It's moderately amusing watching people take competing shots about a war that isn't even being covered by the corporate news media with live correspondents the way the Iraq war was and pretending that either side actually knows with any certainty what is actually going on. For those few who might care about the actual history of the conflict, this thread is for you.

Last Saturday, February 26, I gave a comprehensive speech on the history behind the Russia-Ukraine war to the Utah Libertarian Party and Mises Caucus. https://t.co/7uVDsuCrjj @knutacious @Reed_Coverdale

— Scott Horton (@scotthortonshow) March 1, 2022

A two-hour speech video, 18,000 word article about the history behind the Russia-Ukraine war

— Scott Horton (@scotthortonshow) March 4, 2022

The History Behind the Russia-Ukraine Warhttps://t.co/DZfMephco8

— Scott Horton (@scotthortonshow) March 4, 2022

That was pretty long, but I read a fair amount and skimmed a fair amount (maybe will read the whole thing soon). I took as the main point that it was a mistake -- going back some 30 years -- to be talking about expanding NATO past Poland.

I have been saying this here for the past eleven months. And that view is most definitely not incompatible with the view that Putin is responsible for invading Ukraine and that it is wrong. (In fact, the lecturer, Horton, clearly states that, as well.)

Reference List (will update over time):

Charles Krauthammer on the Unipolar Moment
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1990/07/20/the-unipolar-moment/62867add-2fe9-493f-a0c9-4bfba1ec23bd/

James Baker Promising Gorbachev NATO would not expand eastward:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between

Quote:

---

And the last point. NATO is the mechanism for securing the U.S. presence in Europe. If NATO is liquidated, there will be no such mechanism in Europe. We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO's present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction. We believe that consultations and discussions within the framework of the "two + four" mechanism should guarantee that Germany's unification will not lead to NATO's military organization spreading to the east.

---

Big C said:

---

That was pretty long, but I read a fair amount and skimmed a fair amount (maybe will read the whole thing soon). I took as the main point that it was a mistake -- going back some 30 years -- to be talking about expanding NATO past Poland.

I have been saying this here for the past eleven months. And that view is most definitely not incompatible with the view that Putin is responsible for invading Ukraine and that it is wrong. (In fact, the lecturer, Horton, clearly states that, as well.)

---

To me the mistake is less about NATO specifically (Russia's own behavior drove a good amount of the expansion by being unnecessarily aggressive towards their neighbors), and more that we had the blueprint for restoring a defeated enemy to a more sympathetic democracy after the end of the war (Marshall Plan) and basically failed to follow it in Russia. Just opened them up to rapacious capitalists and assumed the democracy part would take care of itself. It didn't.

But even so, there have been a lot of decisions made by a lot of countries in the years after that. Anyone who wants to pin all of the blame on the US and/or NATO is also selling a narrative.

Is that you Yogi?

Whatever happens, I think China will be the winner. They either get a balkanized Russia, or a dirt poor one.

I'm so tired of Cold War historian's obfuscating the fact that Putin is a megalomaniac with a lot of weapons at his disposal. The U.S. policy cannot explain how Putin is destroying his own country and bringing down his own military. Too often these "historians" are cover for apologists who can't pass up an opportunity to criticize American foreign and military policy.

I'm saying this as a hard core anti-military pacifist and critic of American military policy.

There are plenty of reasons for, and opportunities to, engage in such critiques. Now is not the time to do it.

The desire of countries like Ukraine to join NATO is not America's fault. It is a reflection of the fact that European's have every reason to fear Putin's Russia and this war is proof of that.

Heck this conflict wasn't caused by NATO expansion, it justifies it.

heartofthebear said:

---

Too often these "historians" are cover for apologists who can't pass up an opportunity to criticize American foreign and military policy.

---

Yeah, this whole thing really puts a clear line between the people who are actually anti-imperialism and anti-war and those whose whole philosophy is just "America sucks."

heartofthebear said:

---

I'm so tired of Cold War historian's obfuscating the fact that Putin is a megalomaniac with a lot of weapons at his disposal. The U.S. policy cannot explain how Putin is destroying his own country and bringing down his own military.

---

How is Putin destroying his own country?

Quote:

---

Too often these "historians" are cover for apologists who can't pass up an opportunity to criticize American foreign and military policy.

---

If the facts are true, what does it matter?

Quote:

---

I'm saying this as a hard core anti-military pacifist and critic of American military policy.

---

With what you've said so far, I'm unconvinced that you are either.

Quote:

---

The desire of countries like Ukraine to join NATO is not America's fault.

---

Given that we've been interfering with their elections for years prior to this conflict, it absolutely is our fault. If we had left them alone to their own devices, they probably wouldn't be getting invaded right now.

Also this:

Maybe America should ensure every country in the world is admitted into NATO so there will never be a war. https://t.co/xZmRuvZa3H

— Max Abrahms (@MaxAbrahms) January 18, 2023

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I'm so tired of Cold War historian's obfuscating the fact that Putin is a megalomaniac with a lot of weapons at his disposal. The U.S. policy cannot explain how Putin is destroying his own country and bringing down his own military. Too often these "historians" are cover for apologists who can't pass up an opportunity to criticize American foreign and military policy.

