepared for the coup proved unnecessary and were ultimately unemployed. Only in 2004 with the release of classified documents by the US government did what had long been known become undeniable through "concrete" evidence.. Without the exposure of internal documents, deniability of US participation could be maintained even today.

Note that in Brazil, the US did not orchestrate or execute the coup either. It was Brazilian generals who came to the Johnson administration for support (knowing they were receptive) and executed the coup entirely autonomously. Imagine how much more difficult it would have been for the US to deny involvement if it was known they had funded the organizations that led the coup (as they did in Ukraine) that is obviously aligned with US interests, if sitting US Senators and State Dept officials had given speeches in Brazil to the pro-fascist demonstrators and taken meetings with their leaders in the US Embassy, and if internal discussions like those between the Assistant Secretary of State and the US Ambassador planning the post-coup government of Ukraine had been leaked.

Acknowledging the US participation in the coup is the minimum bar of candor that should be required to enter into this discussion. Pretending there's some line between providing money and public support for an action and being a participant is a joke. If you're unwilling to accept the US activity in Ukraine that can already be substantiated as evidence of participation then you're placing an unreasonable burden of proof that will typically be impossible to meet until decades later and serves as nothing other than running interference for state power.

Ultimately the fact that regime change in Ukraine was accomplished via coup is beside the point. It only makes the US conduct more formally egregious. The US should not have been machinating in Ukraine at all. A Democratic Party partisan should be the first to recognize the malicious nature of a foreign power interfering in the domestic politics of another country. How are we respecting democracy or the agency of Ukraine by funding its political actors including partisan media and allowing US government officials to openly politick inside their country? Just imagine the hysteria that would have come from Democrats if Russia had openly funded the Republican party and "independent" private partisan TV channels, and senior Russian government officials had attended Trump rallies including the "Save America" rally at the White House and gave rousing speeches.

This is the climax of a deliberate program that started immediately after the fall of the USSR to separate Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence and incorporate it into the western bloc. The reason we should not have been doing this is because this program threatens Russia's core security interests. This is another fact that is being evaded with a complete lack of candor.

Everyone knows how the US would react to a Russian program to make Mexico a client state with the intention of eventually forming a military alliance replete with the stationing of nuclear weapons. We would go ballistic, literally if necessary, long before the conflict reached the point it had in Ukraine as of February 2022. We claim the entire western hemisphere as our sphere of influence and would brook no challenge to what we consider our core security by Russia or China or anyone else. Yet commentators are denying that Russia should or even does feel the same about a US client relationship and alliance with Ukraine?

There is no denial of anyone's agency here. The Russian agency is fully acknowledged by giving account to their national security concerns, which Putin has reiterated countless times over the last two decades. I already acknowledged Ukrainian agency in this thread when I declared that there was obviously an authentic domestic Ukrainian force in the country seeking to control the government and which wishes to be allied with the west. This bull**** over denial of agency is indicative of the vacuous quality of the arguments offered by those who claim a reasonable interpretation of the situation like the one I've offered is Kremlin propaganda, right alongside the idiotic accusations of "westspaining". How the same message be "westsplaining" and parroting "Kremlin propaganda"?

Although it is unquestionable that US meddling in Ukraine's internal politics for decades has contributed to the installation of regimes that seek alliance with and integration into the west, the government that now exists as a fait accompli in Ukraine is entitled to pursue the foreign policy of its choice. So are we. We have agency too, and of course the US, the EU and Ukraine would all have been better off if the US had never pursued this program of drawing Ukraine away from Russia, or had chosen to negotiate at any time after the coup.

Your wondering "how the Ukrainian people were ever going to stand for" our not spending decades and billions of dollars trying to build political forces inside their country that would repudiate their relationship with Russia requires you to start Ukrainian history after the 2014 coup. For the first 13 years of its post-Soviet history, Ukraine was governed by pro-Russian administrations. In 2004 the first pro-Western president was elected, the fruit of billions spent by the US "building democracy" in Ukraine - ie, being a party in its electoral politics. After one term of pro-western control, the pro-Russian block again won power until its democratically elected government was toppled by the 2014 coup (for the egregious crime of choosing a superior economic package offered by Russia over one offered by the EU), triggering the Russian annexation of Crimea and the civil war in Donbas. Without decades of US "democracy building", it's questionable whether any pro-western administration would ever have gained power at all. If you require us to start our analysis in 2014, I ask you what was Ukraine going to do if we told them we were going to pursue a neutralization agreement with Russia? They would have no other option than go along.

Mearsheimer (and others) did err when he said in the weeks before the invasion he did not believe Putin intended to invade, but Mearsheimer spent the last 8 years repeatedly saying an alliance between Ukraine and US-led NATO was unacceptable to Putin (and any other Russian leader) and that the potential for a dangerous conflict was ever-present on this account (Chomsky said the same, as did many others). Mearsheimer also said that if Putin feels Ukraine will join NATO, he can always wreck the country. That Mearsheimer was wrong that this was the year that the conflict would boil over is irrelevant. The analysis was fundamentally correct.

Even with a pro-western regime in Kyiv, it was possible to avert open war by a formal agreement between the US and Russia to militarily neutralize Ukraine. Claiming that such an agreement (if honestly adhered to by measures like cease arming Ukraine and training its military including its neo-Nazi units) would not have prevented this invasion relies only on a belief in Putin as a Hitler-like warlord who could not be accommodated by the kind of diplomatic settlement that Putin himself had publicly advocated for years and even in the last months before the invasion. It was the US who refused to negotiate on this basis, fronting the same frivolous arguments about Ukraine's agency and right of choice as people like you are peddling now, as though the US cares at all about the agency and sovereignty of other countries. Anyone who tries to lend credence to the notion that the US is defending any ideal here is either mendacious or a complete fool.

