Thats a good point by Jack Morphonios.
The U.S. meddling in Ukraine with our CIA orchestrated “color revolution” regime change routine was a set-up for this whole disaster.
1 Like
1 Like
She and her many cohorts are all working for our Marxist government run influence operation.
Well, yes, it does, if being against war with Russia requires America to withhold weapons and other aid from Ukraine.
Withholding American weapons (our Stingers and Javelins have proved lethally effective) would decrease the costs to Putin of mounting combat operations and consolidating his hold on territory it has seized. It would increase the probability that Putin will achieve his war aims militarily and diplomatically. (What would the Ukrainians have as leverage in negotiations?) To favor Putin strategically is, necessarily, to be pro-Putin politically, and that concedes everything: his autocratic power; his imperial ambitions; his tyranny; his fomenting separatist insurgencies; his cyber-war; his manipulation of the established Soviet-sponsored, pro-communist/collectivist movements, parties and institutions and their global-governance, anti-capitalist, anti-American, ant-nationalist, political offspring…
What is left to support a claim of being anti-Putin? A preference for a hypothetical alternative Russian autocrat who might be ready to de-nuke his arsenal and loosen the iron grip of the Pax Russica - that massive global protection racket that controls the lives of millions of people, entire peoples, in Eurasia?
I see the arguments raised by the anti-war faction that aid risks direct war with Russia as a free propaganda gift to Moscow. Every argument raised by the anti-war faction against America’s aiding Ukraine is based on accepting a spin on reality - the “truth” - helpful to Putin; resolving ambiguities in favour of Putin; assuming Putin’s good faith while denying Zelensky’s; and preferring Russian, pan-Slavic imperialism (though the Ukrainian Russ people were Germanic, not Slavic) to Ukrainian nationalism, while denying America has any national interests at all.
The anti-war argument that America’s supplying of weapons will be bring America into direct combat with Russia (provoking it into a defensive use of nuclear arms!) accepts the premise that supplying weapons is an act of war. This premise is wrong, as this analysis shows. But in any case, the legal issue is moot. The American government and NATO leaders quite clearly do not want a direct war with Russia, and have drawn the line at sending combat troops into Ukraine. The supply of lethal weapons - and other support - has escalated, as it has become apparent that a) the weapons have helped Ukraine to military successes: thwarting Putin’s putsch on Kyiv; stalling the Russian advance; forcing the Russians into a tactical withdrawal from certain strategic locations and b) Putin’s predicted escalation to nukes was rhetorical: a statement that he had put Russia on “nuclear alert”.
I am puzzled why some MAGA republicans have allied themselves with the anti-war faction, which can trace its ideological roots to Soviet-sponsored CND movement. Why have they accepted that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is not a threat to America and the free world, that America has zero national interests at stake? Why do they insist that America should immediately stop aid, wash its hands, turn its back, stay at home, save its money and mind the shop? As a MAGA republican myself, an escapee from increasingly socialist Europe to the land of freedom and plenty, I see American Greatness as an international super-power securing the free world as inseparable from American Greatness as a nation securing the liberty of Americans. American patriotism has no meaning without American nationalism.
It was the Democrats - Obama, primarily - who diminished America internationally while pushing post-national, global-governance, anti-American, policies. Yes, it is the Democrats who used government agents against Trump. Yes, it is Democrats who are purging the military (and all government institutions) of patriots. Yes, it was Biden who ordered the Afghanistan fiasco. But if Republicans are to tap the well of nationalism to take back the nation from the Democrats and make America great again, they should not be rooting for America to leave the international power arena to Russian President Putin, merely because anti-Trump Democrats are in power, and are supporting a Democrat-allied Ukrainian President Zelensky.
1 Like
You make good points. But I somehow find it impossible to care about Ukraine when, in our own country, we are in the midst of a coup - a takeover of our own government - by traitors within it.
The President himself, and his entire administration, including the heads of our military, are participants in this coup.
These same traitors, who rigged and stole our election, also orchestrated a “regime change” in Ukraine, participated in and profited off of its corruption, and are profiting off of the war going on there now. Can you trust their motives?
