PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

Yeah, it did.  

Here’s a transcript of that 2014 conversation. Others can decide for themselves if it’s convincing evidence of an attack against Ukraine by the U.S. to start a proxy war.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

There's no sensible narrative in which that conversation is part of a plot by the U.S. for an attack on the government of Ukraine. 

Plus, you know, the whole geography thing with Ukraine not being Russia.

And the whole geography thing with the US running the show. 

Let's pretend you're right and that Ukraine is controlled by the U.S. You still have yet to explain how that is an attack on Russia.

I've explained to you many times but you can't accept it. 

You're right -- I can't accept that an attack on Ukraine is an attack on Russia. I mean, I disagree there was an attack on Ukraine in the first place, but if I accept that in order to make your position as strong as possible, it's still self-negating.

It's as if you told me you visited Canada because you went to Augusta, Maine, and since Maine has a lot of residents of French Canadian background then visiting Maine's capital is visiting Canada.

Your argument isn't with me, Nan -- it's with geography and basic definitions of words.

No, because I have a very different view of what happened in Ukraine and that includes events that you deny even happened. It also involves Russia/Putin's motives for the war and future. This makes it impossible for us to agree on very much, if anything. Perhaps as things change going forward, there might be some new revelations. 

You're right -- so long as you insist that an attack on one country is an attack on a separate country, we're not going to agree on much. Hope you enjoyed your trip to Montreal, Maine.

There is a Moscow, Maine.  I actually don't understand how your analogy works but you could not understand how the Cuban Missile crisis is a good analogy either so we are like warships passing in the night. So romantic. 

If you recall your history, the crisis started when the U.S. got photographic evidence of Soviet nuclear missile facilities in Cuba. This is a poor analogy for Ukraine because there were no nuclear missiles or facilities for them at the time of Russia's 2014 invasion, nor was there any evidence of any construction of such facilities, and to this day there are none. Poor an analogy as it is, it works against your position because the U.S. did not invade, unlike Russia in Ukraine.

A better analogy, as I've pointed out to you multiple times (oh shoot, there goes that boulder...) is US action against Cuba prior to the missile crisis. U.S. action here was triggered by the fact of Cuba allying itself to the USSR, and so makes a good analogy for Ukraine allying itself with the US. As I noted, Castro taking power was not an attack on the U.S. (there's that stubborn geography again -- Cuba and the U.S. are different countries), and although your position if applied consistently rather than partisanly would support U.S. actions such as the Bay of Pigs, I disagree and find such actions were not justifiable. A country allying itself with a rival is not an existential threat and not sufficient reason to invade and occupy it.

Yeah, I don't agree because your example leaves out how Ukraine is a proxy for the US and at that time Cuba was acting on behalf of the Soviet Union.  Ukraine did not have nuclear weapons, but we did. Russia's invasion of Crimea is a detail of their response to the US installing an anti-Russian government in Ukraine.  They were securing continued access to a critical location under a new hostile regime.  This can be a further debate, but it is irrelevant to the Cuban Missile Crisis problem that we are arguing over.  

You have to look at the big ideas to see why the Ukraine war is another version of the Cuban Missile crisis because it is an example of "the perils of superpower rivalry in the cold war." Kennedy was able to diffuse the situation, but the Biden administration wants no diplomacy with Russia. That's the big and scary difference.

Here is an interview with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov from some Russian documentary about lessons learned from the Cuban Missile Crisis (https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/international_safety/1835806/#sel=9:1:VOV,12:130:l2r).  Here is an excerpt:

Question: If we look at the Cuban Missile Crisis, why do you think the United States attempted to deploy its missiles in the direct vicinity of our borders? In what way was the Soviet Union threatened by the deployment of US middle-range missiles in Türkiye in the 1960s?

Sergey Lavrov: The United States was not just attempting it; it had actually deployed its Jupiter middle-range missiles in Türkiye and Italy. I am mentioning Italy because the missiles, if launched from that country, had sufficient range to cover much of European Russia. Their flight time from Türkiye to Moscow is ten-odd minutes, as it was believed at that time. It is this factor that triggered the Cuban Missile Crisis, rather than what the Western historiography seeks to present as its cause, seeing the root of the problem in Russia deploying its missiles on Cuba. We were just responding to what the United States had already done in the USSR’s backyard.

If we distance ourselves from the threat of a US aggression against Cuba – and it was quite real, with very real attempts made – the main military-strategic problem was the “deployment” [of US nuclear weapons] in direct vicinity of the USSR’s borders. At that time, the US possessed, apart from the Jupiter missiles, 4,500 nuclear warheads, or several times more than the overall number of nuclear munitions available to the USSR. A factor of no small importance was that Jupiter was viewed both by the USSR and the West as a first-strike system. Given this, the decisions taken at that juncture were prompted by the existence of real threats to this country’s security.

The United States took the situation quite seriously, as is testified by the memoirs of eyewitnesses who were present in the Oval Office during a conversation between President John F. Kennedy and his aides. Kennedy was saying that he did not understand why Khrushchev had to deploy missiles in Cuba. The Soviet leader should realise, he said, that this was the same for the United States as if the Americans deployed their missiles in Türkiye. A surprised aide told him that this was what the United States had actually done. I hope that in the present-day situation, President Joe Biden will have a better understanding of who and how issues orders.

"Question: How similar are the situations in the 1960s and now in the event of an escalation in Ukraine? In both cases, we can clearly see that the United States is seeking to be the hegemon. To what extent can the Cuban Missile Crisis experience help us here and now?