As for my thinking being the same "America First" framework that so-called conservatives use, that's both mistaken and situationally irrelevant. It's mistaken because unlike "conservatives" I do assign a non-zero value to the well-being of people in foreign countries. I don't know precisely how to weigh the interests of my country with humanist interests if they would truly conflict, but fortunately in this instance there is no dilemma. A diplomatic settlement would have been best for the people in every country: the US, EU, Ukraine and Russia. The outcome we have received thanks to our own obstinance is terrible for the people of all countries, especially Ukrainians.

You have it wrong when you say I am blaming the west for what Putin does. That is false. I am blaming the west for what we have done with foreknowledge of the likely consequences. The US has spent the last 30 years working toward this catastrophe for Ukrainians. Our security heads know that Russia regards Ukraine as vital to their core security interests, but we purposefully fostered political forces in Ukraine that wished to separate from Russia, integrate with the EU, and join NATO. We did this knowing that it was bound to cause conflict with Russia over a country that is on their border and has been historically joined to them for centuries while it is thousands of miles away from us. We sent the conflict into overdrive by participating in the overthrow of a democratically elected pro-Russian regimes, and then we rejected Russian entreaties to negotiate a diplomatic settlement and armed Ukraine all the while knowing that if the Russians invade we will not stand by our proxy. Now we have so-called progressives gullibly defending this sociopathic policy that has completely hung Ukraine out to dry, is guaranteed to produce mass economic misery, and threatens to expand into an even larger conflict.

---

Do you get paid by the word?

---

You're a Traitor

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

I haven't read or heard a single dissenter's analysis that equates how the US effected regime change in Ukraine to how it did in Iraq. Perhaps you can link one here. Iraq wasn't a coup, it was a conquest followed by the installation of an occupation government.

The really illuminating comparison is between the US-participated coup in Ukraine and that in Brazil in 1964, where the US backed a Brazilian military takeover that toppled a democratic left-wing government and replaced it with a fascist dictatorship. Naturally the US denied involvement there too, and maintained that denial even after documents were published in 1974 that proved the US had foreknowledge of the coup.

They could still hide behind the fact that there ended up being no overt US participation - the military units were all Brazilian, the coup had the support of the Brazilian Senate, and there were "pro-democracy" demonstrations on the ground. The army supplies and naval support the Johnson administration had prepared for the coup proved unnecessary and were ultimately unemployed. Only in 2004 with the release of classified documents by the US government did what had long been known become undeniable through "concrete" evidence.. Without the exposure of internal documents, deniability of US participation could be maintained even today.

Note that in Brazil, the US did not orchestrate or execute the coup either. It was Brazilian generals who came to the Johnson administration for support (knowing they were receptive) and executed the coup entirely autonomously. Imagine how much more difficult it would have been for the US to deny involvement if it was known they had funded the organizations that led the coup (as they did in Ukraine) that is obviously aligned with US interests, if sitting US Senators and State Dept officials had given speeches in Brazil to the pro-fascist demonstrators and taken meetings with their leaders in the US Embassy, and if internal discussions like those between the Assistant Secretary of State and the US Ambassador planning the post-coup government of Ukraine had been leaked.

Acknowledging the US participation in the coup is the minimum bar of candor that should be required to enter into this discussion. Pretending there's some line between providing money and public support for an action and being a participant is a joke. If you're unwilling to accept the US activity in Ukraine that can already be substantiated as evidence of participation then you're placing an unreasonable burden of proof that will typically be impossible to meet until decades later and serves as nothing other than running interference for state power.

Ultimately the fact that regime change in Ukraine was accomplished via coup is beside the point. It only makes the US conduct more formally egregious. The US should not have been machinating in Ukraine at all. A Democratic Party partisan should be the first to recognize the malicious nature of a foreign power interfering in the domestic politics of another country. How are we respecting democracy or the agency of Ukraine by funding its political actors including partisan media and allowing US government officials to openly politick inside their country? Just imagine the hysteria that would have come from Democrats if Russia had openly funded the Republican party and "independent" private partisan TV channels, and senior Russian government officials had attended Trump rallies including the "Save America" rally at the White House and gave rousing speeches.

This is the climax of a deliberate program that started immediately after the fall of the USSR to separate Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence and incorporate it into the western bloc. The reason we should not have been doing this is because this program threatens Russia's core security interests. This is another fact that is being evaded with a complete lack of candor.

Everyone knows how the US would react to a Russian program to make Mexico a client state with the intention of eventually forming a military alliance replete with the stationing of nuclear weapons. We would go ballistic, literally if necessary, long before the conflict reached the point it had in Ukraine as of February 2022. We claim the entire western hemisphere as our sphere of influence and would brook no challenge to what we consider our core security by Russia or China or anyone else. Yet commentators are denying that Russia should or even does feel the same about a US client relationship and alliance with Ukraine?

There is no denial of anyone's agency here. The Russian agency is fully acknowledged by giving account to their national security concerns, which Putin has reiterated countless times over the last two decades. I already acknowledged Ukrainian agency in this thread when I declared that there was obviously an authentic domestic Ukrainian force in the country seeking to control the government and which wishes to be allied with the west. This bull**** over denial of agency is indicative of the vacuous quality of the arguments offered by those who claim a reasonable interpretation of the situation like the one I've offered is Kremlin propaganda, right alongside the idiotic accusations of "westspaining". How the same message be "westsplaining" and parroting "Kremlin propaganda"?

Although it is unquestionable that US meddling in Ukraine's internal politics for decades has contributed to the installation of regimes that seek alliance with and integration into the west, the government that now exists as a fait accompli in Ukraine is entitled to pursue the foreign policy of its choice. So are we. We have agency too, and of course the US, the EU and Ukraine would all have been better off if the US had never pursued this program of drawing Ukraine away from Russia, or had chosen to negotiate at any time after the coup.

