In the Same Week as His “Brutal Invasion” Gaffe, Bush Falls Victim to Russian Pranksters
George W. Bush was in the news last week thanks to a major gaffe where he referred to “the decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean of Ukraine.”
Unfortunately for the gaffe-prone former president, he can’t catch a break. Footage has now emerged of him being prank-called by two notorious Russian pranksters: Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexei Stolyarov. (Some of their previous antics are covered in this 2016 Guardian article.)
In the phone call, someone posing as Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky asks Bush, “You know that the narrative, in the early 90s, Secretary of State Baker promised Gorbachev not to expand NATO, but this would be completely wrong, especially with the threats that Russia poses now.”
Bush responds, “Yeah, that’s right. Listen, times change. Baker, you know, he was the Secretary of State for my dad – which was years ago. And so the United States must be flexible, adjusting to the times, and that’s why you’re finding such strong support for your country now.”
Many commentators have interpreted this as an admission by Bush that Baker did promise Gorbachev that NATO would not expand. And it certainly looks that way.
However, it’s not an open and shut case. For example, “that’s right” could mean “it’s right that not expanding NATO would have been wrong, given the threats now posed by Russia”. And “times change” could mean “the threats posed by Russia have changed”.
When Bush says, “Baker, you know, he was the Secretary of State for my dad – which was years ago”, he could be implying that the relevant events happened so long ago that it’s hard to know what really happened. Of course, the other interpretation is that the promise was made “years ago” but “times change”.
Why does it matter? Putin has claimed that Russia was misled by the West about NATO expansion, which he sees as a threat to Russian interests. In his February 22nd speech, the Russian leader said “they have deceived us, or, to put it simply, they have played us”, citing “promises not to expand NATO eastwards even by an inch”.
This refers to an assurance Baker gave Gorbachev in 1990 that “there will be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction or NATO’s forces one inch to the East” if German reunification takes place. Interestingly, however, Baker subsequently denied that he ever “intended to rule out the admission of new NATO members”.
Scholars disagree about exactly what Russia was promised during the negotiations over German reunification. Yet a strong case can be made that the US “did indeed offer the Soviets informal non-expansion assurances”, as the political scientist Joshua Shifrinson argued in a prize-winning 2016 article.
Shifrinson summarised his arguments in an op-ed for the LA Times, writing: “The West has vigorously protested that no such deal was ever struck. However, hundreds of memos, meeting minutes and transcripts from U.S. archives indicate otherwise.”
According to a PolitiFact article from February, Shifrinson still holds the same view, and in fact recently discovered additional supporting evidence: a document in the British National Archives that quotes a German official as saying, “We had made it clear during the 2+4 negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe”.
The fact that Western countries broke these “informal assurances” does not justify Putin’s invasion, Shifrinson notes. However, “Russia’s leaders may be telling the truth when they claim that Russian actions are driven by mistrust.”
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
No doubt the promise was given. Was it wise? Probably.
Should it have been honoured? Probably.
Should the US have courted Russia rather than pushing it into the arms of China? Certainly.
“Should the US have courted Russia rather than pushing it into the arms of China? Certainly.”
If the Empire of Lies were not an empire of lies, NATO would have been disbanded after the end of the Soviet threat.
If we were dealing in rationality, we would understand that NATO became a different question entirely for Russians with the demise of the Warsaw Pact, created in response to the integration of West Germany into NATO in 1955.
They know what it is to fight for their lives; and they know what happened to them when they were perceived as being relatively defenceless.
Rather than being courted, Russia was effectively raped. The horrors of the 1990s saw economic devastation and serious societal breakdown.
To their great credit, they have re-built their economy. Any reasonable observer would have to acknowledge that. It was meant to collapse in the face of “shock and awe” sanctions, but it has exhibited a strength and resilience that is extraordinarily impressive.
As for the strength of their society, people might like to look at Russians parading through their streets in the millions, across the country, on May 9: proudly bearing the photographs of those who served and died for them – to honour and thank them.
Actually, Putin just got lucky with the oil price. That’s pretty much the beginning and the end of it.
And everybody has been unlucky, yeh sure.
When Putin came to power oil was about $20 a barrel, a very low level and the direct cause of much of Russia’s problems.
10 years later it passed $100 a barrel. Nothing to do with him, but for an economy almost entirely reliant on one product it was transformative.
You really should go out more.
That wasn’t a “gaffe” it was a classic Freudian slip, perhaps the best of all time. He told the truth. He knows damn well what he did was AT LEAST as bad as Putin, and so does Blair. Everyone knows except our scum media and clownworld politicians in fact.