Sergey Lavrov: Some similarity is certainly in evidence. Like in 1962, the case in point is creating direct threats to Russia’s security right on its borders. Today, this threat is even closer than the Jupiter missiles deployed in Türkiye. A military campaign is in progress, designed to supply Ukraine with all types of weapons. There is serious talk about the need to strengthen NATO’ nuclear capability in addition to the five countries that already have US tactical nuclear weapons on their territory. Poland is urging the Americans to deploy their nuclear bombs on its territory. This situation is highly alarming.

The difference is that in the far-away 1962, Khrushchev and Kennedy rose to the challenge and displayed responsibility and wisdom, whereas now we see no such readiness on the part of either Washington or its satellites. There are numerous examples. To begin with, the chance for talks that materialized at the meeting in Istanbul in late March, was destroyed – we can now assert this – on direct orders from Washington. . .

Interesting that from the Russian point of view, the Cuban Missile crisis began with the US aiming weapons at Russia, not the other way around. 

If you want to hear the similarities from the American perspective, here is the account from William R. Polk, an ex-US diplomat who was part of the 1962 crisis team dealing with the incident firsthand.  This was written in 2015, after the coup but before the war broke out and he gives strong warnings that should have been heeded. As for the similarities to today, Polk says, "The first step is to “appreciate” the situation as it actually is and to see clearly the flow and direction of events. Of course, they are not precisely the same as in the Cuban Missile Crisis. History does not exactly repeat itself, but, as Mark Twain has pithily said, subsequent events sometimes “rhyme” with those that went before."

Ukraine War: A Reverse Cuban Missile Crisis

Guided by an aggressive neocon “regime change” strategy, the United States has stumbled into a potential military confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, a dangerous predicament that could become a Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse, as ex-U.S. diplomat William R. Polk explains. February 24, 2015

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/02/24/ukraine-war-a-reverse-cuban-missile-crisis/

Excerpt:

. . . So here briefly, let me lay out the process of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and show how the process of that crisis compares with what we face today over the Ukraine.

Three elements stand out in the Cuban Missile Crisis: 1) Relations between the USSR and the U.S. were already “on the edge” before they reached the crisis stage; each of us had huge numbers of weapons of mass destruction aimed at the other. 2) The USSR precipitated the Crisis by advancing into Cuba, a country the U.S. had considered part of its “area of dominance” since the promulgation of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine. 3) Some military and civilian officials and influential private citizens in both countries argued that the other side would “blink” if sufficient pressure was put on it.

Allow me to point out that I had a (very uncomfortable) ringside seat in the Crisis. I was one of three members of the “Crisis Management Committee” that oversaw the unfolding events.

On the Monday of the week of Oct. 22, 1962, I sat with Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Under Secretary George Ball, Counselor and Chairman of the Policy Planning Council Walt Rostow and Under Secretary for Political Affairs U. Alexis Johnson and listened to President John F. Kennedy’s speech to which we all had contributed.

The account Kennedy laid out was literally terrifying to those who understood what a nuclear confrontation meant. Those of us in that room obviously did. We were each “cleared” for everything America then knew. And we each knew what our government was seeking — getting the Russian missiles out of Cuba. Finally, we were poised to do that by force if the Russians did not remove them.

Previous to that day, I had urged that we remove our “Jupiter” missiles from Turkey. This was important, I argued, because they were “offensive” rather than “defensive” weapons. The reason for this distinction was that they were obsolescent, liquid-fired rockets that required a relatively long time to fire; thus, they could only be used for a first strike. Otherwise they would be destroyed before they could be fired.

The Russians rightly regarded them as a threat. Getting them out enabled Chairman Nikita Khrushchev to remove the Russian missiles without suffering an unacceptable degree of humiliation and risking a coup d’état.

Then, following the end of the crisis, I wrote the “talking paper” for a review of the crisis, held at the Council on Foreign Relations, with all the involved senior U.S. officials in which we carefully reviewed the “lessons” of the crisis. What I write below in part derives from our consideration in that meeting. That is, it is essentially the consensus of those who were most deeply involved in the crisis. . .

. . .Realistic Thinking

The first step is to “appreciate” the situation as it actually is and to see clearly the flow and direction of events. Of course, they are not precisely the same as in the Cuban Missile Crisis. History does not exactly repeat itself, but, as Mark Twain has pithily said, subsequent events sometimes “rhyme” with those that went before.

Consider these key elements:

–Despite the implosion of the Soviet Union and the attempts to cut back on nuclear weapons, Russia and the United States remain parallel nuclear powers with each having the capacity to destroy the other — and probably the whole world. Hundreds if not thousands of our weapons apparently remain on “hair trigger alert.” I assume that theirs are similarly poised.

–Both Russia and the United States are governed by men who are unlikely to be able to accept humiliation and almost certain murder by “super patriots” in their own entourages and would be forced to act even at the cost of massive destruction to their countries.

So pressing the leadership of the opponent in this direction is literally playing with fire. As President Kennedy and the rest of us understood in the 1962 crisis, even if leaders want to avoid conflict, at a certain point in their mutual threats, events replace policy and leaders become bystanders.

–Both the Russian and American people have demonstrated their resilience and determination. Neither is apt to be open to intimidation.

–Both the Russians and the Americans are guided in their foreign policy by what they believe to be “core concerns.” For the Americans, as the Cuban Missile Crisis and many previous events illustrate, this comes down to the assertion of a “zone of exclusion” of outsiders.

America showed in the Cuban Missile Crisis that we would not tolerate, even at almost unimaginable danger, intrusion into our zone. Among the Russians, as their history illustrates, a similar code of action prevails. Having suffered, as fortunately we have not, horrifying costs of invasion throughout history but particularly in the Twentieth Century, the Russians can be expected to block, by any means and up to any cost, intrusions into their zone. . .

. . .–We said we understood this fundamental policy objective of the Russians, and officially on behalf of our government, Secretary of State James Baker Jr. agreed not to push our military activities into their sphere. We have, however, violated this agreement and have added country by constituent country of the former Soviet Union and its satellites to our military alliance, NATO.

