Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Apr 9, 2022 - 9:19am
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
VV is right. You are a troll.
Of course I'm saying Pepe's "old spook" is wrong because the argument is internally inconsistent, which you might have gleaned had you deigned to read my post.
Secondly, even if it weren't internally inconsistent, the argument follows the old pattern that this is all caused by the US pursuing its national interest at the expense of the Russians (now where have we heard that argument before?) and completely overlooks the historical forces leading to virtually all of Russian's satellite nations clamouring to get away from Russian influence. I'm not saying the US is without power and influence but it is hardly the only factor at work here.
And before you come up with the "but this is just US propaganda line", remember I live with Eastern European neighbours. There are currently 5 million refugees from Ukraine in Europe. Why would that be, do you think? Why do you think the Poles are so eager to help the Ukrainians defend themselves? Why does the national museum in Lithuania have one hall devoted to the horrors of Nazi occupation and five comparably sized halls devoted to the horrors of Soviet occupation?
Back in the late 60s, my eldest sister took a Russian language class in college - several of our Lithuanian relations (who had immigrated around the turn of the 20th century as children) asked she wanted to learn "that goddamned language."
Multiple U.S. officials acknowledged that the U.S. has used
information as a weapon even when confidence in the accuracy of the
information wasnât high. Sometimes it has used low-confidence
intelligence for deterrent effect, as with chemical agents, and other
times, as an official put it, the U.S. is just âtrying to get inside
Putinâs head.â
Some officials believe, however, that
trying to get into Putinâs head is a meaningless exercise, because he
will do what he wants regardless.
After this story was published, a U.S. official told NBC News that âthe U.S. governmentâs
effort to strategically downgrade intelligence to share with allies and
the public is underpinned by a rigorous review process by the National
Security Council and the Intelligence Community to validate the quality
of the information and protect sources and methods.â The official added
that âwe only approve the release of intelligence if we are confident
those two requirements are met.â
You still haven't addressed the arguments. What is internally inconsistent?
p.s. I changed "old" to "retired" out of respect, and because I am retired myself, but not too old to understand things.
Why don't you come out and just say that you are a Russian sympathizer who supports Putin and his "military action". Clearly, everything you have posted so far seems to lead to that conclusion. If you are looking for support for that here... you might want to look elsewhere.
I thought I was telling you that Poland and Romania are coming next, by the old spook's logic.
As for the above argument of hypersonic ICBM... they are building the launching pads for missiles they haven't even developed yet? Yeah, right. Sure they are.
I don't think ICBMs were mentioned (just 'missiles'), BUT...
You still haven't addressed the arguments. What is internally inconsistent?
p.s. I changed "old" to "retired" out of respect, and because I am retired myself, but not too old to understand things.
Why don't you come out and just say that you are a Russian sympathizer who supports Putin and his "military action". Clearly, everything you have posted so far seems to lead to that conclusion. If you are looking for support for that here... you might want to look elsewhere.
Of course I'm saying Pepe's "old spook" is wrong because the argument is internally inconsistent, which you might have gleaned had you deigned to read my post.
Secondly, even if it weren't internally inconsistent, the argument follows the old pattern that this is all caused by the US pursuing its national interest at the expense of the Russians (now where have we heard that argument before?) and completely overlooks the historical forces leading to virtually all of Russian's satellite nations clamouring to get away from Russian influence. I'm not saying the US is without power and influence but it is hardly the only factor at work here.
And before you come up with the "but this is just US propaganda line", remember I live with Eastern European neighbours. There are currently 5 million refugees from Ukraine in Europe. Why would that be, do you think? Why do you think the Poles are so eager to help the Ukrainians defend themselves? Why does the national museum in Lithuania have one hall devoted to the horrors of Nazi occupation and five comparably sized halls devoted to the horrors of Soviet occupation?
You still haven't addressed the arguments. What is internally inconsistent?
p.s. I changed "old" to "retired" out of respect, and because I am retired myself, but not too old to understand things, and neither is that spook I think.