I'm saying this as a hard core anti-military pacifist and critic of American military policy.

There are plenty of reasons for, and opportunities to, engage in such critiques. Now is not the time to do it.

The desire of countries like Ukraine to join NATO is not America's fault. It is a reflection of the fact that European's have every reason to fear Purim's Russia and this war is proof of that.

Heck this conflict wasn't caused by NATO expansion, it justifies it.

---

Why is now not the time to do it? Why is the timing of a critique relevant in this situation?

---

Because you don't vacuum the carpet when the house is on fire.

A better analogy is that, when a serial killer is on the loose, you don't about the fact that the killer was abused as a child until after the killer is apprehended.

---

I'm interpreting your meaning also as something like, "This is no time for a post-mortem; we're in a war!"

I disagree. The US is not in this war and the last thing we want is to for us to be in it. What we want most is for the war to be contained. What we want second-most is for Russia to cool their bad intentions.

In this case, I think we absolutely should be engaging in an ongoing analysis of our foreign policy and national security concerns. I mean, why not?

Moreover, we are just normal folk discussing issues on a message board. We're not supposed to question and analyze this?


My full position on this is that the current administration is handling this about as well as it can. I mean, Putin bad? Putin responsible? For sure. We are doing the right thing, considering where we're at. Continue to support Ukraine and, above all, keep this war contained. However, as outlined in the video on this thread, we could've handled things a lot better in the 30-year lead-up to this. (I don't see why this shouldn't be debated.)

One of my "go to" news sources is usually PBS News Hour, but quite honestly, their coverage of this war seems to be largely "Ukraine Good / Russia Bad and that's all there is to know!" Terribly simplistic and I would hope they could do better. I feel like I'm seeing the same propaganda that I always see when we are involved in something like this, as if we didn't learn more from having gone through Vietnam and Iraq.

Well-said Big C.

If one tweet could summarize the subject of this thread:

Not saying it’s their fault, but if Ukraine abided by the Minsk accords and declared political neutrality, then 200,000+ more people would still be alive today.

— War Monitor (@WarMonitors) January 18, 2023

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I'm so tired of Cold War historian's obfuscating the fact that Putin is a megalomaniac with a lot of weapons at his disposal. The U.S. policy cannot explain how Putin is destroying his own country and bringing down his own military. Too often these "historians" are cover for apologists who can't pass up an opportunity to criticize American foreign and military policy.

I'm saying this as a hard core anti-military pacifist and critic of American military policy.

There are plenty of reasons for, and opportunities to, engage in such critiques. Now is not the time to do it.

The desire of countries like Ukraine to join NATO is not America's fault. It is a reflection of the fact that European's have every reason to fear Purim's Russia and this war is proof of that.

Heck this conflict wasn't caused by NATO expansion, it justifies it.

---

Why is now not the time to do it? Why is the timing of a critique relevant in this situation?

---

Because you don't vacuum the carpet when the house is on fire.

A better analogy is that, when a serial killer is on the loose, you don't about the fact that the killer was abused as a child until after the killer is apprehended.

---

I'm interpreting your meaning also as something like, "This is no time for a post-mortem; we're in a war!"

I disagree. The US is not in this war and the last thing we want is to for us to be in it. What we want most is for the war to be contained. What we want second-most is for Russia to cool their bad intentions.

In this case, I think we absolutely should be engaging in an ongoing analysis of our foreign policy and national security concerns. I mean, why not?

Moreover, we are just normal folk discussing issues on a message board. We're not supposed to question and analyze this?


My full position on this is that the current administration is handling this about as well as it can. I mean, Putin bad? Putin responsible? For sure. We are doing the right thing, considering where we're at. Continue to support Ukraine and, above all, keep this war contained. However, as outlined in the video on this thread, we could've handled things a lot better in the 30-year lead-up to this. (I don't see why this shouldn't be debated.)

One of my "go to" news sources is usually PBS News Hour, but quite honestly, their coverage of this war seems to be largely "Ukraine Good / Russia Bad and that's all there is to know!" Terribly simplistic and I would hope they could do better. I feel like I'm seeing the same propaganda that I always see when we are involved in something like this, as if we didn't learn more from having gone through Vietnam and Iraq.

---

We are at war with Russia. Russia declared war on us through a myriad of cyberattacks that threaten our elections and hence Democracy. They were very successful and I would not under-estimate the security implications of that.
Also, it is not a new position or even an interesting one. The points made about the mistakes of US foreign policy with regard to NATO and Russia were made a year ago when Putin invaded Russia. The same points were made ad nauseum by Chomsky and other "experts" via YouTube and was also covered extensively on Democracy Now with Ami Goodman.
We should certainly discuss things openly but don't act like they are new because they are not.