Our disgraceful media outlets are now so compromised by accepting thirty pieces of silver they are effectively trapped. Their situation is now so dire that they can only function as propagandist organs of the state. They have forfeited whatever honesty they once had.
The future of real news will never revert to the mainstream. They may linger on as paid monkeys but most outlets will wither and die.
The main thing Putin has done wrong in regard to Ukraine is not acting sooner. Still better late than never.
There’s a case to be made for that, but recall that Russia has been recovering militarily and economically from its low point in the 1990s, and the cautious Putin side of the argument was that Russia was not ready to resist the force the US sphere would throw at it, in terms of sanctions and diplomatic pressure as well as military technology and forces.
Remember some of the weapons Russia relies upon to deter or counter NATO aggressive intervention have only recently been deployed.
Yes Russia was much weaker in 2014, but Ukraine was comparatively far weaker at that time. In the period from then until February this year the ethnic Russian Donbass breakaway republics lost around 14000 people as a direct result of the indiscriminate shelling from the Ukrainian government forces.
The main problem I think – the main reason for waiting, was that the Russian economy would have been genuinely collapsed if it had faced the “shock and awe” sanctions a few years ago.
The Russians were clearly acting as fast as they could to prepare for them, because they knew they were coming, but nobody could be certain that the preparations would be sufficient. Most in the west certainly didn’t think so, and expected a collapse.
In this context, note should be taken of the exceptional work done by Elvira Nabiullina, who was appointed head of the Central Bank of Russia in 2013.
She was impressive enough to be named the “Central Bank Governor of the Year” by Euromoney in 2015; and “Central Banker of the Year, Europe” by The Banker in 2017.
Those were the days when serious Western journals were still capable of some degree of objectivity with regard to Russia.
All possibly so, I won’t argue about that.
I am sure that most of us on here are aware of that.
However MSM are not reporting this.
The six new strategic weapons announced on 1 March 2018 included the Kinzhal – which was first launched in November 2019 and reached a speed of Mach 10. It was deployed in Syria in June 2021.
Agreed
A pure Monty Python skit come to life unfortunately.
I think Kissinger’s intervention, calling for a deal with Russia is highly significant.
I think the old war criminal is aware of the fact that the intention of the neocons is to push the Ukraine conflict from a US-Russia proxy war to an open confrontation and nuclear war. That’s on top of Biden saying the US will defend Taiwan in the event of an invasion.
As for Bush, he deserves what he gets. If you want to despair, see the pranksters’ interviews with Priti Patel and Ben Wallace.
Probably the least painful way to end the conflict is for someone to put some lead between Putin’s ears. I am personally surprised that hasn’t happened yet but give it time. The oligarchs can’t be enjoying life right now.
Your faulty assumption that Russia is a repressed pro-western country yearning to be free of Putin is deluded. If Putin died today, he would be replaced and not by a pro-westerner, but by somebody less nuanced.
The neocons in DC have been saying since 1992 that a new world power cannot be permitted to rise on the territory of Russia. Maybe you ought to focus less on what’s between Putin’s ears and what’s not between yours.
Well said.
Bollocks, ordinary Russians when allowed to speak openly yearn for a more Western life as was observed by them lapping up Western offerings from the day macdonalds moved in.
The stranglehold that Putin and his close circle of crooks have over Russia can be broken from within.
The assumption that any alternative would even less pro-Western is complete fantasy.
Maybe you West-hating pro Kremlin tosspots could kindly fuck off and choose which side your bread is buttered on?
Putin has an 83% approval rate in Russia. When has a western leader ever achieved that?
Russians have western lives, or at least as much as they can stomach.
A friend of mine lives in Ufa (look it up) in a three bedroom luxury apartment overlooking the Hilton and Holiday Inn hotels. He assures me the Russians are disgusted at the west’s capitulation to woke ideology and the surrender of our Democracies and freedoms Russians were deprived of for so many years.
Putin has participated in building 30,000 Christian Churches across Russia since 1991. Tyrants are usually noted for destroying Churches rather than building them.
And we know the Americans were lying about Russia when Trump was impeached for colluding with them and completely exonerated. Meanwhile, the Durham investigation appears to be heading towards exposing the Clinton’s and their foundation for funding that victimisation of a sitting POTUS.
All you know about Russia is what you digest from the BBC and the rest of the western MSM.
You obviously know on which side your bread is buttered!