Your wondering "how the Ukrainian people were ever going to stand for" our not spending decades and billions of dollars trying to build political forces inside their country that would repudiate their relationship with Russia requires you to start Ukrainian history after the 2014 coup. For the first 13 years of its post-Soviet history, Ukraine was governed by pro-Russian administrations. In 2004 the first pro-Western president was elected, the fruit of billions spent by the US "building democracy" in Ukraine - ie, being a party in its electoral politics. After one term of pro-western control, the pro-Russian block again won power until its democratically elected government was toppled by the 2014 coup (for the egregious crime of choosing a superior economic package offered by Russia over one offered by the EU), triggering the Russian annexation of Crimea and the civil war in Donbas. Without decades of US "democracy building", it's questionable whether any pro-western administration would ever have gained power at all. If you require us to start our analysis in 2014, I ask you what was Ukraine going to do if we told them we were going to pursue a neutralization agreement with Russia? They would have no other option than go along.

Mearsheimer (and others) did err when he said in the weeks before the invasion he did not believe Putin intended to invade, but Mearsheimer spent the last 8 years repeatedly saying an alliance between Ukraine and US-led NATO was unacceptable to Putin (and any other Russian leader) and that the potential for a dangerous conflict was ever-present on this account (Chomsky said the same, as did many others). Mearsheimer also said that if Putin feels Ukraine will join NATO, he can always wreck the country. That Mearsheimer was wrong that this was the year that the conflict would boil over is irrelevant. The analysis was fundamentally correct.

Even with a pro-western regime in Kyiv, it was possible to avert open war by a formal agreement between the US and Russia to militarily neutralize Ukraine. Claiming that such an agreement (if honestly adhered to by measures like cease arming Ukraine and training its military including its neo-Nazi units) would not have prevented this invasion relies only on a belief in Putin as a Hitler-like warlord who could not be accommodated by the kind of diplomatic settlement that Putin himself had publicly advocated for years and even in the last months before the invasion. It was the US who refused to negotiate on this basis, fronting the same frivolous arguments about Ukraine's agency and right of choice as people like you are peddling now, as though the US cares at all about the agency and sovereignty of other countries. Anyone who tries to lend credence to the notion that the US is defending any ideal here is either mendacious or a complete fool.

As for my thinking being the same "America First" framework that so-called conservatives use, that's both mistaken and situationally irrelevant. It's mistaken because unlike "conservatives" I do assign a non-zero value to the well-being of people in foreign countries. I don't know precisely how to weigh the interests of my country with humanist interests if they would truly conflict, but fortunately in this instance there is no dilemma. A diplomatic settlement would have been best for the people in every country: the US, EU, Ukraine and Russia. The outcome we have received thanks to our own obstinance is terrible for the people of all countries, especially Ukrainians.

You have it wrong when you say I am blaming the west for what Putin does. That is false. I am blaming the west for what we have done with foreknowledge of the likely consequences. The US has spent the last 30 years working toward this catastrophe for Ukrainians. Our security heads know that Russia regards Ukraine as vital to their core security interests, but we purposefully fostered political forces in Ukraine that wished to separate from Russia, integrate with the EU, and join NATO. We did this knowing that it was bound to cause conflict with Russia over a country that is on their border and has been historically joined to them for centuries while it is thousands of miles away from us. We sent the conflict into overdrive by participating in the overthrow of a democratically elected pro-Russian regimes, and then we rejected Russian entreaties to negotiate a diplomatic settlement and armed Ukraine all the while knowing that if the Russians invade we will not stand by our proxy. Now we have so-called progressives gullibly defending this sociopathic policy that has completely hung Ukraine out to dry, is guaranteed to produce mass economic misery, and threatens to expand into an even larger conflict.

---

Do you get paid by the word?

---

Some ideas take more words to communicate than "Putin bad"

kal kommie said:

---

blungld said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

Not surprising to me that the first piece of media you choose to share to make your case is the most trite, insipid, superficial, emotionally manipulative and uninformative "artsy" propaganda to be found, specially targeted for the wine and cheese Venice Film Festival "opinion making" crowd, produced and distributed by US corporate media.

---

Wow. I did not know that you were a straight jerk. What a really horrible response. I guarantee you I have far more experience and knowledge in the region and in the media and what constitutes trite insipid content.

I challenged your post, and you feel what you wrote is an appropriate response? You are now on my ignore. You are not a person worth dialoging with.

---

Your "challenge" to my post was condescending, dismissive, and castigating without offering a single substantive counterargument. Whining about me being a jerk after you came in like a jackass is pathetic. If you feel insulted by my reply then I'm glad to know I hit the mark.

And everything I said about Winter on Fire is true. It's straight propaganda, not a serious account. It's not surprising if you can't tell the difference.

---

He's right about one thing. He does have a lot of experience and knowledge in trite insipid content.

Anarchistbear said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

blungld said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

Not surprising to me that the first piece of media you choose to share to make your case is the most trite, insipid, superficial, emotionally manipulative and uninformative "artsy" propaganda to be found, specially targeted for the wine and cheese Venice Film Festival "opinion making" crowd, produced and distributed by US corporate media.

---

Wow. I did not know that you were a straight jerk. What a really horrible response. I guarantee you I have far more experience and knowledge in the region and in the media and what constitutes trite insipid content.

I challenged your post, and you feel what you wrote is an appropriate response? You are now on my ignore. You are not a person worth dialoging with.

---

Your "challenge" to my post was condescending, dismissive, and castigating without offering a single substantive counterargument. Whining about me being a jerk after you came in like a jackass is pathetic. If you feel insulted by my reply then I'm glad to know I hit the mark.

And everything I said about Winter on Fire is true. It's straight propaganda, not a serious account. It's not surprising if you can't tell the difference.

---

He's right about one thing. He does have a lot of experience and knowledge in trite insipid content.

---

That's rich, coming from someone as trite and insipid as you.

kal kommie said:

---

And everything I said about Winter on Fire is true. It's straight propaganda, not a serious account. It's not surprising if you can't tell the difference.