Well, I admit that calling me a troll is weak, but you haven't refuted any of my arguments. Are you saying that Pepe's old Spook is wrong?
VV is right. You are a troll.
Of course I'm saying Pepe's "old spook" is wrong because the argument is internally inconsistent, which you might have gleaned had you deigned to read my post.
Secondly, even if it weren't internally inconsistent, the argument follows the old pattern that this is all caused by the US pursuing its national interest at the expense of the Russians (now where have we heard that argument before?) and completely overlooks the historical forces leading to virtually all of Russian's satellite nations clamouring to get away from Russian influence. I'm not saying the US is without power and influence but it is hardly the only factor at work here.
And before you come up with the "but this is just US propaganda line", remember I live with Eastern European neighbours. There are currently 5 million refugees from Ukraine in Europe. Why would that be, do you think? Why do you think the Poles are so eager to help the Ukrainians defend themselves? Why does the national museum in Lithuania have one hall devoted to the horrors of Nazi occupation and five comparably sized halls devoted to the horrors of Soviet occupation?
So I submitted a few questions to a US Deep State old pro, now retired, and quite familiar with the inner workings of the old OSS, the CIA precursor, all the way to the neocon dementia.
His answers were quite sobering. He started by pointing out, "the whole Ukraine issue is over hypersonic missiles that can reach Moscow in less than four minutes. The US wants them there, in Poland, Romania, Baltic States, Sweden, Finland. This is in direct violation of the agreement in 1991 that NATO will not expand in Eastern Europe. The US does not have hypersonic missiles now but should - in a year or two. This is an existential threat to Russia. So they had to go into the Ukraine to stop this. Next will be Poland and Romania, where launchers have been built in Romania and are being built in Poland."
grief, if you guys are really so bad at arguing the case for the anti-US left-wing take on Ukraine, I might just have to help you.
1. Has the US used all its backdoor resources and connections to bring about a shift towards a liberal democracy in Ukraine and more importantly not one that merely culminated in the appointment of a puppet government in Russian interests? It almost certainly has. 2. Does the US generally want to prise open protected markets to create access for its corporations (with scant regard to local competitors or local protection)? Most definitely. 3. Does the US view Russian influence (both political and military) as detrimental to its own national interest and will therefore do all it can to weaken the position of the Russians? Most definitely. 4. Would the US like to have Russia as an ally in its geopolitical tussle with China for power and influence? Most definitely. 5. Would it therefore be interested in regime change in Russia and the installation of a more western-oriented government that was more interested in doing business on open markets than pursuing military goals? Most definitely.
etc. etc. None of this is new. That the US is not a fan of communism, socialism or any of its watered down forms, such as unionised labor, distributive taxation or more socially-amenable legislation, is no secret. If you were on the left, these would be reasons enough to view any expansion of US power with suspicion.
So, given all of the above, should Putin be alarmed about the perceived encroachment of liberal democracy? Again, most definitely.
But just stop for a minute, and think of the alternative Putin is offering. Even from a left-wing anti-US perspective I find it hard to see how anyone could view Putin's Russia as something to aspire to: A disfunctioning economy getting milked by a coterie of oligarchs each of whom maintain a portfolio of massive offshore assets A repressive regime that stamps down heavily on any dissension No real choice or ballot-box power An irrational fear of LBGT rights A notable absence of women in high-ranking positions A militaristic commander in chief known for a strategy of exercising maximum brutality in a long line of Soviet leaders infamous for their brutality.
Doesn't sound anything like a communist utopia to me. Not even close.
There's a reason so many satellite states of Russia clamoured for acceptance into NATO. And it's got absolutely zilch to do with any machinations by the US and absolutely everything to do with Russia's track record. What is happening in Ukraine is just the latest in a long line of Russian brutality.