So, the point I am making is that I am sick of the same criticisms being made over and over again about things we have already done. And, while I greatly respect and appreciate Chomsky, the fact that he views everything through a Cold War and/or foreign policy perspective is so damn lazy. And he does this because he refuses to see things as issues of criminal justice. Believe it or not, Chomsky doesn't even acknowledge that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, even though congress admitted that over 45 years ago and recent record releases pretty much prove it.
Putin is a criminal and a very sick individual. That is even becoming obvious to higher up's inside his own country. He needs to be stopped and America has a strong incentive to help with that considering that Putin is attacking us as well..
Yes America is sick too and I have to wonder how much money Lockheed-Martin is making while Ukrainians get slaughtered. Those of us on the left have been saying that for the better part of a century. But now people want to talk about that when what we need to focus on is stopping this maniac. I am so glad that America is doing a good job of that NOW even though they have screwed up in the past.

When a killer is on the loose, you don't worry about what would happen if the killer gets pissed off, you focus on what is necessary to stop him because, if killers get away with murdering, very little else matters, imo

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I'm so tired of Cold War historian's obfuscating the fact that Putin is a megalomaniac with a lot of weapons at his disposal. The U.S. policy cannot explain how Putin is destroying his own country and bringing down his own military. Too often these "historians" are cover for apologists who can't pass up an opportunity to criticize American foreign and military policy.

I'm saying this as a hard core anti-military pacifist and critic of American military policy.

There are plenty of reasons for, and opportunities to, engage in such critiques. Now is not the time to do it.

The desire of countries like Ukraine to join NATO is not America's fault. It is a reflection of the fact that European's have every reason to fear Purim's Russia and this war is proof of that.

Heck this conflict wasn't caused by NATO expansion, it justifies it.

---

Why is now not the time to do it? Why is the timing of a critique relevant in this situation?

---

Because you don't vacuum the carpet when the house is on fire.

A better analogy is that, when a serial killer is on the loose, you don't about the fact that the killer was abused as a child until after the killer is apprehended.

---

I'm interpreting your meaning also as something like, "This is no time for a post-mortem; we're in a war!"

I disagree. The US is not in this war and the last thing we want is to for us to be in it. What we want most is for the war to be contained. What we want second-most is for Russia to cool their bad intentions.

In this case, I think we absolutely should be engaging in an ongoing analysis of our foreign policy and national security concerns. I mean, why not?

Moreover, we are just normal folk discussing issues on a message board. We're not supposed to question and analyze this?


My full position on this is that the current administration is handling this about as well as it can. I mean, Putin bad? Putin responsible? For sure. We are doing the right thing, considering where we're at. Continue to support Ukraine and, above all, keep this war contained. However, as outlined in the video on this thread, we could've handled things a lot better in the 30-year lead-up to this. (I don't see why this shouldn't be debated.)

One of my "go to" news sources is usually PBS News Hour, but quite honestly, their coverage of this war seems to be largely "Ukraine Good / Russia Bad and that's all there is to know!" Terribly simplistic and I would hope they could do better. I feel like I'm seeing the same propaganda that I always see when we are involved in something like this, as if we didn't learn more from having gone through Vietnam and Iraq.

---

It is a shame that the media coverage isn't more comprehensive. This failing gives a lot of air for disingenuous propaganda to propagate.

Unlike with Iraq and WMDs, the Russia/Ukraine conflict has been in the open. In 1993, Russia and Ukraine agreed to the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine (in hindsight, mistakenly) gave up its nuclear stockpile in exchange for an "agreement" from Russia to respect the sovereignty of its borders and refrain from force or the threat of force. Unfortunately for Ukraine, Putin couldn't care less about international agreements or norms and he completely ignored the agreement by interfering with their elections, propping up a corrupt puppet government (Yanukovych, with an assist from Trump's criminal buddy Manafort) and then invaded Crimea in 2014. The propagandists don't want you to know about Budapest.

Then, following that illegal invasion which was in flagrant violation of Budapest, Putin "agreed" to Minsk I and II and as I showed in the other thread, Putin violated that too. This is all out in the open and the US media could cover it if it wanted to. Instead, the media focuses on the day to day news cycle and allows the non-sense about NATO being a reason Putin did what he did to continue to be floated. Just like this war had nothing to do with nazis, Ukrainian corruption, treatment of Russian speaking people in Ukraine or any of those other made up reasons that Putin's cheerleaders and propagandists will share, this war had nothing to do with NATO involvement. Russia already had NATO at its borders. NATO is not aggressive and had no interest in starting a war with Russia and still doesn't.

I know you are one of those people who genuinely believes that if only NATO had been a little more coy or given Putin more space, none of this would have happened, but that view ignores what Putin really cares about and what he really thinks of international agreements and sovereignty. He does what he wants and makes up reasons that he thinks he can sell to the public (with heavy use of propaganda). The media has unfortunately mainstreamed Putin's view by continuing to play into this idea that NATO is somehow obliquely responsible for Putin's crimes.

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I'm so tired of Cold War historian's obfuscating the fact that Putin is a megalomaniac with a lot of weapons at his disposal. The U.S. policy cannot explain how Putin is destroying his own country and bringing down his own military. Too often these "historians" are cover for apologists who can't pass up an opportunity to criticize American foreign and military policy.