–We are now at the final stage, just short of Russia itself in the Ukraine, and, as the Russians know, some influential Americans have suggested that we should push forward to “the gates of Moscow.” Those who advocate what the British once called a “Forward Policy,” now see the necessary first steps to be the arming of Ukraine.

–And finally, there is no way in which we or the European Union could arm Ukraine to a level that it could balance Russia. Thus, the weapons are likely both to give the Ukrainians unrealistic notions of what they can do vis-Ã -vis Russia and to be seen by the Russians as “offensive” moves to which they might feel compelled to respond. Consequently, they could lead us all into a war we do not want.

Policy Prescriptions

So what to do? In a word: stop. What we are now doing and what we contemplate doing is not in our interest or in the interests of the Ukrainians and is perceived as a threat by the Russians. We cannot deliver on the policy we would encourage the Ukrainians to adopt by arming them without a war. Economic sanctions are a form of that war, but they are unlikely to accomplish what we have been proclaiming.

So, the logic of events could force the Russians and us to the next step and that step also to the next and so on. Our moves in this direction could cause massive death and destruction. We should stop doing what does not work and is not in our interests nor in the interests of either the Ukrainians or the Russians.

But stopping on what terms? Having myself helped to negotiate two complex but successful ceasefires, I have learned two things: first, a ceasefire cannot be obtained unless both parties see it as less bad than the alternative and, second, a ceasefire is merely a necessary precondition to a settlement. So what might a settlement involve?

The elements of a general settlement, I believe, are these:

–Russia will not tolerate Ukraine becoming a hostile member of a rival military pact. We should understand this. Think how we would have reacted had Mexico tried to join the Warsaw Pact. Far-fetched?

Consider that even before the issue of nuclear weapons arose, we tried to overthrow the pro-Russian Cuban government in the Bay of Pigs invasion and tried on several occasions to murder Cuban Head of State Fidel Castro. We failed; so for two generations we have sought to isolate, impoverish and weaken that regime.

We would be foolish to expect that the Russians will not react similarly when challenged by an anti-Russian Ukrainian government. Thus, to press for inclusion of Ukraine into NATO is not only self-defeating; it risks overturning a generation of cautious moves to improve our security and increase our well-being and is pointing us toward at least a cold if not a hot war. We need to adopt a different course.

–We must recognize that the Ukraine is not part of our sphere of influence or dominance. It is neither in the Western Hemisphere nor in the North Atlantic. On the Black Sea, the concept of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization is an oxymoron. The Black Sea area is part of what the Russians call “the near abroad.”

The policy implications are clear: Just as the Russians realized that Cuba was part of our sphere of dominance and so backed down in the Missile Crisis, they will probably set their response to our actions on the belief that we will similarly back down because of our realization that Ukraine is in their neighborhood and not in ours.

The danger, of course, is that, for domestic political reasons and particularly because of the urging of the neoconservatives and other hawks we may not accept this geostrategic fact. Then, conflict, with all the horror that could mean, would become virtually inevitable.

–But conflict is not inevitable and can fairly easily be avoided if we wish to avoid it. This is because the Russians and Ukrainians share an objective which the United States also emotionally shares. The shared objective is that Ukraine become a secure, prosperous and constructive member of the world community.

Becoming such a member can be accomplished only by the Ukrainians themselves. But as all qualified observers have seen, Ukrainian society and political organization have far to go to reach our joint objective.

This is true regardless of the Russian-American dispute. Its government is corrupt, tyrannical and weak. The best we can do is to remove outside deterrents to the growth of a healthy, secure and free society.

The way to do this is two-fold: first we need to stop our military intrusion into Ukrainian-Russian affairs, so diminishing Russian fears of aggression, and, second, wherever possible and in whatever ways are acceptable to both parties to assist the growth of the Ukrainian economy and, indirectly, the stability and sanity of the Ukrainian governing system. A first step in this direction could be for Ukraine to join the European Union.

This, in general terms, should be and for our own sakes must be, our strategy.

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

Yeah, it did.  

Here’s a transcript of that 2014 conversation. Others can decide for themselves if it’s convincing evidence of an attack against Ukraine by the U.S. to start a proxy war.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

There's no sensible narrative in which that conversation is part of a plot by the U.S. for an attack on the government of Ukraine. 

They are deciding the new government.  Biden signs off on it. 

PVW said:

Maybe we can try this as a table, comparing and contrasting the Bay of Pigs and Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Bay Of Pigs	Russian Invasion of Ukraine	Consistent?
Justified	Justified	Yes
Not Justified	Not Justified	Yes
Justified	Not Justified	No
Not Justified	Justified	No

You're the last row here. I'm the second.

I don't get the purpose of this one either.  The Bay of Pigs was a CIA thing with Allan Dulles.  You should read the book, The Devil's Chessboard.  It's scarier than anything Stephen King ever wrote. 

.

I'm done pushing boulders.

dave said:

nan said:

So you are saying that Dave was defending me from someone saying I'm batshit crazy (and a Russian Agent in another post) by declaring that the real problem is that I don't have convincing arguments that make sense?

No.

That's the classic with friends like that who needs enemies.

Your take.

I've never been in a debate club 

Already assumed as much.

they don't allow personal attacks 

Correct, so why do you make them?

or switching the topic 

Depends.

to the political allegiance of the speaker 

It could come into play if one's bias shines through.

or stopping in the middle of the debate to give another speaker a competency score. 

Certainly not out of bounds, but could backfire.

Those are the kind of things you hear in junior high cliques. 

I'll leave the analogies for others to fathom. 

