What does Putin want (and whatabout it)
nan said:
Documentary movies use lots of facts.
This is what I was commenting on. Documentary movies also use a lot of lies. I did see Loose Change, as for a short time I did lean toward the 9/11 truth conspiracy (I was reading a lot of the posts made by Michael Ruppert on his From The Wilderness blog) but watching it had the opposite effect on me. It opened my eyes to the truther grift.
I don't know what you're doing here, though, to be honest. A small minority are calling for an escalation against Russian forces (maybe 2 people?), but nobody here wanted Russia to invade. Nobody here, including yourself, thinks Russia is justified in invading Ukraine. Yet here you are saying Russia has every reason to do something that's unjustifiable. It's either justifiable or it isn't. You're either against this invasion or you're not. We're trying to understand why you and Paul are on here telling us it was inevitable because of what we've done, and all we want to know is why now? What was the tipping point? The last country to join NATO was North Macedonia 2 years ago, so why is Russia invading Ukraine in February?
nan said:
drummerboy said:
no according to Ridski, calling something a documentary is not sufficient to claim that it is truthful, which you are doing.
No, what I'm doing is recommending a movie that presents a different view on the 2014 Ukrainian coup and many here are finding every excuse in the book to trash it (and me) without watching.
the mere fact that it's calling it a coup is enough to get me to not watch it.
You haven't made a very convincing case for watching the movie. I did read the New Yorker interview with Mearsheimer you posted, though (and the TNR piece DB posted). I want to focus on this point:
You keep saying “turning Ukraine into a liberal democracy,” and it seems like that’s an issue for the Ukrainians to decide. NATO can decide whom it admits, but we saw in 2014 that it appeared as if many Ukrainians wanted to be considered part of Europe. It would seem like almost some sort of imperialism to tell them that they can’t be a liberal democracy.
It’s not imperialism; this is great-power politics. When you’re a country like Ukraine and you live next door to a great power like Russia, you have to pay careful attention to what the Russians think, because if you take a stick and you poke them in the eye, they’re going to retaliate. States in the Western hemisphere understand this full well with regard to the United States.
The Monroe Doctrine, essentially.
Of course. There’s no country in the Western hemisphere that we will allow to invite a distant, great power to bring military forces into that country.
Right, but saying that America will not allow countries in the Western hemisphere, most of them democracies, to decide what kind of foreign policy they have—you can say that’s good or bad, but that is imperialism, right? We’re essentially saying that we have some sort of say over how democratic countries run their business.
We do have that say, and, in fact, we overthrew democratically elected leaders in the Western hemisphere during the Cold War because we were unhappy with their policies. This is the way great powers behave.
It seems to me that if you're going to follow Mearsheimer's lead on Ukraine, you also need to follow his logic in evaluating US actions, as he does. But, as I asked Paul, I had always been under the impression that you opposed all the various US coups, assassinations, and other activities in Latin America. Have you changed your position? If not, then how is it that Russian imperialism (or "great power politics", as Mearsheimer prefers to call it) is justified, but American is not?
The "experts" in Ukraine on Fire" are providing the propaganda for the current invasion they're carrying out. It's absolutely bizarre that you're buying this absolute one sided garbage.
Vlad wants to exterminate the Nazis, he isn't using the uprise in 2014 as the reason, he's using the end of WWII as the reason.
If you want to help you side, you could explain to us - who are the key Nazis on the hit list - where are they - how many are in the government, etc. What are your experts saying on how a proper denazification will occur?
ridski said:
This is what I was commenting on. Documentary movies also use a lot of lies. I did see Loose Change, as for a short time I did lean toward the 9/11 truth conspiracy (I was reading a lot of the posts made by Michael Ruppert on his From The Wilderness blog) but watching it had the opposite effect on me. It opened my eyes to the truther grift.
I don't know what you're doing here, though, to be honest. A small minority are calling for an escalation against Russian forces (maybe 2 people?), but nobody here wanted Russia to invade. Nobody here, including yourself, thinks Russia is justified in invading Ukraine. Yet here you are saying Russia has every reason to do something that's unjustifiable. It's either justifiable or it isn't. You're either against this invasion or you're not. We're trying to understand why you and Paul are on here telling us it was inevitable because of what we've done, and all we want to know is why now? What was the tipping point? The last country to join NATO was North Macedonia 2 years ago, so why is Russia invading Ukraine in February?
This Aaron Mate article sums it up well.
By using Ukraine to fight Russia, the US provoked Putin's war
After backing a far-right coup in 2014, the US has fueled a proxy war in eastern Ukraine that has left more than 14,000 dead. Russia's invasion is an illegal and catastrophic escalation.