I'm saying this as a hard core anti-military pacifist and critic of American military policy.

There are plenty of reasons for, and opportunities to, engage in such critiques. Now is not the time to do it.

The desire of countries like Ukraine to join NATO is not America's fault. It is a reflection of the fact that European's have every reason to fear Purim's Russia and this war is proof of that.

Heck this conflict wasn't caused by NATO expansion, it justifies it.

---

Why is now not the time to do it? Why is the timing of a critique relevant in this situation?

---

Because you don't vacuum the carpet when the house is on fire.

A better analogy is that, when a serial killer is on the loose, you don't about the fact that the killer was abused as a child until after the killer is apprehended.

---

I'm interpreting your meaning also as something like, "This is no time for a post-mortem; we're in a war!"

I disagree. The US is not in this war and the last thing we want is to for us to be in it. What we want most is for the war to be contained. What we want second-most is for Russia to cool their bad intentions.

In this case, I think we absolutely should be engaging in an ongoing analysis of our foreign policy and national security concerns. I mean, why not?

Moreover, we are just normal folk discussing issues on a message board. We're not supposed to question and analyze this?


My full position on this is that the current administration is handling this about as well as it can. I mean, Putin bad? Putin responsible? For sure. We are doing the right thing, considering where we're at. Continue to support Ukraine and, above all, keep this war contained. However, as outlined in the video on this thread, we could've handled things a lot better in the 30-year lead-up to this. (I don't see why this shouldn't be debated.)

One of my "go to" news sources is usually PBS News Hour, but quite honestly, their coverage of this war seems to be largely "Ukraine Good / Russia Bad and that's all there is to know!" Terribly simplistic and I would hope they could do better. I feel like I'm seeing the same propaganda that I always see when we are involved in something like this, as if we didn't learn more from having gone through Vietnam and Iraq.

---

We are at war with Russia. Russia declared war on us through a myriad of cyberattacks that threaten our elections and hence Democracy. They were very successful and I would not under-estimate the security implications of that.
Also, it is not a new position or even an interesting one. The points made about the mistakes of US foreign policy with regard to NATO and Russia were made a year ago when Putin invaded Russia. The same points were made ad nauseum by Chomsky and other "experts" via YouTube and was also covered extensively on Democracy Now with Ami Goodman.
We should certainly discuss things openly but don't act like they are knew because they are not.

So, the point I am making is that I am sick of the same criticisms being made over and over again about things we have already done. And, while I greatly respect and appreciate Chomsky, the fact that he views everything through a Cold War and/or foreign policy perspective is so damn lazy. And he does this because he refuses to see things as issues of criminal justice. Believe it or not, Chomsky doesn't even acknowledge that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, even though congress admitted that over 45 years ago and recent record releases pretty much prove it.
Putin is a criminal and a very sick individual. That is even becoming obvious to higher up's inside his own country. He needs to be stopped an American has a strong incentive to help with that considering that Putin is attacking us as well..
Yes America is sick too and I have to wonder how much money Lockheed-Martin is making while Ukrainians get slaughtered. Those of us on the left have been saying that for the better part of a century. But now people want to talk about when what we need to focus on is stopping this maniac. I am so glad that American is doing a good job of that NOW even though they have screwed up in the past.

When a killer is on the lose, you don't about what would happen if the killer gets pissed office, you focus on what is necessary to stop him because, if killers get away with murderering, very little else matters, imo

---

We are not at war with Russia. We do not want to be at war with Russia. We are trying to finesse this whole thing so that we don't end up in a war with Russia (not that we couldn't win, but at what cost for the world?).

I do not want to live in a country where this cannot be openly debated. Fortunately, we haven't yet gotten to that point. It's just that we aren't debating it, to speak of.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I'm so tired of Cold War historian's obfuscating the fact that Putin is a megalomaniac with a lot of weapons at his disposal. The U.S. policy cannot explain how Putin is destroying his own country and bringing down his own military. Too often these "historians" are cover for apologists who can't pass up an opportunity to criticize American foreign and military policy.

I'm saying this as a hard core anti-military pacifist and critic of American military policy.

There are plenty of reasons for, and opportunities to, engage in such critiques. Now is not the time to do it.

The desire of countries like Ukraine to join NATO is not America's fault. It is a reflection of the fact that European's have every reason to fear Purim's Russia and this war is proof of that.

Heck this conflict wasn't caused by NATO expansion, it justifies it.

---

Why is now not the time to do it? Why is the timing of a critique relevant in this situation?

---

Because you don't vacuum the carpet when the house is on fire.

A better analogy is that, when a serial killer is on the loose, you don't about the fact that the killer was abused as a child until after the killer is apprehended.

---

I'm interpreting your meaning also as something like, "This is no time for a post-mortem; we're in a war!"

I disagree. The US is not in this war and the last thing we want is to for us to be in it. What we want most is for the war to be contained. What we want second-most is for Russia to cool their bad intentions.