As for the above argument of hypersonic ICBM... they are building the launching pads for missiles they haven't even developed yet? Yeah, right. Sure they are. Moreover, if the mere possession of these is an existential threat and Russia already has them and the US is a couple of years away from testing them, shouldn't it be the US that is feeling threatened? Which would then explain any of its alleged tinkering in Ukrainian politics, i.e. by your own reasoning, Putin brought this crisis upon himself.
So I submitted a few questions to a US Deep State old pro, now retired, and quite familiar with the inner workings of the old OSS, the CIA precursor, all the way to the neocon dementia.
His answers were quite sobering. He started by pointing out, "the whole Ukraine issue is over hypersonic missiles that can reach Moscow in less than four minutes. The US wants them there, in Poland, Romania, Baltic States, Sweden, Finland. This is in direct violation of the agreement in 1991 that NATO will not expand in Eastern Europe. The US does not have hypersonic missiles now but should - in a year or two. This is an existential threat to Russia. So they had to go into the Ukraine to stop this. Next will be Poland and Romania, where launchers have been built in Romania and are being built in Poland."
You are a troll and complete idiot. There is no credence to any of this. The Ukraine issue has nothing to with the fairy tale you are pushing.
People always talk about short flight times with hypersonic missiles but there is something more significant about them (which is why polite people don't talk about it): the tremendous momentum of a heavy bomb moving that fast. If delivered accurately, they can destroy bunkers buried deep within a mountain. Two hundred yards of steel-reinforced concrete is nothing. So there is no hiding from them, even while they don't make a mess on the surface. This is why "less than four minutes" is so threatening. Just going down to the bunker won't save you.
So I submitted a few questions to a US Deep State old pro, now retired, and quite familiar with the inner workings of the old OSS, the CIA precursor, all the way to the neocon dementia.
His answers were quite sobering. He started by pointing out, "the whole Ukraine issue is over hypersonic missiles that can reach Moscow in less than four minutes. The US wants them there, in Poland, Romania, Baltic States, Sweden, Finland. This is in direct violation of the agreement in 1991 that NATO will not expand in Eastern Europe. The US does not have hypersonic missiles now but should - in a year or two. This is an existential threat to Russia. So they had to go into the Ukraine to stop this. Next will be Poland and Romania, where launchers have been built in Romania and are being built in Poland."
So I submitted a few questions to a US Deep State old pro, now retired, and quite familiar with the inner workings of the old OSS, the CIA precursor, all the way to the neocon dementia.
His answers were quite sobering. He started by pointing out, "the whole Ukraine issue is over hypersonic missiles that can reach Moscow in less than four minutes. The US wants them there, in Poland, Romania, Baltic States, Sweden, Finland. This is in direct violation of the agreement in 1991 that NATO will not expand in Eastern Europe. The US does not have hypersonic missiles now but should - in a year or two. This is an existential threat to Russia. So they had to go into the Ukraine to stop this. Next will be Poland and Romania, where launchers have been built in Romania and are being built in Poland."
Yes, clearly the existence of an independent country on Russia's borders, outside its hegemony, was an existential threat that justifies the invasion, occupation, and ultimate dissolution of that country. Bombing cities to rubble, killing vast numbers of human beings, and seizing territory are proportional responses to such an aggressive act. They were clearly asking for it—especially the civilians. How dare they assert that mere voting trumps the interests of a powerful neighbor?
If the fingerprints of a global rival can be found (or manufactured) anywhere near the scene that is further justification. The US had it coming, and Ukrainians must be punished for it.
If any of this sounds familiar it's because it is: a reflexive anti-Americanism embedded in parts of the political left and populist right—call it the Noam Chomsky wing. If America (meaning the US government, or some American, or some movement or trend that can in any way be associated with America, however tenuously) does or says something, it's bad. If another power opposes this thing, that opposition is virtuous and justified, and any means of opposition necessary are justified.
If you think I'm making this up have a look at this. Before you hit the reply button I want to acknowledge that The Grayzone and the Gravel Institute are not the same thing, but they share the same message. The Gravel Institute is maybe a bit more cerebral in their approach, where The Grayzone is more down-in-the-gutter.
try me.