I have been giving you the reasons why in multiple posts. This war is illegal and all war is horrible but it has been predicted by many and did not start with the invasion. The difference in Ukraine is that it's being used as proxy for the US to fight Russia. As Mate reminds us in the article:
"The United States aids Ukraine and her people," Adam Schiff declared in January 2020, "so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here."
I notice the situation in the Donass, going on for eight years, almost never gets mentioned on MOL and yet 14,000 have died there, killed with US supplied weapons given to Nazis. This was started after the 2014 US backed coup (watch the movie for more details) when the US poured in weapons to far-right groups to start killing the eastern Russia speaking population. Zelensky ran on a peace platform and there was the Minsk Accords, but he changed after the election and that policy has never been enforced. Do those lives matter to anyone? So the US has been on the side of the Nazis and not on the side of peace.
Here is how Mate sums it up in the article above:
The US policy of using Ukraine as cannon fodder has accompanied a bid to incorporate it into NATO. Compounding the dangers of a hostile military alliance on Russia's borders, the US has also methodically dismantled the Cold War-era arms control treaties that limited the arsenals of the world's two top nuclear powers.
Since 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned that US policies in Ukraine and other former Soviet states were crossing Russian red lines, and would force a Russian reaction.
After years of US-driven escalation, Putin's warnings have been realized in the form of an illegal invasion that has placed the world in one of its most dangerous moments since the Second World War.
This happened now, but the US has been pushing for confrontation for years:
The US agenda was made plain in September 2013, when Carl Gershman, head of the CIA-tied National Endowment for Democracy, declared that "Ukraine is the biggest prize." If Ukraine could be pulled into the US-led order, Gershman explained, "Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself." In short, in Washington's eyes, regime change in Kiev could redound to Moscow as well.
After five years of the Russiagate hoax, the US is already primed to support going to war against Russia. It's very rare to hear any other viewpoint. This makes things even more dangerous.
jamie said:
The "experts" in Ukraine on Fire" are providing the propaganda for the current invasion they're carrying out. It's absolutely bizarre that you're buying this absolute one sided garbage.
Vlad wants to exterminate the Nazis, he isn't using the uprise in 2014 as the reason, he's using the end of WWII as the reason.
If you want to help you side, you could explain to us - who are the key Nazis on the hit list - where are they - how many are in the government, etc. What are your experts saying on how a proper denazification will occur?
Again, speaking about a movie you have not seen. I have posted many articles about the far-right groups (Nazis). Why should I post more when you don't read them anyway? This is typical of you to demand that I provide information and then ignore it when I do so.
1.1 million refugees. War crimes every second.
Where is your anger at Russia Nan? Why do all of your posts completely disregard what is happening in Ukraine minute by minute?
PVW said:
It seems to me that if you're going to follow Mearsheimer's lead on Ukraine, you also need to follow his logic in evaluating US actions, as he does. But, as I asked Paul, I had always been under the impression that you opposed all the various US coups, assassinations, and other activities in Latin America. Have you changed your position? If not, then how is it that Russian imperialism (or "great power politics", as Mearsheimer prefers to call it) is justified, but American is not?
Mearsheimer has what is called a "realist view" in that he says "this is the way the world works, deal with it." He does not say that Russia is justified to demand Ukraine remain neutral. He says that is the way big powers work. He points out rightfully, that the US would never allow a country close to us to become allies of say China, so we should understand that Russia feels the same way. He does not say this is a good thing.
What Mearsheimer advocates for is better relations with Russia. After the Cold War ended we were getting along with Russia and that would be a much better policy and more beneficial for the US. This is why I get so annoyed at the dangerous cardboard Disney villain portrayal of Putin created by five years of Russiagate hoax.
sbenois said:
1.1 million refugees. War crimes every second.
Where is your anger at Russia Nan? Why do all of your posts completely disregard what is happening in Ukraine minute by minute?
Sure I'm angry. And the 14,000 killed in the Donbass with US weapons. Where have your feelings for them been. Are they just chicken liver?
nan said:
jamie said:
The "experts" in Ukraine on Fire" are providing the propaganda for the current invasion they're carrying out. It's absolutely bizarre that you're buying this absolute one sided garbage.
Vlad wants to exterminate the Nazis, he isn't using the uprise in 2014 as the reason, he's using the end of WWII as the reason.