This is turning into harassment.  Jaytee is free to call me names worse than anything Terp (another poster with a minority view) got banned for, but I defend my self to DaveS's  inappropriate remarks, and you jump in to add on the pile with your communications expert Manufactured Consent laser beam. You are not even involved in this thread topic--just visiting to dump on me.  How is that helpful?  The things you accuse me of are all projection. Why are you pouring gas on a fire?  You once asked me how I felt I had been censored.  Well, here is a great example.  If you want me to leave just tell me. It's your website and I have a wonderful life that includes lots of worthwhile activities. I took a long break before and I was fine.  I enjoy talking about politics and this site has the best format, but frustrating when I have to fend off so many personal attacks from a few people. 

Nan, whether or not you want to leave is up to you. We are not in Russia. (I'm sure Ukraine is similarly keeping an eye on social media dissent.)

I am guilty of not reading every post, so if there's a post you feel personally attacked in, please flag it and I will look into it. I do not have the awesome powers of bandom, but can refer your attacker up the corporate ladder as it were. Keep in mind this is the Politics area, so there is slightly more leeway than other areas of the message board for expression, so allowed retorts can be in the form of "that's a dumb argument" rather than "you're dumb for arguing that."

nan - Putin's biggest issue has been the collapse of the soviet union - I don't know why you always start at 2014 with him.  Would you prefer if the Berlin Wall was still up - what was your stance on that?  I still can't get you to admit that Russians are unfairly being sent to die for this bogus cause.  But overall - you have given Vlad the green light to keep decimating Ukraine.  And you have extreme faith that he would have stopped if it wasn't for Nuland and Johnson - right?   So 2 people telling Zelenskyy not to stop is why it's still continuing - right?  And you were fine with having Putin's Wagner henchmen in Ukraine since 2014 - right?  You hardly even admitted their connection with Vlad until a year into the conflict.

nan said:

They are deciding the new government. Biden signs off on it.

you've been told this a million times (or at least a couple of times by me), that discussing an outcome and expressing a preference is not "deciding the new government", as much as you want it to be otherwise.

drummerboy said:

nan said:

They are deciding the new government. Biden signs off on it.

you've been told this a million times (or at least a couple of times by me), that discussing an outcome and expressing a preference is not "deciding the new government", as much as you want it to be otherwise.

I know the MOL crowd does no think this shows much but it does. They are clearly picking out the government, which is illegal.  This was the icing on the cake after all the reporting and documenting on what happened. The Oliver Stone movie shows a lot of footage of Nuland and John McCaine and others (with Nazis). In the video I posted the press confronts Nuland and she just brushes it off.  She does not deny anything.  These are covert operations so this is a big reveal. You are not going to get it laid out in technicolor---I remember posting about this a few years ago and someone found the NGO bills for the coup--they had been scrubbed from their servers but someone was able to go back and save them. Anyway, you can continue to say it never happened but that is because you don't look too closely. 

jamie said:

nan - Putin's biggest issue has been the collapse of the soviet union - I don't know why you always start at 2014 with him.  Would you prefer if the Berlin Wall was still up - what was your stance on that?  I still can't get you to admit that Russians are unfairly being sent to die for this bogus cause.  But overall - you have given Vlad the green light to keep decimating Ukraine.  And you have extreme faith that he would have stopped if it wasn't for Nuland and Johnson - right?   So 2 people telling Zelenskyy not to stop is why it's still continuing - right?  And you were fine with having Putin's Wagner henchmen in Ukraine since 2014 - right?  You hardly even admitted their connection with Vlad until a year into the conflict.

Putin was glad about the collapse of the Soviet Union -- he was part of the new young wave.  Originally, he wanted to work with the west.  He likes Europe.  He speaks German.  He even wanted to be in NATO. They did not want him because they need a big enemy to justify expansion and funding. Hence Putin=Hitler.  Did you know in Russia he is considered a moderate? 

I have posted a lot about the collapse of the Soviet Union--remember the whole Bill Browder thread?   I have strong opinions on that. Jeffrey Sachs was around for that and has a lot of good commentary on it now.  I was happy when the Berlin Wall came down, but I wish NATO had stuck to their promise of not expanding. Do you listen to Jeffrey Sachs? 

This is not a bogus cause for the Russians.  I 100% agree with their views on that.  I'm not happy about the war and I wish they had found an alternative way to protect themselves but I've never seen anyone come up with a real alternative.  The West lied to them through two Minsk agreements.  They can't trust anything we say--that's a big problem for us all over the world, btw. 

I don't give "Vlad" any lights.  We have never met!  I think the war was planned and implemented by the West.  I wish the Russians had not taken the bait, but the people in the Donbas were being decimated.  Why don't you care about them?  They are Ukrainian citizens too.

Did you read the Lavrov interview I posted?  It was interesting.  He talked about how this situation is similar to the Cuban Missile crisis and what happened after 2014.  He said the Ukrainians were trying to evict the Russians from Crimea.  I'm not sure what he meant about that.  I do think they were making life difficult for them.  There were restrictions on the Russian language.  

The invasion was Putin's strongarm way of trying to implement the Minsk agreements by force.  He's also pissed off about NATO and he does not like the far right element in Ukraine--which were the grouop going after the residents in the Donbas.  

The Wagner group was hired by the Russians to fight in the special military operation.  I don't think they figured it was going to be a long war.  I don't know how they missed that since the US was arming the Ukrainians to the teeth.  

Happy MOL groundhog day!   Have you been paying attention to what's going on in Ukraine now?  Do you still think they can win?  
 

nan said:

Putin was glad about the collapse of the Soviet Union -- he was part of the new young wave.  Originally, he wanted to work with the west.  He likes Europe.  He speaks German.  He even wanted to be in NATO. They did not want him because they need a big enemy to justify expansion and funding. Hence Putin=Hitler.  Did you know in Russia he is considered a moderate?

