tjohn said:

Nan,

If I understand you correctly, the West should have simply stood by as Putin forced Ukraine into the Russian sphere by whatever means he felt necessary.  What about the Baltic States?

So, tell me, in a world where tribal and religious boundaries often don't align with national boundaries, when is it appropriate for nations to have strong opinions (embargoes, opposition support, etc.) about the internal affairs of some other nation?

Should we have allowed Serbia to retain Kosovo by bloody force.  Should we have allowed Gaddafi to suppress the rebel uprising? (There wouldn't have been a Benghazi, at least.)

maybe it’s because we allowed the Russians to bomb the beejezus out of Aleppo…she’s searching for another Jimmy video. 

You know, the U.S. has hardly set an example for the world to follow.  That, however, does not justify Russia's actions.

Of course, Russia's history didn't start in 2014 as some would have us believe.  It dates back hundreds of years.  Russia has always been an imperial power seeking to absorb or vassalize neighboring states.  While many Russians are no doubt content to move on from that, Putin still believes in a messianic Russia that is listened to on the world stage.  And he believes Ukraine is Russian soil.

nan said:

I condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine.  I'm very anti-war. 

With opposition like that, who needs support?

We just fail to understand that Mr. Putin is a peacemaker at heart. 

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

The film is not about Putin. The film is about US involvement in the 2014 coup and NATO and US backed far right groups. You watch CNN et al. Propaganda cannot not be a reason you can use to not watch something. 

Pretend the 2014 events were authentically Ukrainian. How would that have looked differently than what did happen in 2014? What signs can we look for to distinguish a genuine revolution from a CIA coup?

Watch the movie. I'm guessing the protests would have remained more peaceful.  

I know you've been gone a while, but as a reminder -- I don't watch videos posted to social media. You can use the search feature if you want my reasons (it's not about POV, it's about the format).

So violence as a marker of the genuineness of a revolution is an interesting angle. I'm not sure I follow the logic -- if the overthrow of the Yanukovych government had not been a CIA plot, the riot police would not have attacked the protestors and Yanukovych would have quietly agreed to leave? I find that hard to believe, but let's hear your argument.

If we stick to this standard, though, I'll note that none of the countries that joined NATO post 1989 did so under duress or with any violence. By your standard, then, we can't blame NATO expansion on any CIA plots. And yet you have posted strong opposition to NATO expansion. So it turns out not to actually matter whether a given action is a CIA plot or not. That's good, as it'll save us a lot of time arguing over whether Euromaidan was a CIA plot or a genuine Ukrainian movement -- either way, looks like you're opposed.

Which leads to the conclusion that, at the end of all this, you're arguing that Russia should be allowed to do whatever Putin likes, that the lives of the people who get in his way don't matter. If only Ukraine hadn't insisted on remaining independent, this whole war could have been avoided?

PVW said:
If only Ukraine hadn't insisted on remaining independent, this whole war could have been avoided?

No, no, no. You're giving Ukraine agency where the anti-war position is that Ukraine has no mind of its own. Ukraine just pawn in game of life. 

ridski said:

No, no, no. You're giving Ukraine agency where the anti-war position is that Ukraine has no mind of its own. Ukraine just pawn in game of life. 

And similarly, Putin doesn't want war, all he wants is peace.

A little piece of Ukraine, a little piece of Poland, ...

ridski said:

drummerboy said:

well, there' still the internet, isn't there? or have they locked down international access?

Possibly? It's definitely trying to.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/26/technology/russia-censorship-tech.html

Russia just cut off access to Facebook and Twitter.

jamie said:

Greenwald - shocker!

My narrative isn't war.  My hope is in the citizen's of Russia and the parent on the Russian soldiers coming home dead who thought they were on a military exercise.

The need for the likes of you and Greenwald to pound in the MSM/US/NATO blame game does zilch is the big picture. 

From what I see, Vlad is killing Ukrainians AND Russians in this conflict.  It will ultimately be his undoing,

Instead of giving us a 50 minute video (nan 101) - tell us what you got out of it - perhaps point to a five minute section.

I will not watch a video that merely highlights tweets - or is there more to it?  The Twitterverse is full of morons who think they know it all.

I would like to see a fund to help the Russians who are protesting, to help with any arrest expenses, or would see this as more interference from the West over Vlad's fragile ego?

I posted this because it is an important cautionary tale about where we will be heading if this idea of a "No Fly Zone" takes hold.  I have already seen enthusiasm on MOL for Ukraine joining NATO which is like volunteering for nuclear destruction but a No-Fly zone will get us there even faster. When you have US citizens naively believing the fantasy that this war was started by an unprovoked mad man hell bent on world domination (like a Disney movie character) they are more likely to support things that will get us fried pronto. 