If you want to help you side, you could explain to us - who are the key Nazis on the hit list - where are they - how many are in the government, etc. What are your experts saying on how a proper denazification will occur?
nan says:
Again, speaking about a movie you have not seen. I have posted many articles about the far-right groups (Nazis). Why should I post more when you don't read them anyway? This is typical of you to demand that I provide information and then ignore it when I do.
(can't get the green to turn off --been awhile since I've been here and I forget.
nan said:
sbenois said:
1.1 million refugees. War crimes every second.
Where is your anger at Russia Nan? Why do all of your posts completely disregard what is happening in Ukraine minute by minute?
Sure I'm angry. And the 14,000 killed in the Donbass with US weapons. Where have your feelings for them been. Are they just chicken liver?
There you go again. You can't help it.
nan said:
nan said:
jamie said:
The "experts" in Ukraine on Fire" are providing the propaganda for the current invasion they're carrying out. It's absolutely bizarre that you're buying this absolute one sided garbage.
Vlad wants to exterminate the Nazis, he isn't using the uprise in 2014 as the reason, he's using the end of WWII as the reason.
If you want to help you side, you could explain to us - who are the key Nazis on the hit list - where are they - how many are in the government, etc. What are your experts saying on how a proper denazification will occur?
nan says:
Again, speaking about a movie you have not seen. I have posted many articles about the far-right groups (Nazis). Why should I post more when you don't read them anyway? This is typical of you to demand that I provide information and then ignore it when I do.
(can't get the green to turn off --been awhile since I've been here and I forget.
I saw it - it's propaganda. Now you ask, what exactly didn't I agree with. I am not going down this rabbit hole. You already have bought every Vlad and Yanukovich (the guy who's currently on the sideline to resume his role as president of Ukraine) That said - they package it cleverly, cherry picking statements that suit their POV.
I'm asking you - who is Nazi #1. It's very similar to T**** blaming antifa for everything. I'm sure I could make a similar movie to make you think antifia is threatening everything.
nan - can you show me where in the movie did Stone interview anyone from the EU? Just tell me the minute - TIA.
nan said:
This Aaron Mate article sums it up well.
By using Ukraine to fight Russia, the US provoked Putin's war
After backing a far-right coup in 2014, the US has fueled a proxy war in eastern Ukraine that has left more than 14,000 dead. Russia's invasion is an illegal and catastrophic escalation.
I have been giving you the reasons why in multiple posts. This war is illegal and all war is horrible but it has been predicted by many and did not start with the invasion. The difference in Ukraine is that it's being used as proxy for the US to fight Russia. As Mate reminds us in the article:
This is all such nonsense. It all proceeds from a false premise.
nan said:
Mearsheimer has what is called a "realist view" in that he says "this is the way the world works, deal with it." He does not say that Russia is justified to demand Ukraine remain neutral. He says that is the way big powers work. He points out rightfully, that the US would never allow a country close to us to become allies of say China, so we should understand that Russia feels the same way. He does not say this is a good thing.
What Mearsheimer advocates for is better relations with Russia. After the Cold War ended we were getting along with Russia and that would be a much better policy and more beneficial for the US. This is why I get so annoyed at the dangerous cardboard Disney villain portrayal of Putin created by five years of Russiagate hoax.
If this is just the way big powers work, then I don't see what the point of any of this discussion is. If one is going to argue that any given US actions is wrong, one is no longer taking the "realist view," but making a moral judgement. Once one does that, then it's not enough to simply note that Russia is merely acting in its interests, one needs to make an argument over why those interests are legitimate. But you have not.
Conversely, if one insists on taking the "realist view," then it's irrelevant whether the Ukrainian events of 2014 were a coup or a genuine revolution -- the actual views of actual Ukrainians are irrelevant as its just a struggle between Russia and the US.
You, however, are trying to have it both ways -- taking a "realist" view of Russia, but making a moral judgement of the US. That's incoherent at best, a choice to side with a murderous autocracy at worst.
nan said:
This Aaron Mate article sums it up well.
By using Ukraine to fight Russia, the US provoked Putin's war
After backing a far-right coup in 2014, the US has fueled a proxy war in eastern Ukraine that has left more than 14,000 dead. Russia's invasion is an illegal and catastrophic escalation.
I have been giving you the reasons why in multiple posts. This war is illegal and all war is horrible but it has been predicted by many and did not start with the invasion. The difference in Ukraine is that it's being used as proxy for the US to fight Russia. As Mate reminds us in the article:"The United States aids Ukraine and her people," Adam Schiff declared in January 2020, "so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here."