It’s not just “anti-Trump Democrats” that are in power - it is an enemy that is a worse threat to this country, and thereby to the world, than Putin.
If they are not stopped, there will no longer be an American Greatness to secure liberty anywhere, either at home or abroad - it will be a totalitarian dictatorship worse than Putin’s.
1 Like
C.Gee, It’s is an act of war, NATO have been planning it for years. Not to mention that they a whole history of their mistakes. And before the war Zelensky banned oppositional parties, Ukraine is about a democratic as ‘Palestine’.
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/isis.htm
The argument that you’re making that is good to waste money to arm another country is a poor one. You clearly can’t see that sending in weapons doesn’t stop the war, it’s only prolonging it.
1 Like
Yazmin,
Please do NOT pile on the links. Link after link after link is not a reasoned argument. I have no idea what in the linked article you think is supporting your position - or even stating it.
I looked at the first link to the Swiss Policy Research “geostrategic assessment” of the Ukraine war, for support of the argument that NATO has been planning the war “for years”.
It does NOT support the argument that NATO has been planning the war for years. It argues: “The ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine may be seen as the latest escalation of over two decades of geopolitical tensions between the US, NATO and Russia. More specifically, it may be seen as a first Russian military response to two decades of eastern expansion of the US/NATO military alliance.”
That eastern expansion into former Warsaw Pact countries was accomplished by US diplomacy, which includes political, financial and, if necessary military support of favored political leaders or movements.
The article puts up a policy decision-tree/ implementation flow-chart which schematizes the workings of US diplomacy in the US Foreign policy establishment. It is based on Sylvan and Majeski’s 2009 book: "Clients, Enemies and Empire: US Foreign Policy in Perspective. It is a poli-sci analysis of how the Pax Americana is implemented bureaucratically.
The operational principle, according to Sylvan/Majeski is “clientelism”. In Europe, clientelism provides an array of strategies whereby nations may be brought into the American/Western orbit and out of the Russian one through aid, including military aid, covert operational support, political influence while AVOIDING direct military confrontation with Russia, which is an “enemy” state.
The process of expanding the number of American client states is called “empire” by the authors. But that term does not place the America empire in moral symmetry with the Russian and Chinese blocs. The operational diplomatic principle of these empires is not clientelism, but protection racketeering.
The chart given by the link shows several strategic scenarios that might be applicable to Ukraine(C, E and R on the map) depending on its client/potential client status. Scenario S - “invasion by US troops” applied to Grenada and Iraq.
Some of the strategies deployed in Europe have failed elsewhere - regime change in Libya and, arguably, Iraq, orchestrating the Arab-spring protest movements, supporting Afghanistan insurgents. And yes, American power has been used corruptly by elected politicians, particularly the Obama-Biden administration. But America’s “orchestrating” of the Orange Revolution (Bush) and the Euromaidan uprising (Obama) as pro-democracy movements (scenario L on the chart) was far less hypocritical than Putin’s orchestrating a separatist insurrection as a popular liberation front in Donbas.
The Sylvan/Majeski book itself is very interesting, and casts light on “deep state” workings. See this review.
The Swiss Policy Research link was not altogether a waste of time, even though it added nothing to why Putin is justified in his war. But I am not prepared to read your Adara Press links, which - judging from the headlines links - are more of the same tendentious, false, incoherent reading of American diplomacy as being so avidly in favor of Ukraine as a “client state” of America, that it planned and promoted war with Russia. And how you arrive from this to the strategic conclusion to “drop [the Zelensky] client government” (Scenario F: South Korea, Indonesia, Philippines) - is totally baffling.
1 Like
G.Gee, if you actually read the other links, it’s will explain why NATO have been planning this for some time.
I’m going to quote from the adara press post from above, “Warsaw Pact forces were deployed only once during the Cold War, to crush the reform movement in Czechoslovakia in 1968. (They were not used during the suppression of the “Hungarian Revolution” of 1956, occurring five months after the founding of the alliance. That operation was performed by Soviet troops and loyalist Hungarian forces.) The Czechoslovakian intervention occasioned Albania’s withdrawal from the pact, while Romania protested it and refused to contribute troops. Thus practically speaking, the Warsaw Pact was down to six members to NATO’s 15.”