If Putin was happy about the collapse - why did he say "“First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century."  Sure - he wanted to be part of NATO - but didn't want to go through the normal process.  So to say they didn't want him is a bit misleading.  The Hitler reference nowadays is due to the wiping out of the Ukrainian people, land and culture.   Putin is a paranoid dictator - we've seen this throughout history and know he's more concerned about protecting himself, his oligarch buddies and his legacy more than he cares about the Russian people.  He's literally sending a generation to slaughter - and again - you have zero compassion for the people of Russia.

The rest is a rehash of letting Vlad do what he wants which we have debunked many many times.

Top story in Vlad media: Putin called the preservation of spiritual values ​​a condition for strengthening sovereignty

Russian President Vladimir Putin called the preservation and protection of traditional spiritual and moral values ​​the most important condition for strengthening the sovereignty and security of states, he stated this in a video message to the participants of the XII international meeting of high representatives in charge of security issues.

“As historical experience shows, countries that preserve the national identity and originality of their people, honor the memory of their ancestors and at the same time respect other cultures and traditions develop consistently and independently,” the head of state said.

In his opinion, this approach is especially important today, when a multipolar world order is being formed and the global balance of power is gradually changing in favor of the world majority, when new centers of development are actively strengthening.

In conclusion, he emphasized that Russia is ready for close cooperation in ensuring global and regional security, in the formation of a new multipolar world order that meets the interests of the majority of countries.

----------------------------------------------

nan - do you think he's also using this practice in Ukraine?  He sounds very respectful in valuing the sovereignty of states.  Was Ukraine ever a sovereign state?

It's all about changing the world order through acts of bullying and saber rattling his nukes.

nan said:

PVW said:

Maybe we can try this as a table, comparing and contrasting the Bay of Pigs and Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Bay Of Pigs	Russian Invasion of Ukraine	Consistent?
Justified	Justified	Yes
Not Justified	Not Justified	Yes
Justified	Not Justified	No
Not Justified	Justified	No

You're the last row here. I'm the second.

I don't get the purpose of this one either.  The Bay of Pigs was a CIA thing with Allan Dulles.  You should read the book, The Devil's Chessboard.  It's scarier than anything Stephen King ever wrote. 

All right, one more small push.

The way you've phrased it, where the reason the Bay of Pigs was not justified is because it was a CIA thing, implies that if it had been the idea of a different person or group -- someone you approve of -- then it would have been justified. The justice and wisdom of an act, in your way of looking at things, depends on who that act is aligned with. This is, as I noted earlier, a partisan analysis.

An alternative approach is to say that an act's justice and wisdom resides in the act itself, independently of who it is aligned with. In this view, the Bay of Pigs was not justified because the act of invading a foreign country and attempting to overthrow its government when that country poses no actual or imminent threat is itself not justified. It wouldn't matter if the very best, most righteous, most wise person in the world were supporting it -- the act itself would still not be justified, and the person supporting it would have revealed themselves to err, as humans do.

Aha, you may be thinking, doesn't that mean the U.S. overthrowing Ukraine's government was unjustified? If that is indeed what happened, then absolutely -- under both your criteria and mine. It would have been unjust by yours because it was done by the bad people -- the CIA. It would have been unjust by my criteria because the act itself was not justified.

Of course, we don't actually agree on what happened, but but let's go with it to make your position as strong as possible. Let's say that the U.S. unjustly overthrew the Ukrainian government in 2014. Does that justify Russia's immediate response of invading Ukraine and seizing Crimea? Does it justify Russia's escalation to an invasion of the entire country in 2022?

Not by the criteria of looking at acts themselves.

The takeaway is that you and I probably have very little to say to one another. In looking at Russia's actions, I don't find it very relevant whether and how the U.S. is involved, whereas for you that's the entirety. There's little to say across such a gap in outlooks.

nan said:

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

Yeah, it did.  

Here’s a transcript of that 2014 conversation. Others can decide for themselves if it’s convincing evidence of an attack against Ukraine by the U.S. to start a proxy war.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

There's no sensible narrative in which that conversation is part of a plot by the U.S. for an attack on the government of Ukraine. 

They are deciding the new government.  Biden signs off on it. 

I said "sensible narrative" that it shows a plot by the United States. The transcript shows that they're mentioning the names of existing leaders of the opposition. They mention Yatsenyuk, who was already considered as the leading choice to be prime minister - he had already been offered the post by Yanukovich (the president who was later replaced in February 2014). So unless the Putin-supported Ukrainian president Yanukovich was also somehow part of their plot, the "Biden signs off on it" theory isn't sensible.

When the new government was formed, Yatsenyuk was the overwhelming choice among all of the political parties. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Yatsenyuk_government#Parliamentary_voting

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

They are deciding the new government. Biden signs off on it.

you've been told this a million times (or at least a couple of times by me), that discussing an outcome and expressing a preference is not "deciding the new government", as much as you want it to be otherwise.

I know the MOL crowd does no think this shows much but it does. They are clearly picking out the government, which is illegal.  This was the icing on the cake after all the reporting and documenting on what happened. The Oliver Stone movie shows a lot of footage of Nuland and John McCaine and others (with Nazis). In the video I posted the press confronts Nuland and she just brushes it off.  She does not deny anything.  These are covert operations so this is a big reveal. You are not going to get it laid out in technicolor---I remember posting about this a few years ago and someone found the NGO bills for the coup--they had been scrubbed from their servers but someone was able to go back and save them. Anyway, you can continue to say it never happened but that is because you don't look too closely. 

and the circle continues.

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

Yeah, it did.  

Here’s a transcript of that 2014 conversation. Others can decide for themselves if it’s convincing evidence of an attack against Ukraine by the U.S. to start a proxy war.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

There's no sensible narrative in which that conversation is part of a plot by the U.S. for an attack on the government of Ukraine. 