---

I am not here to defend the film, but honestly, this is what a normal civil response might sound like rather than a response that uses words like trite, insipid, propaganda, etc:

"Yes, I saw Winter on Fire. It does a good job of capturing.....(some interesting observation)...I might recommend that you check THIS out for a different perspective. I understand where you're coming from, but I have the concern that X is not being discussed as another factor in the overall picture."

You know, something like that, that finds some common ground. Shares information without insults. Discusses without bombast. Shows a little humility. Is open to considering others opinion. That sort of stuff.

It's interesting that you feel the film is soooooo terrible and has nothing to offer when friends and relatives who actually live in Ukraine swear by it and recommend it and say it captures the events accurately. It was nominated for an Academy Award. My friends who are PHDs in history/political science from Cal, Stanfurd, and Harvard and who work for State Department also recommend it. But you, mister internet guy without any stated expertise, not only disagrees with the film, but disparages it.

You have little credibility with me, and I trust my other more well-reasoned and more reasonable sources who are able to discuss Ukraine with empathy and amicability and from all perspectives...and who are well-informed enough to know when they have strayed into Russian apologetics and gross misrepresentation.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

I haven't read or heard a single dissenter's analysis that equates how the US effected regime change in Ukraine to how it did in Iraq. Perhaps you can link one here. Iraq wasn't a coup, it was a conquest followed by the installation of an occupation government.

The really illuminating comparison is between the US-participated coup in Ukraine and that in Brazil in 1964, where the US backed a Brazilian military takeover that toppled a democratic left-wing government and replaced it with a fascist dictatorship. Naturally the US denied involvement there too, and maintained that denial even after documents were published in 1974 that proved the US had foreknowledge of the coup.

They could still hide behind the fact that there ended up being no overt US participation - the military units were all Brazilian, the coup had the support of the Brazilian Senate, and there were "pro-democracy" demonstrations on the ground. The army supplies and naval support the Johnson administration had prepared for the coup proved unnecessary and were ultimately unemployed. Only in 2004 with the release of classified documents by the US government did what had long been known become undeniable through "concrete" evidence.. Without the exposure of internal documents, deniability of US participation could be maintained even today.

Note that in Brazil, the US did not orchestrate or execute the coup either. It was Brazilian generals who came to the Johnson administration for support (knowing they were receptive) and executed the coup entirely autonomously. Imagine how much more difficult it would have been for the US to deny involvement if it was known they had funded the organizations that led the coup (as they did in Ukraine) that is obviously aligned with US interests, if sitting US Senators and State Dept officials had given speeches in Brazil to the pro-fascist demonstrators and taken meetings with their leaders in the US Embassy, and if internal discussions like those between the Assistant Secretary of State and the US Ambassador planning the post-coup government of Ukraine had been leaked.

Acknowledging the US participation in the coup is the minimum bar of candor that should be required to enter into this discussion. Pretending there's some line between providing money and public support for an action and being a participant is a joke. If you're unwilling to accept the US activity in Ukraine that can already be substantiated as evidence of participation then you're placing an unreasonable burden of proof that will typically be impossible to meet until decades later and serves as nothing other than running interference for state power.

Ultimately the fact that regime change in Ukraine was accomplished via coup is beside the point. It only makes the US conduct more formally egregious. The US should not have been machinating in Ukraine at all. A Democratic Party partisan should be the first to recognize the malicious nature of a foreign power interfering in the domestic politics of another country. How are we respecting democracy or the agency of Ukraine by funding its political actors including partisan media and allowing US government officials to openly politick inside their country? Just imagine the hysteria that would have come from Democrats if Russia had openly funded the Republican party and "independent" private partisan TV channels, and senior Russian government officials had attended Trump rallies including the "Save America" rally at the White House and gave rousing speeches.

This is the climax of a deliberate program that started immediately after the fall of the USSR to separate Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence and incorporate it into the western bloc. The reason we should not have been doing this is because this program threatens Russia's core security interests. This is another fact that is being evaded with a complete lack of candor.

Everyone knows how the US would react to a Russian program to make Mexico a client state with the intention of eventually forming a military alliance replete with the stationing of nuclear weapons. We would go ballistic, literally if necessary, long before the conflict reached the point it had in Ukraine as of February 2022. We claim the entire western hemisphere as our sphere of influence and would brook no challenge to what we consider our core security by Russia or China or anyone else. Yet commentators are denying that Russia should or even does feel the same about a US client relationship and alliance with Ukraine?

There is no denial of anyone's agency here. The Russian agency is fully acknowledged by giving account to their national security concerns, which Putin has reiterated countless times over the last two decades. I already acknowledged Ukrainian agency in this thread when I declared that there was obviously an authentic domestic Ukrainian force in the country seeking to control the government and which wishes to be allied with the west. This bull**** over denial of agency is indicative of the vacuous quality of the arguments offered by those who claim a reasonable interpretation of the situation like the one I've offered is Kremlin propaganda, right alongside the idiotic accusations of "westspaining". How the same message be "westsplaining" and parroting "Kremlin propaganda"?

Although it is unquestionable that US meddling in Ukraine's internal politics for decades has contributed to the installation of regimes that seek alliance with and integration into the west, the government that now exists as a fait accompli in Ukraine is entitled to pursue the foreign policy of its choice. So are we. We have agency too, and of course the US, the EU and Ukraine would all have been better off if the US had never pursued this program of drawing Ukraine away from Russia, or had chosen to negotiate at any time after the coup.

Your wondering "how the Ukrainian people were ever going to stand for" our not spending decades and billions of dollars trying to build political forces inside their country that would repudiate their relationship with Russia requires you to start Ukrainian history after the 2014 coup. For the first 13 years of its post-Soviet history, Ukraine was governed by pro-Russian administrations. In 2004 the first pro-Western president was elected, the fruit of billions spent by the US "building democracy" in Ukraine - ie, being a party in its electoral politics. After one term of pro-western control, the pro-Russian block again won power until its democratically elected government was toppled by the 2014 coup (for the egregious crime of choosing a superior economic package offered by Russia over one offered by the EU), triggering the Russian annexation of Crimea and the civil war in Donbas. Without decades of US "democracy building", it's questionable whether any pro-western administration would ever have gained power at all. If you require us to start our analysis in 2014, I ask you what was Ukraine going to do if we told them we were going to pursue a neutralization agreement with Russia? They would have no other option than go along.