In this case, I think we absolutely should be engaging in an ongoing analysis of our foreign policy and national security concerns. I mean, why not?

Moreover, we are just normal folk discussing issues on a message board. We're not supposed to question and analyze this?


My full position on this is that the current administration is handling this about as well as it can. I mean, Putin bad? Putin responsible? For sure. We are doing the right thing, considering where we're at. Continue to support Ukraine and, above all, keep this war contained. However, as outlined in the video on this thread, we could've handled things a lot better in the 30-year lead-up to this. (I don't see why this shouldn't be debated.)

One of my "go to" news sources is usually PBS News Hour, but quite honestly, their coverage of this war seems to be largely "Ukraine Good / Russia Bad and that's all there is to know!" Terribly simplistic and I would hope they could do better. I feel like I'm seeing the same propaganda that I always see when we are involved in something like this, as if we didn't learn more from having gone through Vietnam and Iraq.

---

It is a shame that the media coverage isn't more comprehensive. This failing gives a lot of air for disingenuous propaganda to propagate.

Unlike with Iraq and WMDs, the Russia/Ukraine conflict has been in the open. In 1993, Russia and Ukraine agreed to the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine (in hindsight, mistakenly) gave up its nuclear stockpile in exchange for an "agreement" from Russia to respect the sovereignty of its borders and refrain from force or the threat of force. Unfortunately for Ukraine, Putin couldn't care less about international agreements or norms and he completely ignored the agreement by interfering with their elections, propping up a corrupt puppet government (Yanukovych, with an assist from Trump's criminal buddy Manafort) and then invaded Crimea in 2014. The propagandists don't want you to know about Budapest.

Then, following that illegal invasion which was in flagrant violation of Budapest, Putin "agreed" to Minsk I and II and as I showed in the other thread, Putin violated that too. This is all out in the open and the US media could cover it if it wanted to. Instead, the media focuses on the day to day news cycle and allows the non-sense about NATO being a reason Putin did what he did to continue to be floated. Just like this war had nothing to do with nazis, Ukrainian corruption, treatment of Russian speaking people in Ukraine or any of those other made up reasons that Putin's cheerleaders and propagandists will share, this war had nothing to do with NATO involvement. Russia already had NATO at its borders. NATO is not aggressive and had no interest in starting a war with Russia and still doesn't.

I know you are one of those people who genuinely believes that if only NATO had been a little more coy or given Putin more space, none of this would have happened, but that view ignores what Putin really cares about and what he really thinks of international agreements and sovereignty. He does what he wants and makes up reasons that he thinks he can sell to the public (with heavy use of propaganda). The media has unfortunately mainstreamed Putin's view by continuing to play into this idea that NATO is somehow obliquely responsible for Putin's crimes.

---

I'm not sure how the media "has continued to play into this idea that NATO is somehow obliquely responsible for Putin's crimes". You really have to dig to get that perspective. In fact, here, I have flat-out stated -- a number of times -- that Putin is "responsible" for his own crimes, not NATO.

But the US and NATO didn't play their cards well. Maybe this could have been avoided.

Let me take you back to the analogy I made upthread: If you leave your iPad on the passenger seat of your car in SF and it gets stolen, you are not responsible... the thief is. If you continue to do it and it keeps getting stolen, you are still not responsible, but wouldn't you advise somebody in that situation to act differently, all the while differentiating between the thief who is responsible and the victim who maybe could've avoided it?

I don't know about you, but I live in a nice area where I am largely unaffected by this war, but a lot of people are going through hell the past year. And yes, Putin is "responsible" for that hell, but these people are but pawns in a larger game.

Signed,
"One of Those People Who... "
(no problem... I assume best intentions, especially in the case of a long-time highly respected poster such as yourself)

Here's a simple question for those that think this war is partly on the U.S.:

Would Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Khrushev or any other Russian leader for that matter, have invaded Ukraine under the same conditions last year?

I don't think so. I don't think any other person in Russia would have ordered an invasion of Ukraine for the simple reason that it is suicidal to do so and has proven so.

The reason for this war is because Putin is butt sore about the Berlin wall coming down on his watch when he was KGB stationed in Berlin. He wants to re-establish the old Soviet block. NOBODY ELSE DOES. This is his baby. And he's being a baby about it. And he's killed a lot of babies over it.

I'm sure there are many others in Russia that are not happy with US foreign policy and NATO. But this is not how they would have handled it for the simple reason that they are sane. Putin is NOT SANE. He is flat out nuts. But, like a serial killer, he is very tactical at the same time.

BTW, either the software on this site is messed up or someone is messing with my account. I know how to spell and construct sentences but after hitting the "post" button, my words get altered. Go figure.

I don't have a problem with people criticizing the US government and its foreign policy towards Russia, Ukraine, or anyone else. There is stuff to criticize there, especially if you're taking in the last 30-40 years.