But who am I to comment being only a simple West-hating pro Kremlin tosspot.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/ukraine-good-russia-bad-no-heres-the-truth-about-that-official-narrative/
An excellent summary of the Russia / Ukraine situation from a Swiss intelligence officer with a damn sight more knowledge than the troll you have responded to Londo.
The fact that you think that replacing Putin would “end the conflict” merely reflects the degree to which you have bought into the childish propaganda that personalises (as always) the issues so as to try to make US rivals seem irrational. The fact that the economic “shock and awe” attempt has failed so utterly, and that the Russians are slowly but surely winning the war on the ground, means that time is on the side of the Russians and the war will end when they achieve their goals, and not before.
The likelihood is that a replacement for Putin would be from the school of Russian thought that sees Putin as too soft on “the west”, especially if it resulted from an assassination that was attributed to US sphere agents.
The only positive effect from such a change of leader in Russia would probably be the opportunity it would provide for some in the US sphere to climb down from their literally stupid, dogmatic “
AssadPutin must go” positions, and make the necessary compromises.Quite why Toby hasn’t offered you a job as a DS staff writer is one of life’s great mysteries, Mark. 😉
Excellent post!
Appreciate the compliment, cheers timsk.
I would prefer if you didn’t feed the troll and I am sure many on here share this view.
Agreed
!?
I absolutely concur.
It will result from an assassination from within Russia. Watch and learn.
Well “Assad must go” is still waiting nearly a decade on. I recall folk like you telling me the exact same things about Assad back then.
Time will tell.
Meanwhile, speaking of “watch and learn”, you didn’t answer my question to you a few days back about how you explain a “beaten” army repeatedly defeating strong defensive positions prepared for years.
And Libyan regime change by 0bama was such a success.
Assad is still there but Cameron, Obama, Sarkozy, Merkel and everyone else (besides Putin) has gone.
“Cameron, Obama, Sarkozy, Merkel and everyone else (besides Putin) has gone“
Cameron, Obama, Sarkozy, Merkel were all noxious, but are any of their replacements any noticeable improvement?
Don’t you like democracy?
Peaceful transition of power is its single biggest advantage.
When Putin goes, as with so many other dictators, it will probably be in violence and civil war.
eejit. You really know nothing.
Just because you continue to regurgitate your desires doesn’t make them any more acceptable.
We all know your blinkered views on the matter. Facts just don’t penetrate your thick skull.
I’m afraid that’s a very naive viewpoint. Putin is actually something of a moderate within the Russian power structure. There are plenty of far more hawkish players who would relish the massive propaganda boost such an act would give them in their push for considerably tougher military action, and not just in Ukraine. It would be pretty much the worst thing that could happen for Ukraine.
Let’s imagine Medvedev with Putin’s murder to avenge. Or let’s not.
This means they’ve been lying? I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you.
“However, “Russia’s leaders may be telling the truth when they claim that Russian actions are driven by mistrust.””
Mistrust is a euphemism here. The Russians don’t just “mistrust” US elite intentions – they know beyond question, after thirty years of hard experience, that US elites are dishonest expansionists with a track record of subversion and military aggression, who will brook no dissent from their ideology of woke globalism and no resistance to their power. And they know that falsehood is the essence of the Empire of Lies, both of its woke globalist dogmas and.of its expansionist approach to international relations.
Russian Ops in Ukraine: Ukraine is Blocking Own Ports, Losing Ground in Donbas
US Sees Anti-China Setback after Philippine Elections
Russians can read things like the Wolfowitz doctrine and the ravings of the Henry Jackson Society/Project for a New American Century.
It’s not like these issues are open to any honest dispute. You need real determination to not see them.
If you believe that this video on Ukraine is a neutral observation, you are very mistaken.
Neutral, no. Honest and broadly accurate? Pretty much, I think.
It’s a matter of observable fact that there was no formal deal, or else the Russians would be able to produce it.
What has been exchanged in conversations through the decades is another matter.
But the alleged Baker deal, which is the most often quoted, is incorrect simply because it was only the first in a series of meetings in 1990. The deal wasn’t struck till 6 months later.
Gorbachev did indeed concede to a unified Germany being part of NATO, basically because the SU was broke and they offered financial incentives.
Exactly, I can’t imagine even if there was it was unconditional. What if, for example, Russia invaded a neutral country bordering a Nato one?
So, what was it that persuaded the Soviets to withdraw from East Germany and eastern Europe?