I notice the situation in the Donass, going on for eight years, almost never gets mentioned on MOL and yet 14,000 have died there, killed with US supplied weapons given to Nazis. This was started after the 2014 US backed coup (watch the movie for more details) when the US poured in weapons to far-right groups to start killing the eastern Russia speaking population. Zelensky ran on a peace platform and there was the Minsk Accords, but he changed after the election and that policy has never been enforced. Do those lives matter to anyone? So the US has been on the side of the Nazis and not on the side of peace.
Here is how Mate sums it up in the article above:
The US policy of using Ukraine as cannon fodder has accompanied a bid to incorporate it into NATO. Compounding the dangers of a hostile military alliance on Russia's borders, the US has also methodically dismantled the Cold War-era arms control treaties that limited the arsenals of the world's two top nuclear powers.
Since 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned that US policies in Ukraine and other former Soviet states were crossing Russian red lines, and would force a Russian reaction.
After years of US-driven escalation, Putin's warnings have been realized in the form of an illegal invasion that has placed the world in one of its most dangerous moments since the Second World War.
This happened now, but the US has been pushing for confrontation for years:
The US agenda was made plain in September 2013, when Carl Gershman, head of the CIA-tied National Endowment for Democracy, declared that "Ukraine is the biggest prize." If Ukraine could be pulled into the US-led order, Gershman explained, "Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself." In short, in Washington's eyes, regime change in Kiev could redound to Moscow as well.
After five years of the Russiagate hoax, the US is already primed to support going to war against Russia. It's very rare to hear any other viewpoint. This makes things even more dangerous.
Well, it doesn't matter now. Putin's annexing Ukraine, so they're all going to die anyway.
PVW said:
If this is just the way big powers work, then I don't see what the point of any of this discussion is. If one is going to argue that any given US actions is wrong, one is no longer taking the "realist view," but making a moral judgement. Once one does that, then it's not enough to simply note that Russia is merely acting in its interests, one needs to make an argument over why those interests are legitimate. But you have not.
Conversely, if one insists on taking the "realist view," then it's irrelevant whether the Ukrainian events of 2014 were a coup or a genuine revolution -- the actual views of actual Ukrainians are irrelevant as its just a struggle between Russia and the US.
You, however, are trying to have it both ways -- taking a "realist" view of Russia, but making a moral judgement of the US. That's incoherent at best, a choice to side with a murderous autocracy at worst.
The point is that if we can see how big powers work, why would we deliberately piss one of them off and risk nuclear war? Who does that? Especially when we do the same and worse? It's not like we have some high moral ground here.
Also, it is legit to be against war and yet seek to understand the conditions that brought it about. Otherwise no lessons can be learned to avoid the next one or even to stop this one from getting worse. I'm really not in the mood for WW3, how about you?
And speaking about the actual views of actual Ukrainians, are you assuming they were all on board with these changes? Mate, in his article, says they were for the most part not in favor of the coup, lukewarm on NATO, and liked Yanukovych. Not what you hear in mainstream news but he provides some evidence:
By backing a far-right coup in Kiev, the US overcame the inconvenient hurdle of Ukrainian popular opinion.
Summarizing contemporaneous polls days before the Februrary 2014 coup, political scientists Keith Darden and Lucan Way observed in the Washington Post that "none show a significant majority of the population supporting the protest movement and several show a majority opposed." The most accurate survey "shows the population almost perfectly divided in its support for the protest: 48 percent in favor, 46 percent opposed." Despite being the target of the Maidan protests and deeply corrupt, Yanukovych "is still apparently the most popular political figure in the country," they added.
The Ukrainian population's division over the Maidan protests also extended to the issue that helped spark it: Yanukovych's rejection of a trade deal with the European Union. According to Darden and Way, "there is little evidence that a clear majority of Ukrainians support integration into the European Union," with most polls showing "around 40-45 percent support for European integration as compared to about 30 to 40 percent support for the [Russian-led] Customs Union – a plurality for Europe but hardly a clear mandate."
The same could be said for membership in NATO. "The main obstacle" to Ukraine's ascension to the alliance, F. Stephen Larrabee, a former Soviet specialist on the U.S. National Security Council wrote in 2011, "is not Russian opposition… but low public support for membership in Ukraine itself." Ukrainian support for joining NATO "is much lower in Ukraine in comparison to other states in Eastern Europe," he added, at just 22-25 percent overall.
A Gallup poll released in March 2014 found that "[m]ore Ukrainians saw NATO as a threat than as offering protection." Although that trend has reversed since, Ukrainian support for NATO has increased to barely above 50% in polls that exclude the 3.8 million residents of rebel-held Donetsk and Luhansk.