The problem is when you ONLY do that and ignore what decisions were made by other world leaders. For example: did the US and/or its NATO allies "interfere" in the Ukrainian election? By a generous definition of that word, yes: we very clearly made our preferences known who we would prefer to become the next President there. Nothing wrong with noting that (though IMO, calling it a US-directed "coup" is a hugely exaggerated claim) . . . but if you are going to note it in the context of this war, then you also need to recognize that Russia had been doing all of that and more in Ukraine for years. Only noting American influence while ignoring Russian influence in Ukraine means you're doing the Russian propagandists' job for them.

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I'm so tired of Cold War historian's obfuscating the fact that Putin is a megalomaniac with a lot of weapons at his disposal. The U.S. policy cannot explain how Putin is destroying his own country and bringing down his own military. Too often these "historians" are cover for apologists who can't pass up an opportunity to criticize American foreign and military policy.

I'm saying this as a hard core anti-military pacifist and critic of American military policy.

There are plenty of reasons for, and opportunities to, engage in such critiques. Now is not the time to do it.

The desire of countries like Ukraine to join NATO is not America's fault. It is a reflection of the fact that European's have every reason to fear Purim's Russia and this war is proof of that.

Heck this conflict wasn't caused by NATO expansion, it justifies it.

---

Why is now not the time to do it? Why is the timing of a critique relevant in this situation?

---

Because you don't vacuum the carpet when the house is on fire.

A better analogy is that, when a serial killer is on the loose, you don't about the fact that the killer was abused as a child until after the killer is apprehended.

---

I'm interpreting your meaning also as something like, "This is no time for a post-mortem; we're in a war!"

I disagree. The US is not in this war and the last thing we want is to for us to be in it. What we want most is for the war to be contained. What we want second-most is for Russia to cool their bad intentions.

In this case, I think we absolutely should be engaging in an ongoing analysis of our foreign policy and national security concerns. I mean, why not?

Moreover, we are just normal folk discussing issues on a message board. We're not supposed to question and analyze this?


My full position on this is that the current administration is handling this about as well as it can. I mean, Putin bad? Putin responsible? For sure. We are doing the right thing, considering where we're at. Continue to support Ukraine and, above all, keep this war contained. However, as outlined in the video on this thread, we could've handled things a lot better in the 30-year lead-up to this. (I don't see why this shouldn't be debated.)

One of my "go to" news sources is usually PBS News Hour, but quite honestly, their coverage of this war seems to be largely "Ukraine Good / Russia Bad and that's all there is to know!" Terribly simplistic and I would hope they could do better. I feel like I'm seeing the same propaganda that I always see when we are involved in something like this, as if we didn't learn more from having gone through Vietnam and Iraq.

---

We are at war with Russia. Russia declared war on us through a myriad of cyberattacks that threaten our elections

---

https://t.co/0PUOm212iv a crucial moment in a years-long furor, Democrats denounced a report about flaws in the Trump-Russia investigation, saying it was boosted by Russian “bots” and “trolls.”

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

3.Twitter officials were aghast, finding no evidence of Russian influence:

“We are feeding congressional trolls.”
“Not any…significant activity connected to Russia.”
“Putting the cart before the horse assuming this is propaganda/bots.” pic.twitter.com/r8O21QacME

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

4.Twitter warned politicians and media the not only lacked evidence, but had evidence the accounts weren’t Russian – and were roundly ignored.

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

5.On January 18th, 2018, Republican Devin Nunes submitted a classified memo to the House Intel Committee detailing abuses by the FBI in obtaining FISA surveillance authority against Trump-connected figures, including the crucial role played by the infamous “Steele Dossier”: pic.twitter.com/uhl7TXYsBC

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

6.The Nunes assertions would virtually all be verified in a report by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz in December 2019. pic.twitter.com/uLFHwbsiJe

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

7.Nonetheless, national media in January and early February of 2018 denounced the Nunes report in oddly identical language, calling it a “joke”: pic.twitter.com/IkTXRGrfaH

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

I could post more.

I really don't have the interest in litigating these issues with you further, mostly because I don't find debating issues with someone who is just going to run down the typical list of Fox news talking points to be instructive or helpful, even if it does come via the highly acclaimed and pulitzer prize winning "twitter".
I expressed an opinion about how to better approach the current conflict in Ukraine, which is from a criminal justice perspective.
I believe that historical perspectives that are derived from standard critiques of US foreign policy at the end of the cold war miss the mark.
The reason why I have responded here and not on the main thread addressing the conflict is that this thread announced itself as the "real" and "accurate" history and it made it seem like these points of view are new.
The air of superiority in the title provoked a response from me that has been mostly supported and has proved popular.
I wanted to change the narrative to focus more on Putin and less on the history.
I did that because I think Putin is the main actor here, regardless of the history, which was brought out over a year ago and is not new by any stretch.
By the way, if we want to go back far enough in history, we will find that Ukraine pre-existed Russia and had a lot going for it before Russia and other European powers started a centuries long power struggle over the general area. There were the Prussians, the Poles, The Austrian-Hungarians etc.