I don't expect you to spend five minutes, never mind an hour listening to anything that might change your mind about Putin, but that's what this video is about and maybe someone else will give it some consideration. It does not just highlight tweets which you seem to think despite not having watched. 

drummerboy said:

Has Greenwald taken the high road yet, like Taibbi, and apologized for all of his wrong predictions prior to the war starting?

What were Greenwald's wrong predictions?

ridski said:

Russia just cut off access to Facebook and Twitter.

All nations should do that.  It would have saved us from Trump.

tjohn said:

Nan,

If I understand you correctly, the West should have simply stood by as Putin forced Ukraine into the Russian sphere by whatever means he felt necessary.  What about the Baltic States?

So, tell me, in a world where tribal and religious boundaries often don't align with national boundaries, when is it appropriate for nations to have strong opinions (embargoes, opposition support, etc.) about the internal affairs of some other nation?

Should we have allowed Serbia to retain Kosovo by bloody force.  Should we have allowed Gaddafi to suppress the rebel uprising? (There wouldn't have been a Benghazi, at least.)

The West should not have expanded NATO westward after the end of the Cold War.  They promised that they would not do that in exchange for Russia allowing the reunification of Germany.  They did not keep that promise.  In 2014, the US backed a coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine and inserted a handpicked US puppet president. This messed up and already divided country.  Because of this coup, Crimea voted to go back with Russia and  we have the fighting in the Donbas region (where lots of people are getting killed but crickets about that). There was also the Minsk Agreement which Zelensky did not enforce. 

Anyway, Putin has made it clear since the 90s that NATO expansion is his line in the sand and he has said this over and over again.  No politician except Bernie Sanders has been so consistent in his requirements over a very long time.  Despite that, the US propaganda machine tells us that NATO is of minor importance and that Putin is just a mad man hell bent on world domination.  Thank you Disney!

So long story but to answer your first question, the West should have kept NATO out of Putin's earshot and allowed Ukraine to chart it's own course. Instead they put in a US puppet and then sold weapons to Ukraine and provoked Putin and exacerbated the situation into a proxy war with Russia.  So what I'm saying is that they could have prevented this invasion from happening in the first place.  

PVW said:

I know you've been gone a while, but as a reminder -- I don't watch videos posted to social media. You can use the search feature if you want my reasons (it's not about POV, it's about the format).

So violence as a marker of the genuineness of a revolution is an interesting angle. I'm not sure I follow the logic -- if the overthrow of the Yanukovych government had not been a CIA plot, the riot police would not have attacked the protestors and Yanukovych would have quietly agreed to leave? I find that hard to believe, but let's hear your argument.

If we stick to this standard, though, I'll note that none of the countries that joined NATO post 1989 did so under duress or with any violence. By your standard, then, we can't blame NATO expansion on any CIA plots. And yet you have posted strong opposition to NATO expansion. So it turns out not to actually matter whether a given action is a CIA plot or not. That's good, as it'll save us a lot of time arguing over whether Euromaidan was a CIA plot or a genuine Ukrainian movement -- either way, looks like you're opposed.

Which leads to the conclusion that, at the end of all this, you're arguing that Russia should be allowed to do whatever Putin likes, that the lives of the people who get in his way don't matter. If only Ukraine hadn't insisted on remaining independent, this whole war could have been avoided?

It's not a "video:"  It's a full movie.  Your refusal to watch leaves you asking simplistic questions that would have been easily answered.  Without the CIA backing and the far-right extremists, it is likely there would not have been a coup at all.  Probably there would have just been a lot of protests, as you see in many countries. 

NATO justifies it's existence by demonizing Russia and that's its primary gravy train.  It is a direct threat to Russia.  It should have gone out of business after the Cold War but it found a way to keep going and that way was to get us all to hate Russia.  

After 2014, Ukraine had a government hand picked by the USA.  How independent is that?

nohero said:

And similarly, Putin doesn't want war, all he wants is peace.

A little piece of Ukraine, a little piece of Poland, ...

Again with the Hitler references.  You never stop. 

nan said:

It's not a "video:"  It's a full movie.  Your refusal to watch leaves you asking simplistic questions that would have been easily answered. 

When you stop giving simplistic answers, I'll consider stopping asking simplistic questions.

PVW said:

When you stop giving simplistic answers, I'll consider stopping asking simplistic questions.

How would you even have the context to judge my answers?  You live in a world where even watching a video is forbidden. 

nan - nothing NATO did excuses Putin's destruction of Ukraine - period.  Keep parroting his excuses though.  I wouldn't expect anything  less.  I am surprised your belief in the Stone propaganda movie.  

And no we should not have a no fly zone.  Zelensky is asking for it because, again - I don't know if you know this.  Putin is destroying his country.

nan said:

How would you even have the context to judge my answers?  You live in a world where even watching a video is forbidden. 

I too often wonder how to bridge the vastly different contexts we appear to live in.