Mearsheimer (and others) did err when he said in the weeks before the invasion he did not believe Putin intended to invade, but Mearsheimer spent the last 8 years repeatedly saying an alliance between Ukraine and US-led NATO was unacceptable to Putin (and any other Russian leader) and that the potential for a dangerous conflict was ever-present on this account (Chomsky said the same, as did many others). Mearsheimer also said that if Putin feels Ukraine will join NATO, he can always wreck the country. That Mearsheimer was wrong that this was the year that the conflict would boil over is irrelevant. The analysis was fundamentally correct.

Even with a pro-western regime in Kyiv, it was possible to avert open war by a formal agreement between the US and Russia to militarily neutralize Ukraine. Claiming that such an agreement (if honestly adhered to by measures like cease arming Ukraine and training its military including its neo-Nazi units) would not have prevented this invasion relies only on a belief in Putin as a Hitler-like warlord who could not be accommodated by the kind of diplomatic settlement that Putin himself had publicly advocated for years and even in the last months before the invasion. It was the US who refused to negotiate on this basis, fronting the same frivolous arguments about Ukraine's agency and right of choice as people like you are peddling now, as though the US cares at all about the agency and sovereignty of other countries. Anyone who tries to lend credence to the notion that the US is defending any ideal here is either mendacious or a complete fool.

As for my thinking being the same "America First" framework that so-called conservatives use, that's both mistaken and situationally irrelevant. It's mistaken because unlike "conservatives" I do assign a non-zero value to the well-being of people in foreign countries. I don't know precisely how to weigh the interests of my country with humanist interests if they would truly conflict, but fortunately in this instance there is no dilemma. A diplomatic settlement would have been best for the people in every country: the US, EU, Ukraine and Russia. The outcome we have received thanks to our own obstinance is terrible for the people of all countries, especially Ukrainians.

You have it wrong when you say I am blaming the west for what Putin does. That is false. I am blaming the west for what we have done with foreknowledge of the likely consequences. The US has spent the last 30 years working toward this catastrophe for Ukrainians. Our security heads know that Russia regards Ukraine as vital to their core security interests, but we purposefully fostered political forces in Ukraine that wished to separate from Russia, integrate with the EU, and join NATO. We did this knowing that it was bound to cause conflict with Russia over a country that is on their border and has been historically joined to them for centuries while it is thousands of miles away from us. We sent the conflict into overdrive by participating in the overthrow of a democratically elected pro-Russian regimes, and then we rejected Russian entreaties to negotiate a diplomatic settlement and armed Ukraine all the while knowing that if the Russians invade we will not stand by our proxy. Now we have so-called progressives gullibly defending this sociopathic policy that has completely hung Ukraine out to dry, is guaranteed to produce mass economic misery, and threatens to expand into an even larger conflict.

---

Do you get paid by the word?

---

You're a Traitor

---

OK, assuming you are also paid by the word, that was all you could muster up? By the way, sentences should have punctuation.

I sort of like it when this board heats up and it's actually the less knuckle-headed posters taking off the gloves. I mean, I sort of like it, but I sort of don't. And maybe the most naive, ignorant question of all: Is somebody here Yogi? (I know a bunch of people out there are thinking either, "No, you idiot." or "Yes, duh.", but I've never been very perceptive about things like that. I used to be able to PM OaktownBear to ask him, but he's still on his damn sabbatical.)

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Do you get paid by the word?

---

Bwahahahaha!!!

blungld said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

And everything I said about Winter on Fire is true. It's straight propaganda, not a serious account. It's not surprising if you can't tell the difference.

---

I am not here to defend the film, but honestly, this is what a normal civil response might sound like rather than a response that uses words like trite, insipid, propaganda, etc:

"Yes, I saw Winter on Fire. It does a good job of capturing.....(some interesting observation)...I might recommend that you check THIS out for a different perspective. I understand where you're coming from, but I have the concern that X is not being discussed as another factor in the overall picture."

You know, something like that, that finds some common ground. Shares information without insults. Discusses without bombast. Shows a little humility. Is open to considering others opinion. That sort of stuff.

It's interesting that you feel the film is soooooo terrible and has nothing to offer when friends and relatives who actually live in Ukraine swear by it and recommend it and say it captures the events accurately. It was nominated for an Academy Award. My friends who are PHDs in history/political science from Cal, Stanfurd, and Harvard and who work for State Department also recommend it. But you, mister internet guy without any stated expertise, not only disagrees with the film, but disparages it.

You have little credibility with me, and I trust my other more well-reasoned and more reasonable sources who are able to discuss Ukraine with empathy and amicability and from all perspectives...and who are well-informed enough to know when they have strayed into Russian apologetics and gross misrepresentation.

---

You should never expect to receive kinder treatment than you give. You came at me like a jackass and now cry foul when served the same. Don't like it? Be the change you wish to see in those you converse with.

Don't like me calling the video you shared propaganda? Maybe you shouldn't have called my post "Russian propaganda" to begin with. Don't like how I share information with insults? Try sharing some information along with your insults. At least that way there'll be something worth talking over.

Want me to show humility? Show some yourself, consider my view without questioning my capacity to hold my opinion, accusing me of parroting right-wing talking points, declaring my opinion "harmful...poorly drawn, insensitive, and wholly unnecessary" all without addressing a single claim I made about the situation in Ukraine.

You want your opinion to prevail because you're you, you know people to whom you ascribe intellectual authority on the basis of their titles or Ukrainian origin, and you're above actually rebutting an analysis on the factual record.

The lack of self-consciousness you have for the hypocrisy you've engaged in staggers me. Please, follow through on what you said you'd do and put me on ignore. You'll be saved from having your feelings hurt by counter-insults and I'll be spared the temptation to reply to posts that contain zero analysis, just emotion.