People who posit this line of argument about it not being in writing are like dodgy builders. The only difference is that the consequences of dodgy builders are confined to a house or a bank balance whereas the consequences of those who don’t understand diplomacy and geopolitics potentially extend to the death of nations (or of the planet).
They withdrew because a) the SU was broke and b) they understood that trying to hold East Germany would mean a bloodbath.
The treaty (signed in September, not in Feb as frequently alleged) made no mention of NATO at all.
The conversations leading up to the deal were exclusively about the potential status of a united Germany in NATO, not the rest of Eastern Europe (which nobody realised was about to become possible).
In Gorbachev’s words: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was never discussed; it was not raised in those years. I am saying this with a full sense of responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country brought up the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact had ceased to exist in 1991,” (interview with newspaper Kommersant in October 2014.)
The pro-Russian articles are coming slightly more frequently, these days.
Need to keep whipping up Putin support?
No – need to find some exit strategy which does not involve nuclear escalation…
A) Whatever the truth about Baker’s alleged comments, commitments suggested during the course of negotiations between countries are irrelevant to international affairs, the only things which count are written and signed formal treaties. Treaties such as the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, signed by the Russian Federation and including the following clauses: Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine. Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine to influence their politics. Taking that into consideration the February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine plus all which preceded it in terms of aggressive interference in its internal affairs (including the annexation of Crimea) shows which direction any lack of trust should go. B) The idea that the Putin regime was ever concerned about the prospect of a NATO invasion of their mass nuclear-armed and gigantic country was always preposterous. They have just utterly proven this by invading the NATO-leaning and NATO-supported Ukraine – knowing that this would give NATO (and indeed any non-NATO states) a legitimate excuse to intervene militarily (under UN Charter Article 51 ‘Nothing in the present Charter shall impair… Read more »
Respect Ukrainian independence… They did. Right up until the point that it became a Western military industrial playground with laws enacted against Russian speakers, indiscriminate violence against separatists, Western bioweapons labs and nuclear ambitions.
As if you’ve swallowed all that bullshit
Clearly I don’t think it is bullshit. Followed the coup very closely in 2014 and the ultimate conflict did not come as a surprise. That’s not ‘support for Putin’ – that’s reality.
The US broke those agreements by (a) Breaking the promise not to expand NATO (b) Installing a puppet government in Kiev. Even in domestic contract law there are often considerations not referenced in the actual contract which are taken for granted. These are called implied terms, and it’s what protects you when you buy something from (for example) a supermarket.
But let’s assume you are correct. I’m sure that you’ll enjoy reflecting on the correctness of your position amidst the post-apocalyptic rubble.
The US broke those agreements No, it is self-evidently Russia which has not just broken the Budapest Memorandum but run it through the shredder. by (a) Breaking the promise not to expand NATO Please see the above, but in any case the Budapest Memorandum had precisely zero to do with NATO expansion. It consisted of commitments made by its signatories not just to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine (and others), but to come to come their aid militarily if they were ever attacked. Which currently puts Russia in a very interesting position. (b) Installing a puppet government in Kiev. There is no ‘puppet government’ in Ukraine, both President Zelensky and the members of the country’s parliament have been voted in in fully democratic elections. If you are referring to the events of 2014, that consisted of the then President Yanukovych illegitimately reneging on an EU trade deal which had both been part of his own electoral platform and was overwhelmingly supported by the Ukrainian parliament. Instead he unilaterally imposed measures designed to tie the Ukrainian economy to Russia. The peaceful popular demonstrations in Kiev which ensued were met with overwhelming brute force (there was some limited defensive counter-violence in the… Read more »
Some implied terms of contractual agreements are so fundamental in English law that if they are broken the contract is void or voidable.
If you are pushing the idea of a legitimate removal of Yanukovic I suggest you simply search online for Victoria Nuland’s conversation with Ambassador Pyatt in which they discuss the personnel of the new government (while Yanukovic was still in office). key words for your search “F*** the EU” and “Yats is our guy.”
As for challenging neo-fascistic military aggression,” did you challenge the NATO bombing of Serbia or the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, or the destruction of Libya? Maybe raised a voice of concern over the western starvation policy in the Yemen conflict?
Firstly, the Nuland phone call contradicts the main conspiracy theory claim – that the Maidan protests were orchestrated by the US and the EU.
Secondly, you can’t say it took place when Yanukovitch was still in office, because it’s undated. However it was clearly after an election had been called. Yanukovitch resigned only the next day, so it’s almost certainly after he’d already gone.