They are deciding the new government.  Biden signs off on it. 

I said "sensible narrative" that it shows a plot by the United States. The transcript shows that they're mentioning the names of existing leaders of the opposition. They mention Yatsenyuk, who was already considered as the leading choice to be prime minister - he had already been offered the post by Yanukovich (the president who was later replaced in February 2014). So unless the Putin-supported Ukrainian president Yanukovich was also somehow part of their plot, the "Biden signs off on it" theory isn't sensible.

When the new government was formed, Yatsenyuk was the overwhelming choice among all of the political parties. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Yatsenyuk_government#Parliamentary_voting

and the circle continues

Will the circle, be unbroken, by and by lord by and by...

jamie said:

nan said:

Putin was glad about the collapse of the Soviet Union -- he was part of the new young wave.  Originally, he wanted to work with the west.  He likes Europe.  He speaks German.  He even wanted to be in NATO. They did not want him because they need a big enemy to justify expansion and funding. Hence Putin=Hitler.  Did you know in Russia he is considered a moderate?

If Putin was happy about the collapse - why did he say "“First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century."  Sure - he wanted to be part of NATO - but didn't want to go through the normal process.  So to say they didn't want him is a bit misleading.  The Hitler reference nowadays is due to the wiping out of the Ukrainian people, land and culture.   Putin is a paranoid dictator - we've seen this throughout history and know he's more concerned about protecting himself, his oligarch buddies and his legacy more than he cares about the Russian people.  He's literally sending a generation to slaughter - and again - you have zero compassion for the people of Russia.

The rest is a rehash of letting Vlad do what he wants which we have debunked many many times.

It was a huge catastrophe.  Many people died.  The transition was difficult.  But, Putin was not looking back to preserve it.  He embraced "the market."  I don't know the details of why he got rejected from NATO, but if you got your information from NATO, I'd be skeptical.  Currently, the normal NATO process seems to be to ask "Do you hate Russia?" and if you say yes, you are in!  The one exception is Ukraine, who they keep jerking around because that's automatic WWIII.  

He's not Hitler.  He might not be a nice guy and maybe enjoys more than a few perks as president, but he's far from Hitler.  He wanted to negotiate peace from the get go.  Hitler did not want negotiations. 

I also think he cares deeply about the Russian people.  When you read the transcripts of his speeches on the Kremlin website he sounds like JFK or Bernie Sanders. Huge contrast to what Biden/Trump talks about. He can actually have two way conversations, and give thoughtful answers which is way beyond our frontrunners.   He seems to want to be a positive figure in history, so I guess that is his legacy--but you don't preserve that doing bad things to the masses of your country. He's very involved with advocating for Russia and having relationships with other countries.  That's why the US wants regime change.  They want to go back the 1990s when vultures pecked away at Russian assets for pennies on the dollar. The people in Russia mostly support this war and feel it is an existential threat.  He had pressure from hardliners to send in troops way before he did. 

Great news from the NYT: We've already sent ATACMS to Ukraine!  Now Ukraine can hit any corner of its territory with massive force.  

U.S. Secretly Shipped New Long-Range Missiles to Ukraine [gift link]

dave said:

Great news from the NYT: We've already sent ATACMS to Ukraine!  Now Ukraine can hit any corner of its territory with massive force.  

U.S. Secretly Shipped New Long-Range Missiles to Ukraine [gift link]

That’s some great news. Enough with the talking.

jamie said:

Top story in Vlad media: Putin called the preservation of spiritual values ​​a condition for strengthening sovereignty

Russian President Vladimir Putin called the preservation and protection of traditional spiritual and moral values ​​the most important condition for strengthening the sovereignty and security of states, he stated this in a video message to the participants of the XII international meeting of high representatives in charge of security issues.

“As historical experience shows, countries that preserve the national identity and originality of their people, honor the memory of their ancestors and at the same time respect other cultures and traditions develop consistently and independently,” the head of state said.

In his opinion, this approach is especially important today, when a multipolar world order is being formed and the global balance of power is gradually changing in favor of the world majority, when new centers of development are actively strengthening.

In conclusion, he emphasized that Russia is ready for close cooperation in ensuring global and regional security, in the formation of a new multipolar world order that meets the interests of the majority of countries.

----------------------------------------------

nan - do you think he's also using this practice in Ukraine?  He sounds very respectful in valuing the sovereignty of states.  Was Ukraine ever a sovereign state?

It's all about changing the world order through acts of bullying and saber rattling his nukes.

Ukraine has always been a corrupt country, but it went down hill in 2014 when you know what happened (except on MOL).  There was hope Zelensky would bring change, but that has been a disaster. These remarks from Putin are typical of the kinds of things he says.  It reminds me of the way older leaders used to talk in the 1960s. Russia is a conservative place and they have a different way of viewing things. They are always talking about history and ancestors and memories and stuff like that.  That's how they got the great Dostoevsky.  That Crime and Punishment was a heck of a book.  But I digress. . . 

Anyway, despite the war, he's not about changing the world order through acts of bullying and saber rattling his nukes.  That's the US.  He's defending his country while he's forming friendly diplomatic economic alliances all over the world.  He's a leader in BRICS.  The world order is changing and the Ukraine war is helping to bring that about, . It really sucks because we are led by neocon nitwits and we will be left in the dust.  Here's MOL fan favorite, The Duran, to discuss what's going on. Everyone is lining up to see Xi Jinping; no one wants to see Biden. 

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

Maybe we can try this as a table, comparing and contrasting the Bay of Pigs and Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Bay Of Pigs	Russian Invasion of Ukraine	Consistent?
Justified	Justified	Yes
Not Justified	Not Justified	Yes
Justified	Not Justified	No
Not Justified	Justified	No

You're the last row here. I'm the second.