BTW, just so you know there's a range of Ukrainian opinion beyond you and your family: on Feb 24 I had dinner with a Ukrainian family who are my good friends. They were obviously distraught (they have family still there and one of their sons and his new Ukrainian fiancee just left the country a week before the invasion) and I planned to say nothing about the matter and only offer my sympathies, but to my surprise the matriarch of the family volunteered her anger with Putin and Zelensky, and her belief that this should never have happened because Ukraine should never have courted NATO membership or sought to move away from its Russian ties, and that a deal should have been worked out years ago not only to secure neutrality but also resolve the bloodshed in Donbas, blood the west gave no ****s about these past 8 years.

blungld said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

And everything I said about Winter on Fire is true. It's straight propaganda, not a serious account. It's not surprising if you can't tell the difference.

---

I am not here to defend the film, but honestly, this is what a normal civil response might sound like rather than a response that uses words like trite, insipid, propaganda, etc:

"Yes, I saw Winter on Fire. It does a good job of capturing.....(some interesting observation)...I might recommend that you check THIS out for a different perspective. I understand where you're coming from, but I have the concern that X is not being discussed as another factor in the overall picture."

You know, something like that, that finds some common ground. Shares information without insults. Discusses without bombast. Shows a little humility. Is open to considering others opinion. That sort of stuff.

It's interesting that you feel the film is soooooo terrible and has nothing to offer when friends and relatives who actually live in Ukraine swear by it and recommend it and say it captures the events accurately. It was nominated for an Academy Award. My friends who are PHDs in history/political science from Cal, Stanfurd, and Harvard and who work for State Department also recommend it. But you, mister internet guy without any stated expertise, not only disagrees with the film, but disparages it.

You have little credibility with me, and I trust my other more well-reasoned and more reasonable sources who are able to discuss Ukraine with empathy and amicability and from all perspectives...and who are well-informed enough to know when they have strayed into Russian apologetics and gross misrepresentation.

---

blungld,

I'm here to apologize. I've thought about my Ukrainian friends and the consideration I had predetermined to extend them in the form of keeping my opinions to myself as they go through an experience that must be deeply distressing. I realize that if you were a stranger who I heard speak the words in your posts earlier in this thread, I would have extended you more consideration than I did here and I certainly should not extend you less consideration here than I would a complete stranger. I'm sorry if I contributed any negative feeling to you at this time.

I was drawn to this thread by the intolerant spirit I found toward those whose analysis of the situation shared components with those of identifiably "pro-Russian" persons. The ease with which dissenting views were labeled adversarial propaganda reminded me of the Iraq war, and I felt compelled to speak up against a spirit I feel is suppressive, but I did not intend to get into such acrimonious personal exchanges particularly with someone who obviously has a lot more at stake with what's happening in Ukraine than I do.

Frankly, I sometimes wish there was a zero tolerance policy on political talk here because it certainly spills over into Growls and I didn't originally come to CyberBears to b*tch at other Cal fans over politics to the point where I could no longer address them even regarding football without enmity.

I'm going to excuse myself from this thread now. I'm sorry for you that Ukraine has been subject to this nightmare and I hope all of your family and friends in the country are and remain safe.

Go Bears

kal kommie said:

---

blungld,

I'm here to apologize. I've thought about my Ukrainian friends and the consideration I had predetermined to extend them in the form of keeping my opinions to myself as they go through an experience that must be deeply distressing. I realize that if you were a stranger who I heard speak the words in your posts earlier in this thread, I would have extended you more consideration than I did here and I certainly should not extend you less consideration here than I would a complete stranger. I'm sorry if I contributed any negative feeling to you at this time.

I was drawn to this thread by the intolerant spirit I found toward those whose analysis of the situation shared components with those of identifiably "pro-Russian" persons. The ease with which dissenting views were labeled adversarial propaganda reminded me of the Iraq war, and I felt compelled to speak up against a spirit I feel is suppressive, but I did not intend to get into such acrimonious personal exchanges particularly with someone who obviously has a lot more at stake with what's happening in Ukraine than I do.

Frankly, I sometimes wish there was a zero tolerance policy on political talk here because it certainly spills over into Growls and I didn't originally come to CyberBears to b*tch at other Cal fans over politics to the point where I could no longer address them even regarding football without enmity.

I'm going to excuse myself from this thread now. I'm sorry for you that Ukraine has been subject to this nightmare and I hope all of your family and friends in the country are and remain safe.

Go Bears

---

Holy crud! I can only assume that this is sincere. And, if so, you are awesome.

Yes, you are right. I am in an emotionally charged state with real personal stakes with family abandoning their homes right now. Homes I have visited. They are in peril. And other relatives in Poland taking in refugees from the train station. I understand that America and Ukraine are not blameless nor perfect. Ukraine is a struggling democracy with a complicated past. But I am focused on real human tragedy and not whose fault it is--other than the most basic analysis that the invading army must be stopped and is directly responsible in this moment.

I know that that your perspective is grounded in some legitimate analysis and NOT simply spouting Russian propaganda (and I understand your sensitivity in that regard). BUT, at this moment in time, when there is a clear wrong being perpetrated, I don't think analysis that assists, aids, or parallels Russian propaganda should be casually giving. I am not suggesting censorship or impediment to free speech, just careful consideration if this is the time and place and what certain opinions validate and enable.

Bottom line, I am impressed by your generous post and similarly apolgize if I was condescending or aggressive to you. Thank you.

Well, since this thread has cooled down, I will also be magnanimous and say that it wasn't entirely fair to say that criticisms of US or NATO policy towards Ukraine has to be seen as pro-Russian propaganda. Those criticisms are often spun into pro-Russian propaganda by the Kremlin, but it doesn't necessarily come from that place. I think that one does need to careful about how that argument is framed, and make it clear that none of it justifies the current Russian invasion. If it's prefaced that way, then I don't necessarily have a problem with it. If you're going to come in hot and try to equate the two "sides" when only one side actually sent in the tanks and started the war . . . well, I'm going to have a problem with that.