Anyway, that's beside the point, what I have attempted to do here is raise some provocative questions in support of the idea that this struggle TODAY is less about history and more about Putin. Those questions have not been challenged in any material way. You responded with a lot of twitter suggesting that the FBI, congress etc. just made up the stuff about Russia and the elections. Twitter away, you'll make Musk happy. I don't belong to twitter, facebook, instagram, linked in etc. I don't believe in most social media platforms. It's pretty much an established fact in my mind that Russia was involved, even if the FBI engaged in some over-reach with regard to the FISA court.

I get my news from Democracy Now primarily which has done a ton of real time on the ground coverage of the war in Ukraine and is not biased in favor of the US. I also listened to Chomsky talk about the conflict on youtube.

Anyway, here's another question regarding NATO: In the entire history of the world from the start of WW1 until now, how much has any European country or power invaded Russia compared to vice versa? From my understanding, we have 1 country, Nazi Germany attempt to invade Russia. Of course this was not unilateral on Germany's part. Germany was also invading to the west. IOW, Germany was not a greater thread to Russia than it was to pretty much any other country in Europe. What is under-reported is that Russia counter invaded many of the countries it "liberated" from Germany in WW2 and the conditions didn't really improve that much in some of those countries that had then gone under Russian rule. The point is that I don't even know if Nazi Germany is a fair example and it certainly shouldn't be used today as a reason why Russia would be worried about invasion from the west.

In the meantime, Russia has attempted to move west multiple times. Poland, the eastern block, Georgia, Ukraine. This is why NATO was formed and became a popular tool for Europe. Additionally, I see no evidence for either a policy, desire or strategic interest on the part of NATO to move east into Russia. NATO was intended as, and has acted as, a defensive alliance against Russian aggression and for good reason.

Inside the disingenuous Putin run Russia, the propaganda has always been that NATO is a problem. Of course it is a problem for him, since he wants to re-establish the Soviet Block by moving west.

I understand that there are legitimate concerns Russia has regarding fresh water ports. But there is a difference between what Russia needs strategically and practically and what Putin demands ideologically. That is my entire point. Putin's actions in Ukraine reflect the desperate needs of an ideologue's ambitions and are counter productive to any sort of negotiated or cooperative effort for the needs of Russia as a whole.

To put it quite simply, if you need cooperation, attacking people isn't the way to do it.

Apathetic Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I'm so tired of Cold War historian's obfuscating the fact that Putin is a megalomaniac with a lot of weapons at his disposal. The U.S. policy cannot explain how Putin is destroying his own country and bringing down his own military. Too often these "historians" are cover for apologists who can't pass up an opportunity to criticize American foreign and military policy.

I'm saying this as a hard core anti-military pacifist and critic of American military policy.

There are plenty of reasons for, and opportunities to, engage in such critiques. Now is not the time to do it.

The desire of countries like Ukraine to join NATO is not America's fault. It is a reflection of the fact that European's have every reason to fear Purim's Russia and this war is proof of that.

Heck this conflict wasn't caused by NATO expansion, it justifies it.

---

Why is now not the time to do it? Why is the timing of a critique relevant in this situation?

---

Because you don't vacuum the carpet when the house is on fire.

A better analogy is that, when a serial killer is on the loose, you don't about the fact that the killer was abused as a child until after the killer is apprehended.

---

I'm interpreting your meaning also as something like, "This is no time for a post-mortem; we're in a war!"

I disagree. The US is not in this war and the last thing we want is to for us to be in it. What we want most is for the war to be contained. What we want second-most is for Russia to cool their bad intentions.

In this case, I think we absolutely should be engaging in an ongoing analysis of our foreign policy and national security concerns. I mean, why not?

Moreover, we are just normal folk discussing issues on a message board. We're not supposed to question and analyze this?


My full position on this is that the current administration is handling this about as well as it can. I mean, Putin bad? Putin responsible? For sure. We are doing the right thing, considering where we're at. Continue to support Ukraine and, above all, keep this war contained. However, as outlined in the video on this thread, we could've handled things a lot better in the 30-year lead-up to this. (I don't see why this shouldn't be debated.)

One of my "go to" news sources is usually PBS News Hour, but quite honestly, their coverage of this war seems to be largely "Ukraine Good / Russia Bad and that's all there is to know!" Terribly simplistic and I would hope they could do better. I feel like I'm seeing the same propaganda that I always see when we are involved in something like this, as if we didn't learn more from having gone through Vietnam and Iraq.

---

We are at war with Russia. Russia declared war on us through a myriad of cyberattacks that threaten our elections

---

https://t.co/0PUOm212iv a crucial moment in a years-long furor, Democrats denounced a report about flaws in the Trump-Russia investigation, saying it was boosted by Russian “bots” and “trolls.”

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

3.Twitter officials were aghast, finding no evidence of Russian influence:

“We are feeding congressional trolls.”
“Not any…significant activity connected to Russia.”
“Putting the cart before the horse assuming this is propaganda/bots.” pic.twitter.com/r8O21QacME

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

4.Twitter warned politicians and media the not only lacked evidence, but had evidence the accounts weren’t Russian – and were roundly ignored.