It’s unsurprising that the US had an interest in who would succeed Yanukovitch, but it’s clear from he call that the only tool they had at their command was persuasion,
In comparison, Russian influence and bribery was on a colossal scale.
I remember it being broadcast/published well before the coup. Your timeline is confused and incorrect and your ilk rely on people having short memories or no memory to spread your untruths.
Some implied terms of contractual agreements are so fundamental in English law that if they are broken the contract is void or voidable. There were no contractual terms, implied or otherwise, just an alleged statement made during the course of negotiations by one US official (not even the President). Clearly if Russia really did believe that a commitment to non-NATO expansion was both crucial to their interests and that one that had actually been made (and remember Mr Baker could both be overruled or change his own mind on this) they would have insisted on it being written into a formal agreement. One which does not exist. In any case all of these tenuous arguments about un-verifiable promises over NATO non-expansion in eastern Europe are irrelevant to and complete distractions from the central point; That Russia never genuinely feared that NATO (of whatever size) posed any sort of existential threat, as they have now unambiguously demonstrated by their invasion of the NATO-backed Ukraine. If you are pushing the idea of a legitimate removal of Yanukovic It is not an idea, the Ukrainian Parliament voted 328 to zero for his removal from office. I suggest you simply search online for Victoria… Read more »
2015…..Ukraine Agrees To Monsanto Land Grab For $17 Billion IMF Loan
The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) is helping biotech run the latest war in Ukraine. Make no mistake that what is happening in the Ukraine now is deeply tied to the interests of Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, and other big players in the poison food game.
Previously, there was a ban on private sector land ownership in the country – but it was lifted ‘just in time’ for Monsanto to have its way with the Ukraine.
KIEV, June 11 (Reuters) – U.S. chemical giant DuPont launched a seeds plant in Ukraine on Tuesday designed to help farmers increase harvests with more productive seeds, the company said.
The plant, which cost more than $40 million, is located in the central region of Poltava, the key area for Ukrainian agriculture.
The facility will produce seeds of maize, sunflower and rape, it said in a statement.
https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/Brief_CorporateTakeoverofUkraine_0.pdf
The corporate takeover of Ukrainian agriculture.
proxy country in a proxy war…all curtesy of the USA.
2015…..Ukraine Agrees To Monsanto Land Grab In 2015 Monsanto was proposing to invest $140 million in facilities in Ukraine, so clearly no ‘grab’. It is unclear whether that investment went ahead as they were taken over by the German company Bayer in 2016, but Bayer is currently involved in ‘crop science’ activities in Ukraine so that probably does include GM. For $17 Billion IMF Loan The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) is helping biotech run the latest war in Ukraine. I can find no source which demonstrates that allowing GM crops in Ukraine (at the time banned) was a condition of this loan. What I can find is a request by several of Ukraine’s own agricultural bodies including the Ukrainian Grain Association for this reform: Large Ukrainian agricultural associations have prepared draft amendments to the law on the state biosecurity system in creating, testing, transportation and use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) regarding the legalization of genetically modified seeds… President of the Ukrainian Grain Association (UGA) Volodymyr Klymenko said at a press conference at Interfax-Ukraine that the relevant appeal to the president, the head of the Verkhovna Rada and the heads of parliamentary factions was signed by six agricultural… Read more »
Hahahaha!
Crimea voted overwhelmingly to leave, like Scotland almost did. They didn’t like Maidan and wanted closer ties with Russia instead. If Crimea had been annexed by force, certainly, they’d have seized the moment and would now be fighting against their Russian oppressors who tore them from Ukraine by force?
No. Nothing of the sort. I bet Crimeans are thanking god that there is no fighting on their land like in Mariupol.
Speaking of Mariupol….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ5H9S2pv08
james Mates reporting on violence in Mariupol, in 2014
and yet the same ITV in Feb 2022 would forget everything and state that mad Putin invaded peaceful and democratic Ukraine unprovoked w/o there being any past history between the two countries. And an average Joe would swallow it fully and accept the proxy war which will bankrupt him soon.
Scotland voted to remain in the UK.
Most residents were pro Russian, but Crimea was still seized by force.
There are of regions in countries all round the world that would choose independence if they could get it.
Like Chechnya.
Just. a couple of hundred thousands more voting to leave and they’re out-out. Or if the indyref happened after Brexit, they’d most certainly voted to leave to be closer to other country(s) being free from Westminster pull and the policies they didn’t like. Remind you of something?
Certainly doesn’t remind me of Russia.