I can accept that US foreign policy is often not great and has gotten us a lot of unintended consequences. But in this specific instance, I've found a lot of the criticism either (1) untrue or (2) highly exaggerated, and (3) even if it is true, it does not remotely justify Putin starting a war in Ukraine. Russian aggression still seems to me the number one problem here. If anything, the arguments about NATO are actually convincing me that Ukraine should have been in NATO a long time ago, because its clear that NATO countries don't get attacked and non-NATO countries do.

blungld said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

blungld,

I'm here to apologize. I've thought about my Ukrainian friends and the consideration I had predetermined to extend them in the form of keeping my opinions to myself as they go through an experience that must be deeply distressing. I realize that if you were a stranger who I heard speak the words in your posts earlier in this thread, I would have extended you more consideration than I did here and I certainly should not extend you less consideration here than I would a complete stranger. I'm sorry if I contributed any negative feeling to you at this time.

I was drawn to this thread by the intolerant spirit I found toward those whose analysis of the situation shared components with those of identifiably "pro-Russian" persons. The ease with which dissenting views were labeled adversarial propaganda reminded me of the Iraq war, and I felt compelled to speak up against a spirit I feel is suppressive, but I did not intend to get into such acrimonious personal exchanges particularly with someone who obviously has a lot more at stake with what's happening in Ukraine than I do.

Frankly, I sometimes wish there was a zero tolerance policy on political talk here because it certainly spills over into Growls and I didn't originally come to CyberBears to b*tch at other Cal fans over politics to the point where I could no longer address them even regarding football without enmity.

I'm going to excuse myself from this thread now. I'm sorry for you that Ukraine has been subject to this nightmare and I hope all of your family and friends in the country are and remain safe.

Go Bears

---

Holy crud! I can only assume that this is sincere. And, if so, you are awesome.

Yes, you are right. I am in an emotionally charged state with real personal stakes with family abandoning their homes right now. Homes I have visited. They are in peril. And other relatives in Poland taking in refugees from the train station. I understand that America and Ukraine are not blameless nor perfect. Ukraine is a struggling democracy with a complicated past. But I am focused on real human tragedy and not whose fault it is--other than the most basic analysis that the invading army must be stopped and is directly responsible in this moment.

I know that that your perspective is grounded in some legitimate analysis and NOT simply spouting Russian propaganda (and I understand your sensitivity in that regard). BUT, at this moment in time, when there is a clear wrong being perpetrated, I don't think analysis that assists, aids, or parallels Russian propaganda should be casually giving. I am not suggesting censorship or impediment to free speech, just careful consideration if this is the time and place and what certain opinions validate and enable.

Bottom line, I am impressed by your generous post and similarly apolgize if I was condescending or aggressive to you. Thank you.

---

I love this kind of s***. Seriously. Group hug!!!

Just wants to make me share a beverage with you all, when Cal gets to the Rose Bowl (if we live that long). Go Bears!

I'm not a foreign policy expert but I don't understand the real issue with NATO as theorized by Putin. If Putin is just worried about what happens within his borders, he doesn't need to worry about NATO. Russia is pretty much a ****hole that has had massive brain drain and is basically turned into a petro state. Apart from fossil fuels, which Russia needs to sell to fund the oligarchy, it doesn't have much that anyone wants and is being a large geographically challenging ****hole is a pretty good defense. As far as I can tell, Putin's real issue with NATO is that it would prevent him from expanding his territories and recreating the old soviet bloc, which isn't really an anti-NATO argument that we should concern ourselves with.

As Obama pointed out, Russia was always going to have escalatory dominance over Ukraine due to proximity. As everyone is aware (now more than ever) Russia's military is a bit of a joke and was never going to be a real threat to the world, apart from nukes (if theirs even work). And guess who else has a lot of nukes and can actually use them to deter threats from rogue actors like Putin who have any interest in continuing breathing? That's right, the US Americans (shoutout to Miss Teen South Carolina 2007).

I think that Putin is probably somewhere in the severn stages of dementia and has lost a step because this all seems like a massive miscalculation if he was trying to actually protect himself from NATO which really was never a threat to his way of life.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I think that Putin is probably somewhere in the severn stages of dementia and has lost a step because this all seems like a massive miscalculation if he was trying to actually protect himself from NATO which really was never a threat to his way of life.

---

Yup, all of Putin's aggression is only driving Eastern Europe further towards NATO. If he'd just left well enough alone, there would probably be a difficult conversation happening between the NATO allies about just how much the organization is even needed anymore. Now they're united, Germany is ramping up military capacity again, and even Finland is now interested in joining. It's exactly the opposite result you'd want if you're really worried about NATO's strength.

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I think that Putin is probably somewhere in the severn stages of dementia and has lost a step because this all seems like a massive miscalculation if he was trying to actually protect himself from NATO which really was never a threat to his way of life.

---

Yup, all of Putin's aggression is only driving Eastern Europe further towards NATO. If he'd just left well enough alone, there would probably be a difficult conversation happening between the NATO allies about just how much the organization is even needed anymore. Now they're united, Germany is ramping up military capacity again, and even Finland is now interested in joining. It's exactly the opposite result you'd want if you're really worried about NATO's strength.

---

Heck, in 1990, Gorbachev inquired about the possibility of Russia themselves being in NATO.


This whole thing is starting to remind me of the kids' fable where the wind and the sun have a bet to see who can get the guy to take his coat off. The wind blows and blows, but the guy only fastens his coat tighter. Then the sun just sends some gentle warming rays and ... off comes the coat.

(If this is confusing, Putin's the wind, but should've tried to be the sun.)

Who the hell wants to be Russia's ally now? I mean, what people, not some autocrat.

Blungld and kal kommie, huge props to both of you for coming to an understanding.