1,100,000 refugees

Scores dead

War crimes

The Warmonger alliance is alive and well.   

nan said:

nohero said:

And similarly, Putin doesn't want war, all he wants is peace.

A little piece of Ukraine, a little piece of Poland, ...

Again with the Hitler references.  You never stop. 

It was a Mel Brooks reference in reply to a "Blazing Saddles" reference in a prior post.

If your theory is that the current Ukrainian government is an illegitimate, Nazi-infiltrated regime that was installed via a United States-backed coup, the actual facts about and the actions of the elected Ukrainian President, government, and people indicate that your theory is cr*p.

nan said:

PVW said:

I know you've been gone a while, but as a reminder -- I don't watch videos posted to social media. You can use the search feature if you want my reasons (it's not about POV, it's about the format).

So violence as a marker of the genuineness of a revolution is an interesting angle. I'm not sure I follow the logic -- if the overthrow of the Yanukovych government had not been a CIA plot, the riot police would not have attacked the protestors and Yanukovych would have quietly agreed to leave? I find that hard to believe, but let's hear your argument.

If we stick to this standard, though, I'll note that none of the countries that joined NATO post 1989 did so under duress or with any violence. By your standard, then, we can't blame NATO expansion on any CIA plots. And yet you have posted strong opposition to NATO expansion. So it turns out not to actually matter whether a given action is a CIA plot or not. That's good, as it'll save us a lot of time arguing over whether Euromaidan was a CIA plot or a genuine Ukrainian movement -- either way, looks like you're opposed.

Which leads to the conclusion that, at the end of all this, you're arguing that Russia should be allowed to do whatever Putin likes, that the lives of the people who get in his way don't matter. If only Ukraine hadn't insisted on remaining independent, this whole war could have been avoided?

It's not a "video:"  It's a full movie.  Your refusal to watch leaves you asking simplistic questions that would have been easily answered.  Without the CIA backing and the far-right extremists, it is likely there would not have been a coup at all.  Probably there would have just been a lot of protests, as you see in many countries. 

NATO justifies it's existence by demonizing Russia and that's its primary gravy train.  It is a direct threat to Russia.  It should have gone out of business after the Cold War but it found a way to keep going and that way was to get us all to hate Russia.  

After 2014, Ukraine had a government hand picked by the USA.  How independent is that?

Why didn't Russia just do nothing?  What action forced them to blow up Ukraine and dislodge over a million people to date?  Were they being attacked?

nohero said:

If your theory is that the current Ukrainian government is an illegitimate, Nazi-infiltrated regime that was installed via a United States-backed coup, the actual facts about and the actions of the elected Ukrainian President, government, and people indicate that your theory is cr*p.

Facts are a different context than movies, as Nan has helpfully pointed out.

jamie said:

nan - nothing NATO did excuses Putin's destruction of Ukraine - period.  Keep parroting his excuses though.  I wouldn't expect anything  less.  I am surprised your belief in the Stone propaganda movie.  

And no we should not have a no fly zone.  Zelensky is asking for it because, again - I don't know if you know this.  Putin is destroying his country.

He should not have invaded, but the West has a part to play and it's important for people to know that because the solution can maybe be reached with a change of policy.  If you just think the guy is a mad man than you are more likely to want a drastic intervention.  Zelensky is asking for it because he wants the West to get involved.  

I'm glad you are against a no-fly zone.  Stay that way. 

PVW said:

Facts are a different context than movies, as Nan has helpfully pointed out.

Documentary movies use lots of facts.  

nan said:

He should not have invaded, but the West has a part to play and it's important for people to know that because the solution can maybe be reached with a change of policy.  If you just think the guy is a mad man than you are more likely to want a drastic intervention.  Zelensky is asking for it because he wants the West to get involved.  

Ukraine's President wants to save his country.

Putin wants something else - 

nan said:

Documentary movies use lots of facts.  

Sure. Most fiction does. Doesn't mean I should use Romeo and Juliette as a travel guide to Verona though.

And those of you who liked how Russia helped Assad in Syria, you're going to love the plans for Ukraine. 

nohero said:

If your theory is that the current Ukrainian government is an illegitimate, Nazi-infiltrated regime that was installed via a United States-backed coup, the actual facts about and the actions of the elected Ukrainian President, government, and people indicate that your theory is cr*p.

No, the government that was installed made pacts and arrangements that the current government has to live with--which means clinging to the West for help.  I know some people say they could not possibly have Nazis there because Zelensky is Jewish, but it turns out that would be a wrong assumption:

How Ukraine’s Jewish president Zelensky made peace with neo-Nazi paramilitaries on front lines of war with Russia

https://thegrayzone.com/2022/03/04/nazis-ukrainian-war-russia/

PVW said:

Sure. Most fiction does. Doesn't mean I should use Romeo and Juliette as a travel guide to Verona though.

Ukraine on Fire is a documentary.  Do you know what documentary is?  What does it matter anyway since you refuse to watch the film.