I don't get the purpose of this one either.  The Bay of Pigs was a CIA thing with Allan Dulles.  You should read the book, The Devil's Chessboard.  It's scarier than anything Stephen King ever wrote. 

All right, one more small push.

The way you've phrased it, where the reason the Bay of Pigs was not justified is because it was a CIA thing, implies that if it had been the idea of a different person or group -- someone you approve of -- then it would have been justified. The justice and wisdom of an act, in your way of looking at things, depends on who that act is aligned with. This is, as I noted earlier, a partisan analysis.

An alternative approach is to say that an act's justice and wisdom resides in the act itself, independently of who it is aligned with. In this view, the Bay of Pigs was not justified because the act of invading a foreign country and attempting to overthrow its government when that country poses no actual or imminent threat is itself not justified. It wouldn't matter if the very best, most righteous, most wise person in the world were supporting it -- the act itself would still not be justified, and the person supporting it would have revealed themselves to err, as humans do.

Aha, you may be thinking, doesn't that mean the U.S. overthrowing Ukraine's government was unjustified? If that is indeed what happened, then absolutely -- under both your criteria and mine. It would have been unjust by yours because it was done by the bad people -- the CIA. It would have been unjust by my criteria because the act itself was not justified.

Of course, we don't actually agree on what happened, but but let's go with it to make your position as strong as possible. Let's say that the U.S. unjustly overthrew the Ukrainian government in 2014. Does that justify Russia's immediate response of invading Ukraine and seizing Crimea? Does it justify Russia's escalation to an invasion of the entire country in 2022?

Not by the criteria of looking at acts themselves.

The takeaway is that you and I probably have very little to say to one another. In looking at Russia's actions, I don't find it very relevant whether and how the U.S. is involved, whereas for you that's the entirety. There's little to say across such a gap in outlooks.

I don't think the Bay of Pigs should have happened at all.  I don't remember all the details but that It was the CIA trying to trick Kennedy into invading Cuba and starting a war. I don't see how it would have been justified in any way. 

You keep pushing the partisan theory but, as I said, that works better for most of the other posters on MOL and yourself. 

The US helped overthrow the Ukraine government so they could use the Ukrainians to start provocations with Russia with the goal of regime change. They started trying to do this before 2014 but the Russians did not invade until 2022.  That's not an immediate response. The Crimea thing was a one off - an emergency measure because that port is so critical and they knew it would be taken away. It doesn't count!  Parts of the Donbas also voted to go with Russia like Crimea and Putin said no, although he did reach out to help them some. The point is from 2014 to 2022 Putin was trying to not have to invade.  There were two MInsk agreements he was hopeful about and they were treated like a joke while the west was arming and training the Ukrainians.  Sharpening the knife.

Your last paragraph basically says what I said before so we AGREE we don't agree on major things that make it impossible to reach common ground. 

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

Yeah, it did.  

Here’s a transcript of that 2014 conversation. Others can decide for themselves if it’s convincing evidence of an attack against Ukraine by the U.S. to start a proxy war.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

There's no sensible narrative in which that conversation is part of a plot by the U.S. for an attack on the government of Ukraine. 

They are deciding the new government.  Biden signs off on it. 

I said "sensible narrative" that it shows a plot by the United States. The transcript shows that they're mentioning the names of existing leaders of the opposition. They mention Yatsenyuk, who was already considered as the leading choice to be prime minister - he had already been offered the post by Yanukovich (the president who was later replaced in February 2014). So unless the Putin-supported Ukrainian president Yanukovich was also somehow part of their plot, the "Biden signs off on it" theory isn't sensible.

When the new government was formed, Yatsenyuk was the overwhelming choice among all of the political parties. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Yatsenyuk_government#Parliamentary_voting

You have posted "explanation" before and it's quite creative but they do mention getting sign-off at the end and it's quite clear they are working on who THEY want to put in the government and how it's going to operate.  This is not fantasy football. That someone is a "leading" candidate does not change anything. 

nan said:

jamie said:

Top story in Vlad media: Putin called the preservation of spiritual values ​​a condition for strengthening sovereignty

Russian President Vladimir Putin called the preservation and protection of traditional spiritual and moral values ​​the most important condition for strengthening the sovereignty and security of states, he stated this in a video message to the participants of the XII international meeting of high representatives in charge of security issues.

“As historical experience shows, countries that preserve the national identity and originality of their people, honor the memory of their ancestors and at the same time respect other cultures and traditions develop consistently and independently,” the head of state said.

In his opinion, this approach is especially important today, when a multipolar world order is being formed and the global balance of power is gradually changing in favor of the world majority, when new centers of development are actively strengthening.

In conclusion, he emphasized that Russia is ready for close cooperation in ensuring global and regional security, in the formation of a new multipolar world order that meets the interests of the majority of countries.

----------------------------------------------

nan - do you think he's also using this practice in Ukraine?  He sounds very respectful in valuing the sovereignty of states.  Was Ukraine ever a sovereign state?

It's all about changing the world order through acts of bullying and saber rattling his nukes.

Ukraine has always been a corrupt country, but it went down hill in 2014 when you know what happened (except on MOL).  There was hope Zelensky would bring change, but that has been a disaster. These remarks from Putin are typical of the kinds of things he says.  It reminds me of the way older leaders used to talk in the 1960s. Russia is a conservative place and they have a different way of viewing things. They are always talking about history and ancestors and memories and stuff like that.  That's how they got the great Dostoevsky.  That Crime and Punishment was a heck of a book.  But I digress. . . 

Anyway, despite the war, he's not about changing the world order through acts of bullying and saber rattling his nukes.  That's the US.  He's defending his country while he's forming friendly diplomatic economic alliances all over the world.  He's a leader in BRICS.  The world order is changing and the Ukraine war is helping to bring that about, . It really sucks because we are led by neocon nitwits and we will be left in the dust.  Here's MOL fan favorite, The Duran, to discuss what's going on. Everyone is lining up to see Xi Jinping; no one wants to see Biden. 