Where’s your evidence for this?
These articles delve into more detail on this.
1 Like
Yazmin,
The Adara Press Nuland link is just a repeat of the tale of Putin’s justifications for the invasion. This story begins in 1949. Others start "Once upon a time there were folk called Kievan Russ. The history of American policy to support Ukraine’s independence from Moscow, the State Department’s implementation of this policy, the response of NATO to the separation of Soviet satellite states and their security risks (from invasion from Russia) are turned in these narratives, by use of cherry-picked anecdotes, innuendo and guilt by association, into a conspiracy to draw long-put-upon Putin into a war when his patience and good will can take it no more. I do not buy this slant. I cannot see it as anything other than crude attempt to fire up a political passions on the anti-war right.
Any straightforward telling of the diplomatic history of relations among Russia, the US, and Ukraine offering the larger political context in which the diplomatic accords, agreements, understandings, treaties, memoranda of understanding etc. were made, interpreted and broken, can identify the failures - even hypocrisy and corruption - of the US diplomacy without demonizing Ukraine or valorizing and exculpating Putin and validating the invasion.
For example, an analysis of the diplomatic history of the Budapest Memorandum - including the communications between Yeltsin and Clinton, the domestic political pressures on each leader, highlights the attempts by America to adapt to the fall of the iron curtain with a diplomacy with Russia that both anticipated a likely Russian reversion to a cold war posture but opened the door to a Russia becoming more western. Russian fears about NATO “expansion” were placated by promises of co-operation in European security. The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated alongside the Partnership -or-Peace program. There is always cynicism on both sides, which effective diplomacy will paper over. NATO Expansion – The Budapest Blow Up 1994 | National Security Archive
1 Like
C.Gee, it isn’t.
In fact, this problem began to increase under Bush Jr.
1 Like
More news, WaPo Admits Catastrophic-Conditions, Collapsing-Morale Of Ukraine Front-Line Forces.
And here’s a deep dive on the relationship between Zelensky, Ihor Kolomoisky and Washington DC.
1 Like
Nuland-Pyatt Tape Removed From YouTube After 8 Years.
1 Like
Yes, Bush expanded NATO, while, as another article points out, “many leading U.S. geostrategists - including George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, John Mearsheimer, and Stephen Cohen - have long been advising against the expansion of NATO to eastern Europe and especially Ukraine in order to avoid a direct confrontation with Russia.”
1 Like
Interesting that the youtube video about U.S. involvement in the coup in Ukraine has been removed.
Also the other tweet on the thread showing how “Taxpayer money” goes into — “Aid to Ukraine” — which then goes right out the other door to “Members of Congress”.
1 Like
“Understanding Vladimir Putin”! Oliver Stone’s interviews!
Yazmin, that article is blatant Russian propaganda. Oliver Stone is a far-left pro-Russia America hater. How can you fail to recognize this as the evil stuff it is? By posting it you really are expressing strong pro-Putin sentiment whether you mean to or not.
Adara Press is NOT respectable. I dislike seeing it quoted on our page.
And PLEASE, PLEASE, do not post stacks of articles. I have asked you this many times. The article here on Bush has nothing to do with the Russia-Ukraine articles. Each linked article needs to have its own Reply button.
You are a wonderfully contributing member, and I do appreciate your enthusiasm for the Forum. My requests to you not to pile up the links are made with warm respect.
1 Like
TFIglobalnews reports support for Ukraine is steadily decreasing.
1 Like
1 Like
Yes, Soros, like Biden, just wants to save his money laundering operation in Ukraine.
And Biden does whatever Soros and the CCP tells him to do.
2 Likes
The tape can be viewed through a link on one of the comments under Mindy’s post on Gab. Mindy might be a Trump gal, but she is being played by the pro-Putin lobby, just as, sadly, you are.