Based on those polls, the threat of Ukraine joining NATO was incredibly small.
ridski said:
Based on those polls, the threat of Ukraine joining NATO was incredibly small.
The people's opinions were not relevant to the backers of the coup. They had other plans for Ukraine.
jamie said:
nan - what is your way out of this mess?
Some way that avoids exploded nuclear weapons. Is that too much to ask?
nan said:
jamie said:
nan - what is your way out of this mess?
Some way that avoids exploded nuclear weapons. Is that too much to ask?
of course - now Vlad is saying that sanctions are basically a declaration of war. He isn't a rational actor and this mentality didn't start in 2014. The Russian people are against the war. Don't believe the 68% poll that is for the military action. Those numbers would probably change if people were actually able to report on what's happening. Unfortunately, avoiding something worse has to happen within Russia. Slowing down the Russian advance has helped to buy some time. But it's also making Vlad mad - which is not good.
nan said:
ridski said:
Based on those polls, the threat of Ukraine joining NATO was incredibly small.
The people's opinions were not relevant to the backers of the coup. They had other plans for Ukraine.
The fact of an election debunks all of the theories blaming the “coup” for the Ukrainian government’s positions now.
jamie said:
of course - now Vlad is saying that sanctions are basically a declaration of war. He isn't a rational actor and this mentality didn't start in 2014. The Russian people are against the war. Don't believe the 68% poll that is for the military action. Those numbers would probably change if people were actually able to report on what's happening. Unfortunately, avoiding something worse has to happen within Russia. Slowing down the Russian advance has helped to buy some time. But it's also making Vlad mad - which is not good.
I agree that sanctions are a type of war. Lots of people not deemed mentally ill think sanctions = war. I also don't see how you psychologically analyse a world leader in such detail (not just on this post). You also speak for the Russian people and can determine what they would think if given "facts" from western journalists. And you are sure the Russian advance has been slowed down. And you know that "Vlad is mad which is not good."
With views like this we are all going to die.
nohero said:
The fact of an election debunks all of the theories blaming the “coup” for the Ukrainian government’s positions now.
No, because the coup caused agreements to be signed which charted the course and the west kept their hand involved. They provided major weapons to right wing groups and encouraged the war in the east. They planted ideas about NATO. Zelensky ran on a peace platform, but they made sure he would not have peace.
nan said:
nohero said:
The fact of an election debunks all of the theories blaming the “coup” for the Ukrainian government’s positions now.
No, because the coup caused agreements to be signed which charted the course and the west kept their hand involved. They provided major weapons to right wing groups and encouraged the war in the east. They planted ideas about NATO. Zelensky ran on a peace platform, but they made sure he would not have peace.
There's about to be a run on foil. Better grab a couple of rolls before nan gets to the store.
It is worth remembering that all politics are local, the exception being when your country is attacked. So, yes it is true that Russia was not happy about the loss of Ukraine to the European sphere of influence and certainly the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO at some point was a concern. But I think Putin thought:
1. that invading Ukraine would play well at home as did the takeover of the Crimea.
2. that the Western reaction would be a variation on the sanctions applied in response to attacking Georgia and the Crimean takeover.
3. that the takeover of Ukraine would be relatively easy. Maybe he was starting to believe his own **** about Nazis controlling Ukraine. I don't think he necessarily has a good understanding of military matters. Of course, even smart military people discover the limitations of their understanding when war starts.
So, he was wrong on 3 accounts and he's cornered. In this regard, I imagine he is feeling much like Hitler and Co. when the British declared war on Germany in response to the German invasion of Poland - now what.
I honestly can't say what the Russian people think. They aren't stupid and have more experience with opaque governance than most of us. At the very least they have to know something is not going well given the media crackdown. And soon enough, soldiers coming home in body bags will tell their own story.
nan said:
Lots of people not deemed mentally ill think sanctions = war. I also don't see how you psychologically analyse a world leader in such detail (not just on this post). And you know that "Vlad is mad which is not good."
So, do you think Vlad is a rational person? Do you think sentencing someone to 15 years for printing the word WAR or reporting on what's happening on the ground is rational?
As far as knowing if Ukraine slowed Vlad down, from what I'm reading in many different places - it sounds like they did. He made several mistakes which were pretty similar to when we invaded Iraq. He expected a lot more support on the ground. He's calling the shots, it'll be interesting to see who stands up against him in Russia. Unfortunately, he's really squashed the Russian people from speaking out - on many fronts, primarily the press and protesting.
No, what I'm doing is recommending a movie that presents a different view on the 2014 Ukrainian coup and many here are finding every excuse in the book to trash it (and me) without watching.