The UK is one of just a couple of countries in recent history that has allowed secession polls.
So why are so many Chechens fighting on the DPR/LPR side? Maybe because it’s not as simple as you like to portray.
https://www.specialeurasia.com/2022/02/25/ukraine-kadyrovtsy-chechnya/
Please explain to me why does Russia have to give excuses for its invasion of the Ukraine. Surely a country hell bent on a naked act of unilateral imperial aggression would not be that concerned about giving excuses for such an act.
Carl had also published two papers on whether larger Muslim populations make terrorism more likely and one suggesting that British stereotypes about immigrants are “largely accurate”.[19] In relation to the latter article, the New Statesman quoted Dr. Niko Yiannakoulias of McMaster University as commenting: “It is never OK to publish research this bad, even in an inconsequential online journal.”[19]
Ad hominem. Your implicit concession of defeat on the issues is noted.
“New Statesman quoted Dr. Niko Yiannakoulias of McMaster University as commenting: “It is never OK to publish research this bad, even in an inconsequential online journal.”[19]”
Gosh, rubbishing information and research that offends against mainstream dogma! Never seen that before.
The reputation of a commentator is clearly relevant. It might be ad hominem, but it’s a necessary and relevant ad hominem.
At least it is specific and focussed, as opposed to ludicrous dismissals of the entire BBC and any other so-called MSM, no matter how uncontentious the report.
The key fact is the absence of any formal agreement or treaty to support the Russian point of view on NATO expansion.
Stuff that people say in corridors or on the way to an agreement doesn’t count, and the Russians themselves would say in reverse.
“The reputation of a commentator is clearly relevant.”
Well no, exactly the opposite is true as far as the quality of a particular argument is concerned, which is the point of ad hominem being a fallacy, of course.
“Reputation” can be relevant in political terms or if it introduces some reason specifically to suspect the writer of dishonesty, but that’s not the case here, it’s merely a matter of trying to smear the writer in general terms in order to attack the position he is arguing. Classic ad hominem.
“It might be ad hominem, but it’s a necessary and relevant ad hominem.”
LOL! Of course it is. But you’d be whining like a toddler if it were done to you or “your side”.
“At least it is specific and focussed, as opposed to ludicrous dismissals of the entire BBC and any other so-called MSM, no matter how uncontentious the report.“
Doubting the information provided by established liars and purveyors of dishonest propaganda is mere common sense. “Fool me once”, etc.
Comes under the category mentioned previously of “introduces some reason specifically to suspect the writer of dishonesty.”.
Well, you’ve managed to conclude that it’s wrong for someone to criticise your (single person) news source, but ok for you to dismiss the entire media industry, with 10s of thousands of contributors.
If you can produce evidence of Noah Carl lying in past writings with intent to manipulate opinion, as the US sphere mainstream media has been doing systematically for decades, then that would be a legitimate ad hominem point to raise. General smears about him writing stuff that offends against Official Truth and upsets dogmatic elites is not that. Obviously.
The output of the entire MSM is massive. Of course you can find examples of lying and error.
I don’t like many of its incarnations either. That’s the point, they represent a very wide range of views.
The whole Covid-19/vaccine coverage of the msm was a lie from start to finish.
Why would we care what Dr Niko’s opinions are, and why do they count more than Noah Carl’s? Dr. Niko Yiannakoulias, is an Assistant Professor, School of Geography and Earth Sciences…does it make him an expert?
Stereotypes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrcuWqw2tT8
Bolton, Lancashire..children on the school run chanting allahu akbar
“It is never OK to publish research this bad”
This level of hypocrisy is amazing coming from marxists!
We knows it was promised. They also know it was promised. And we know they know and they know we know.
But, yeah, let’s continue indulging the idea that maybe it wasn’t because admitting we’re at least partly responsible for provoking Russia is unthinkable.
Russia is evil, Putin is evil. And that is what we are sticking with.
We know above all else is that something repeated enough times becomes the truth whether it bears any resemblance to reality or not.
In this world of obedient zombies the most important battleground is the communications one.
The shelling and destruction of entire cities and murder of innocent civilians under the command of Putin certainly looks pretty damn evil to me
Funny how war looks evil to US sphere supporters when one side does it but not the other. When this is pointed out they falsely claim “whataboutery”, when the issue is their own dishonesty.
Such wailing about the inherent evils of war is legitimate only when coming from genuine pacifists who oppose it whenever it is done, not from those who selectively pretend to hate it when their enemies do it.