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

5.On January 18th, 2018, Republican Devin Nunes submitted a classified memo to the House Intel Committee detailing abuses by the FBI in obtaining FISA surveillance authority against Trump-connected figures, including the crucial role played by the infamous “Steele Dossier”: pic.twitter.com/uhl7TXYsBC

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

6.The Nunes assertions would virtually all be verified in a report by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz in December 2019. pic.twitter.com/uLFHwbsiJe

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

7.Nonetheless, national media in January and early February of 2018 denounced the Nunes report in oddly identical language, calling it a “joke”: pic.twitter.com/IkTXRGrfaH

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

I could post more.

---

Why don't you post the part of the Horowitz report that says there was "adequate factual predication" for Crossfire Hurricane.

What Nunes was trying to do was discredit the investigation and he failed and his critics were correct in the big picture.

dajo9 said:

---

Apathetic Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I'm so tired of Cold War historian's obfuscating the fact that Putin is a megalomaniac with a lot of weapons at his disposal. The U.S. policy cannot explain how Putin is destroying his own country and bringing down his own military. Too often these "historians" are cover for apologists who can't pass up an opportunity to criticize American foreign and military policy.

I'm saying this as a hard core anti-military pacifist and critic of American military policy.

There are plenty of reasons for, and opportunities to, engage in such critiques. Now is not the time to do it.

The desire of countries like Ukraine to join NATO is not America's fault. It is a reflection of the fact that European's have every reason to fear Purim's Russia and this war is proof of that.

Heck this conflict wasn't caused by NATO expansion, it justifies it.

---

Why is now not the time to do it? Why is the timing of a critique relevant in this situation?

---

Because you don't vacuum the carpet when the house is on fire.

A better analogy is that, when a serial killer is on the loose, you don't about the fact that the killer was abused as a child until after the killer is apprehended.

---

I'm interpreting your meaning also as something like, "This is no time for a post-mortem; we're in a war!"

I disagree. The US is not in this war and the last thing we want is to for us to be in it. What we want most is for the war to be contained. What we want second-most is for Russia to cool their bad intentions.

In this case, I think we absolutely should be engaging in an ongoing analysis of our foreign policy and national security concerns. I mean, why not?

Moreover, we are just normal folk discussing issues on a message board. We're not supposed to question and analyze this?


My full position on this is that the current administration is handling this about as well as it can. I mean, Putin bad? Putin responsible? For sure. We are doing the right thing, considering where we're at. Continue to support Ukraine and, above all, keep this war contained. However, as outlined in the video on this thread, we could've handled things a lot better in the 30-year lead-up to this. (I don't see why this shouldn't be debated.)

One of my "go to" news sources is usually PBS News Hour, but quite honestly, their coverage of this war seems to be largely "Ukraine Good / Russia Bad and that's all there is to know!" Terribly simplistic and I would hope they could do better. I feel like I'm seeing the same propaganda that I always see when we are involved in something like this, as if we didn't learn more from having gone through Vietnam and Iraq.

---

We are at war with Russia. Russia declared war on us through a myriad of cyberattacks that threaten our elections

---

https://t.co/0PUOm212iv a crucial moment in a years-long furor, Democrats denounced a report about flaws in the Trump-Russia investigation, saying it was boosted by Russian “bots” and “trolls.”

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

3.Twitter officials were aghast, finding no evidence of Russian influence:

“We are feeding congressional trolls.”
“Not any…significant activity connected to Russia.”
“Putting the cart before the horse assuming this is propaganda/bots.” pic.twitter.com/r8O21QacME

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

4.Twitter warned politicians and media the not only lacked evidence, but had evidence the accounts weren’t Russian – and were roundly ignored.

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

5.On January 18th, 2018, Republican Devin Nunes submitted a classified memo to the House Intel Committee detailing abuses by the FBI in obtaining FISA surveillance authority against Trump-connected figures, including the crucial role played by the infamous “Steele Dossier”: pic.twitter.com/uhl7TXYsBC

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

6.The Nunes assertions would virtually all be verified in a report by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz in December 2019. pic.twitter.com/uLFHwbsiJe

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

7.Nonetheless, national media in January and early February of 2018 denounced the Nunes report in oddly identical language, calling it a “joke”: pic.twitter.com/IkTXRGrfaH

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 12, 2023

I could post more.

---

Why don't you post the part of the Horowitz report that says there was "adequate factual predication" for Crossfire Hurricane.

What Nunes was trying to do was discredit the investigation and he failed and his critics were correct in the big picture.

---

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/473784-misfired-hurricane-comeys-team-abused-carter-page-and-the-fbi/

Quote:

---

Let's start with their decision to open a counterintelligence case into the Trump campaign and four U.S. citizens affiliated with the campaign.

The IG concluded that fired FBI director James Comey's "Crossfire Hurricane" team had "sufficient" justification for starting the investigation so nicknamed. He then, conveniently, provided the exact words on which the team relied. These are telling.

The FBI received a notification from a friendly country, which is known to be Australia, that a Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, had received a "suggestion" from Russia that it could assist the campaign by releasing information "damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama)."
That was it. That's the justification.

---

Is that you Yogi?
You posting again???