- If you discount the text before the recording starts which frames the conversation as a part of a vast US conspiracy against Putin, and simply listen to the actual conversation, you will hear State Department business-as-usual. Not even the “fuck the EU” comment by Nuland is surprising or scandalous. This is how they speak and this is what they do. Taken at face value, the conversation (and there appear cuts in the recording, so we do not know whether it is complete) between Nuland and Pyatt was about who should meet with whom to establish the institutional connections - personal contacts - between the new prime minister of Ukraine and the US and UN. Even if the prime minister was the US’s man, there is no plausible “decoding” of the words to reveal a message that the State Department was backing this man as part of a plan to provoke Russia into direct confrontation with the US. (My last response to you attempted to get you to look at the actual diplomatic moves taken when Ukraine ceased to be a satellite of Moscow.)
2.Unless you come to the tape with a bias that US interference/influence in the domestic affairs of other nations is counter-revolutionary and nefarious, a view promoted by Moscow in the 60’s and 70’s among the social left to influence our elections against the anti-communist right, there is no basis upon which to argue that a) the US had no business in Ukraine; b) NATO expansion is wrong; or c) that NATO expansion was a plan to go to war with Russia. If anything, the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations propitiated, placated or accommodated post-Iron Curtain Russia’s “security interests” which were themselves expansionist.
-
Because the tape itself does not incriminate the US or the State Department, nor expose war-mongering motivation, the removal of this tape-recording from You Tube does not prove there is a “cover-up” of illegal activity or motivations underway. The removal is not an implicit admission of wrongdoing. The tape was removed for the usual reasons: because it was being used by Trump supporters to “spread disinformation” - i.e. to rouse anti-Biden/Democrat sentiment. Judging from the comments under Mindy’s post, You Tube’s censors would be justified according to their rules in removing it because it attracts far-right nazis, who think Jews are in control of the US and Ukraine. See the “Jewkraine” and other antisemitic comments.
-
From points 2. and 3. above: Pro-Putin/ anti-US/anti-Ukraine spin brings together the socialist, anti-American left (the Ukraine is full of nazis, supported by Amerikkka) with the nationalist far-right (Ukraine and America are polluted by international Jewry). Both groups are ideologically still fighting WW2 . This is a new Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - which no MAGA conservative should align herself with.
5.The fact that Nuland was a supporter of Hilary Clinton; that Ukrainian diplomacy under Obama/Biden extended the reach of the global bureaucracy; that the State Department’s implementation of Obama’s policy was sordid (John Bolton referred to the State Departments’ facilitation of the judicial-influence-for-aid blackmail as a “drug-deal”); that the Ukraine desk at the State Department was politically motivated to engineer Trump’s first impeachment on the basis of that very “drug deal”; that the Biden family is involved in an influence-peddling scam; and that the US and European governmental agencies were engaged in drawing the Ukraine into the western orbit and away from Russia (just as the Kremlin was engaged in clawing back Ukraine into its orbit) add up to anti-Democrat campaign material for R voters.
These facts do not add up to Mindy embarrassing, childish, cuckoo theory that the Biden administration’s aid to Ukraine is “[t]he Deep State… literally trying to start a war with a nuclear power to hide all the backend deals, illegal bioweapon labs, and tax money laundering schemes they were all committing there.” This is way beyond Tucker Carlson anti-Biden campaigning. Whose vote is it aiming for? Putin’s?
1 Like
None of those points you said make any sense, and how is YouTube censorship justified in any way saying that people who watch YouTube are all “Far right anti-semites” and not everyone who opposed to fight for Ukraine thinks that Ukraine is run by Jews, you seem to forget that there are people like George Soros who collaborated with the Nazis in Hungary and sold out his fellow Jews to the concentration camps, not to mention also hates Israel, you seem to follow the absurd line of looking into the truth must mean you’re a part of the “Pro-Putin lobby” which is the same line that the left are playing. Did you forget that the Democrats (and Republicans as well) tried to Impeach Trump for looking into the corruption in Ukraine? I didn’t see a single Ukrainian politicians say anything against the impeachment which might mean that they are in on it and how can you and anyone say with a straight face that Ukraine is an ally?
And about NATO expansion, here’s the British archives saying that London was opposed to NATO expansion.
1 Like