Pacifism, of course, has its own problems in the real world.
Explain how it looks from the other side. From a Russian perspective, why is it necessary to destroy entire cities and murder innocent civilians?
“From a Russian perspective, why is it necessary to destroy entire cities and murder innocent civilians?”
If you consider why you (presumably) were happy to see Mosul “destroyed” in 2016-17, you will presumably be able to understand why the same applies to cities occupied by Ukrainian forces, from the Russian pov.
This kind of transferring of pov is something most people acquire as they reach adulthood.
War involves violence. Best not to provoke it lightly.
So your stance is don’t poke the bear because you’re frightened of it?
That exactly is what Putin thrives on, fear.
what pity we have become a nation of such utter fannnies.
Don’t poke the bear because actions have consequences. The Russians have been trying to talk for many years but the West prefers war-war to jaw-jaw.
You ought to be genuinely frightened by such weapons as the Sarmat-28.
Exactly as Londo stated.
Your position is the equivalent of saying someone who declines to poke his finger in a hornet’s nest is a coward because he’s “afraid of the hornets”.
Russia was never a threat to the US, UK or any country of “the west”, until the US decided to push into Russia’s neighbourhood. That decision was at best gratuitous, and in reality motivated by aggressive intent towards Russia.
A different approach of aligning with Russia against China would have been far more productive in US sphere power terms, but would have required compromises the neocons and liberal interventionists etc were not prepared to make, such as accepting that their ideology of woke globalism was not universally applicable as moral imperative.
A peculiar way of describing living in your own home in your own country
Peculiar but not unprecedented. British forces occupied New York in 1776. But like Lugansk and Donetsk, the thirteen colonies had broken away.
The assault on Kyiv and Kharkiv, for example, cannot be justified as neither of them have any inclination to turn Russian.
At root is the fundamental hypocrisy of Putin, who crushes rebellions in Russia with absolute force, while encouraging them in a neighbour.
There has been no meaningful “assault” on either, in the military sense.
When and if those assaults do come, they will be intended to win the war. That’s what militaries do in a war.
This is unsustainable. But you’ve said it before and you’ll say it again.
Even our resident Russian, Lord Snootski, admitted it was a proper attack (although he went quiet on the subject when it failed).
“This is unsustainable. But you’ve said it before and you’ll say it again.”
No honest military analyst would pretend the forces deployed towards Kiev were even within an order of magnitude of what would be required to assault and occupy it against meaningful resistance.
Kharkov is more complicated because of its location, but like Mariupol it was occupied by nationalist fanatics who were prepared to fight.
Most likely in both cases these were demonstrations that would have taken the cities only if opposition completely collapsed (as in places like Melitopol and Kherson).
Oh gee. Why would anyone attack Kyiv, the centre of military and political power in Ukraine? As with much of the Russian advance west, they were in pursuit of retreating Ukrainian armour which they destroyed. Once that objective was achieved the Russians withdrew to a defensive position in the east, where they have largely been since. This is entirely consistent with Putin’s declared intention to assist in the defence of ethnic Russian culture and language in the region. Donbas has been under assault by western Ukraine since 2014, this is undisputed. Kyiv has never been the subject of a major assault from Donbas. This is also beyond dispute. Therefore, parking artillery on the border of Donbas and conducting a barrage into Donbas for seven days, irrespective of numbers fired, is an act of aggression by western Ukrainians. This is also beyond dispute. On that basis Putin invoked UN Article 51, which clearly states he is entitled to do in defence of a UN region, as Russia is also a UN member. This is beyond dispute. Article 51 is also clear. Notice of the defence of a fellow UN region need only be delivered to the Security Council when activities begin,… Read more »
Many of the cities in southern and eastern Ukraine regarded the Kiev regime forces as occupying forces. But you knew that.
Though in this case I was mainly using it in the basic meaning of occupying (being located in) a location.
I don’t think anyone did celebrate the destruction of Mosul – only the destruction of IS.
Putin’s premise was that Ukraine was ‘really’ Russian. The moment that was shown to be clearly untrue, he should have stopped.
His willingness to lay waste to Ukrainian territory is genuinely surprising though – I personally never thought he would do that. And from very early on.
“I don’t think anyone did celebrate the destruction of Mosul – only the destruction of IS.”
Nor does “anybody” (you will always find zealots to do so, in any cause) on the Russian side “celebrate” the destruction caused by the war in the Ukraine, only the necessary defeat of the Ukrainian regime forces.