There are many sides to this 'elephant', but having friends or family who are directly affected really brings it home. This is a human tragedy, regardless of how it started, or who is to blame.

Kal kommie, keep posting here. Your perspective is important. But have a heart -- as you've just shown.

Go Bears!

Big C said:

---

I love this kind of s***. Seriously. Group hug!!!

Just wants to make me share a beverage with you all, when Cal gets to the Rose Bowl (if we live that long). Go Bears!

---

Likewise, if Wigs and Aun apologized to helltopay, I would stop posting here forever!

BearForce2 said:

---

Big C said:

---

I love this kind of s***. Seriously. Group hug!!!

Just wants to make me share a beverage with you all, when Cal gets to the Rose Bowl (if we live that long). Go Bears!

---

Likewise, if Wigs and Aun apologized to helltopay, I would stop posting here forever!

---

Why would I apologize to helltoupee? What a silly premise.

Former Fox News Producer for Sean Hannity Indicted for Helping Russia.

The DOJ revealed that Jack Hanick was quietly arrested in London on Feb. 3 for dodging U.S. sanctions by helping a sanctioned Russian oligarch, Konstantin Malofeyev, start Tsargrad TV.https://t.co/GFOppxNVC1

— Julia Davis (@JuliaDavisNews) March 3, 2022

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I think that Putin is probably somewhere in the severn stages of dementia and has lost a step because this all seems like a massive miscalculation if he was trying to actually protect himself from NATO which really was never a threat to his way of life.

---

Yup, all of Putin's aggression is only driving Eastern Europe further towards NATO. If he'd just left well enough alone, there would probably be a difficult conversation happening between the NATO allies about just how much the organization is even needed anymore. Now they're united, Germany is ramping up military capacity again, and even Finland is now interested in joining. It's exactly the opposite result you'd want if you're really worried about NATO's strength.

---

Agreed 100%.

According to Macron, Putin went into isolation during the last 2 years of Covid and has become even more paranoid than usual; often talking in circles and going down some "dark" historical paths and rewriting history. I wouldnt be surprised if during Covid he spent a lot of time in the basement of the Kremlin, looking at old maps of the Soviet Union.
Macron has said that he's found Putin "more rigid, more isolated" than in the past.

As Peggy Noonan said earlier this month, "Russia isnt just a gas station in Upper Volta"

"It's a Gas Station in Upper Volta with the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world and a furious owner."

We have no idea how this is all gonna shake out.

I just nope that NATO remains unified and our CIA and Special Ops are in the Ukraine operating drones on strategic "sitting duck" Russian military positions, like that 40 mile long convoy heading towards Kiev. The Russian military has been "exposed". Now more than ever, is the time to give the Ukraine every weapon they can harness to fight the good fight. Doing so, will not only end badly for Putin, but also give China's Xi something to "think" about.


Peggy Noonan Columns, pieces and posts

BearForce2 said:

---

Big C said:

---

I love this kind of s***. Seriously. Group hug!!!

Just wants to make me share a beverage with you all, when Cal gets to the Rose Bowl (if we live that long). Go Bears!

---

Likewise, if Wigs and Aun apologized to helltopay, I would stop posting here forever!

---

Please don't force us to venture outside of BI for a stream of arguments that are so easy to shoot down! ;-)

cbbass1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

Big C said:

---

I love this kind of s***. Seriously. Group hug!!!

Just wants to make me share a beverage with you all, when Cal gets to the Rose Bowl (if we live that long). Go Bears!

---

Likewise, if Wigs and Aun apologized to helltopay, I would stop posting here forever!

---

Please don't force us to venture outside of BI for a stream of arguments that are so easy to shoot down! ;-)

---

Trump won. Dems stole the election. Why play dumb and ignore all the evidence?

BearForce2 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

Big C said:

---

I love this kind of s***. Seriously. Group hug!!!

Just wants to make me share a beverage with you all, when Cal gets to the Rose Bowl (if we live that long). Go Bears!

---

Likewise, if Wigs and Aun apologized to helltopay, I would stop posting here forever!

---

Please don't force us to venture outside of BI for a stream of arguments that are so easy to shoot down! ;-)

---

Trump won. Dems stole the election. Why play dumb and ignore all the evidence?

---

BWAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!

DELUSIONAL.

DiabloWags said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

Big C said:

---

I love this kind of s***. Seriously. Group hug!!!

Just wants to make me share a beverage with you all, when Cal gets to the Rose Bowl (if we live that long). Go Bears!

---

Likewise, if Wigs and Aun apologized to helltopay, I would stop posting here forever!

---

Please don't force us to venture outside of BI for a stream of arguments that are so easy to shoot down! ;-)

---

Trump won. Dems stole the election. Why play dumb and ignore all the evidence?

---

BWAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!

DELUSIONAL.

---

But you voted for Biden.

BearForce2 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

Big C said:

---

I love this kind of s***. Seriously. Group hug!!!

Just wants to make me share a beverage with you all, when Cal gets to the Rose Bowl (if we live that long). Go Bears!

---

Likewise, if Wigs and Aun apologized to helltopay, I would stop posting here forever!

---

Please don't force us to venture outside of BI for a stream of arguments that are so easy to shoot down! ;-)

---

Trump won. Dems stole the election. Why play dumb and ignore all the evidence?

---

See? There you go! :-)

BearForce2 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

Big C said:

---

I love this kind of s***. Seriously. Group hug!!!

Just wants to make me share a beverage with you all, when Cal gets to the Rose Bowl (if we live that long). Go Bears!

---

Likewise, if Wigs and Aun apologized to helltopay, I would stop posting here forever!

---

Please don't force us to venture outside of BI for a stream of arguments that are so easy to shoot down! ;-)

---

Trump won. Dems stole the election. Why play dumb and ignore all the evidence?

---

BWAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!

DELUSIONAL.

---

But you voted for Biden.

---

AND YOU VOTED FOR VLADIMIR.