Great. Post a video of a disbarred barrister to bolster your side. LOL.  

Have you read Dostoevsky's The Idiot?

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

They are deciding the new government. Biden signs off on it.

you've been told this a million times (or at least a couple of times by me), that discussing an outcome and expressing a preference is not "deciding the new government", as much as you want it to be otherwise.

I know the MOL crowd does no think this shows much but it does. They are clearly picking out the government, which is illegal.  This was the icing on the cake after all the reporting and documenting on what happened. The Oliver Stone movie shows a lot of footage of Nuland and John McCaine and others (with Nazis). In the video I posted the press confronts Nuland and she just brushes it off.  She does not deny anything.  These are covert operations so this is a big reveal. You are not going to get it laid out in technicolor---I remember posting about this a few years ago and someone found the NGO bills for the coup--they had been scrubbed from their servers but someone was able to go back and save them. Anyway, you can continue to say it never happened but that is because you don't look too closely. 

and the circle continues.

Yes, this is how the cycle goes.  I post something and you all say I'm wrong and nuts and something related to Putin until a mainstream publication says the same thing.  Then you sheepishly stop saying I'm wrong or nuts or Putin about that. I can post a hundred pieces of evidence (while being accused of not providing evidence) but as soon as a lame brain corporate media sort of gets it right you nod and agree.  Rinse and repeat. 

Latest example are the "secret" peace talks which you all were informed about regularly for the last two years and said never happened or were not what the Russians wanted. 

drummerboy said:

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

Yeah, it did.  

Here’s a transcript of that 2014 conversation. Others can decide for themselves if it’s convincing evidence of an attack against Ukraine by the U.S. to start a proxy war.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

There's no sensible narrative in which that conversation is part of a plot by the U.S. for an attack on the government of Ukraine. 

They are deciding the new government.  Biden signs off on it. 

I said "sensible narrative" that it shows a plot by the United States. The transcript shows that they're mentioning the names of existing leaders of the opposition. They mention Yatsenyuk, who was already considered as the leading choice to be prime minister - he had already been offered the post by Yanukovich (the president who was later replaced in February 2014). So unless the Putin-supported Ukrainian president Yanukovich was also somehow part of their plot, the "Biden signs off on it" theory isn't sensible.

When the new government was formed, Yatsenyuk was the overwhelming choice among all of the political parties. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Yatsenyuk_government#Parliamentary_voting

and the circle continues

See above.

dave said:

nan said:

jamie said:

Top story in Vlad media: Putin called the preservation of spiritual values ​​a condition for strengthening sovereignty

Russian President Vladimir Putin called the preservation and protection of traditional spiritual and moral values ​​the most important condition for strengthening the sovereignty and security of states, he stated this in a video message to the participants of the XII international meeting of high representatives in charge of security issues.

“As historical experience shows, countries that preserve the national identity and originality of their people, honor the memory of their ancestors and at the same time respect other cultures and traditions develop consistently and independently,” the head of state said.

In his opinion, this approach is especially important today, when a multipolar world order is being formed and the global balance of power is gradually changing in favor of the world majority, when new centers of development are actively strengthening.

In conclusion, he emphasized that Russia is ready for close cooperation in ensuring global and regional security, in the formation of a new multipolar world order that meets the interests of the majority of countries.

----------------------------------------------

nan - do you think he's also using this practice in Ukraine?  He sounds very respectful in valuing the sovereignty of states.  Was Ukraine ever a sovereign state?

It's all about changing the world order through acts of bullying and saber rattling his nukes.

Ukraine has always been a corrupt country, but it went down hill in 2014 when you know what happened (except on MOL).  There was hope Zelensky would bring change, but that has been a disaster. These remarks from Putin are typical of the kinds of things he says.  It reminds me of the way older leaders used to talk in the 1960s. Russia is a conservative place and they have a different way of viewing things. They are always talking about history and ancestors and memories and stuff like that.  That's how they got the great Dostoevsky.  That Crime and Punishment was a heck of a book.  But I digress. . . 

Anyway, despite the war, he's not about changing the world order through acts of bullying and saber rattling his nukes.  That's the US.  He's defending his country while he's forming friendly diplomatic economic alliances all over the world.  He's a leader in BRICS.  The world order is changing and the Ukraine war is helping to bring that about, . It really sucks because we are led by neocon nitwits and we will be left in the dust.  Here's MOL fan favorite, The Duran, to discuss what's going on. Everyone is lining up to see Xi Jinping; no one wants to see Biden. 

Great. Post a video of a disbarred barrister to bolster your side. LOL.  

Have you read Dostoevsky's The Idiot?

Sad, but these days disbarred barristers are way better journalists than the stooges at CNN/MSNBC.  And then we have Zelensky, the comedian/Ukraine President who plays piano with his penis.  I get the impression you listen to his "worthwhile" comments to bolster your side.  Right?    

I have not read The Idiot, but I think that's a good suggestion for helping me to better understand some of the people with whom I regularly engage.  Thanks! 

If you read The Idiot you certainly wouldn't take being compared with Prince Myshkin as an insult. I knew I could count on you jumping into an argument unwilling to research, though.

nan said:

I don't think the Bay of Pigs should have happened at all.  I don't remember all the details but that It was the CIA trying to trick Kennedy into invading Cuba and starting a war. I don't see how it would have been justified in any way. 

What I don't understand about this reply is why talk about the CIA at all? If it could not have been justified in any way, then it doesn't matter if it was the CIA or a group you approved of, right? So why not just say "it wasn't justified" and leave the CIA out of it?