“His willingness to lay waste to Ukrainian territory is genuinely surprising though – I personally never thought he would do that. And from very early on.”
Will the end, will the necessary means. The war must be won, because the circumstances, as often pointed out, are existential for Russia.
Russia (and Putin) hoped that the Ukrainians would see sense and reach a reasonable compromise settlement quickly. They did not, driven by false hopes, fanaticism and propaganda, and are paying the price.
If you want to blame anyone, blame the US sphere neocons who set the situation up and then encouraged a bloody fight in a hopeless and bad cause, at the cost of others’ blood and treasure.
Existential for Putin, but definitely not Russia.
Russia needs to stop playing the ‘Great Power’ game. It’s a waste of time and money.
If Ukraine ends up as a Russian fiefdom it will reduce Russian security, not enhance it.
So you claim, but all that is based on your delusional ideas that the world’s most powerful superpower, staffed by and actively supporting people who openly hate Russia and with a track record of both subversion and military aggression, can somehow be trusted not to follow its established procedures against Russia in future because….reasons.
Clearly you and I disagree about those realities, but what we believe is really not the issue. The issue is that what I have stated is undoubtedly how Russia sees it, and they will act on their understanding of reality, not yours or mine.
The established procedure for US v Russia is to avoid direct confrontation. An invasion of Russia by the US is fantasy.
An invasion of Russia by European NATO is even more fantastically unlikely. There’s more chance they’ll be invaded by Martians.
I am not a ‘US sphere supporter’ (whatever that means) but in any case have been opposed to warfare and all other forms of violence for several decades now. I was partially influenced in this by the great Russian writer Leo Tolstoy (though I disagree with him on many of his other positions such as his pro-poverty asceticism and quasi-environmentalism). From that perspective I don’t support any of the military activities taking place in Ukraine (ie by either side) but also recognise that defensive violence is inevitable in the current nation-state / armed force structure, and that Russia was and is overwhelmingly the aggressor and responsible for the situation. Regardless of that I wish to see a ceasefire and settlement (there and in all other war zones) asap. I realised a long time ago that simply opposing war was of no real use, indeed the unilateral disarmament approach is usually simply exploited to assist the expansionist agendas of more malign states and ideologies (eg The USSR fully backed CND in the UK, there was a degree of Nazi infiltration of the pacifist Peace Pledge Union in the 1930s etc). The only real way for humanity to overcome the scourge of… Read more »
The shelling and destruction of civilians and cities is what the Ukrainian armed forces have been doing on and off since 2014. It’s why the Minsk Accords were signed (and ignored).
Seems to me that – like Dubya with his talk of rigged elections – you are projecting.
Who cares what was promised?
Climate Change scientists are already on record as saying that if they have to lie to push their climate change agenda they will, because ‘the issue is so important’.
Vaccine scientists, big Pharma and the politicians have been continuously lying to enforce 100% jabs because ‘they are right’.
How is Foreign Policy any different?
Truth is offensive, in the Empire of Lies.
Is this the end for the Bush Dynasty?
Yesterday…
Ken Paxton defeats George P. Bush for the Republican nomination for Attorney General in Texas.
The West gave no promises, assurances or statements that NATO would not accept applications from nations formerly under soviet control/influence aka expanding NATO eastwards. It agreed not to station [non-German] NATO forces in the former East Germany (aka east of the Elbe), something it has followed scrupulously, unlike Russia and its promises/agreements/accords/treaties to protect Ukraine.
NATO has never been any physical threat to Russia other than as a homeowner willing to protect its property, just a group of homeowners forming a neighbourhood watch group looks to protect itself not attack people they think may be burglars in their own homes.
“NATO has never been any physical threat to Russia other than as a homeowner willing to protect its property, just a group of homeowners forming a neighbourhood watch group looks to protect itself not attack people they think may be burglars in their own homes.”
This kind of naivety requires a complete inability to look at the world from another perspective – the kind of failing that has led to wars time after time through human history.
The history of “colour revolution” subversion and open US wars of aggression looks very different from the other side. As does NATO’s track record of aggressive military action in Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya.
Piss off to Russia then and fight for them
Why? And have you signed up for Azov yet, since you seem to think that holding an opinion on international affairs requires taking arms in any foreign quarrel you have a view on?
You pick your side and you back it. That simple. I am pro-Western anti murderous evil twats like Putin.
Given the destruction of western values by western elites, anyone supportive of western values must be opposed to western policy.
“You pick your side and you back it. That simple.”
I’ll look out for videos of you walking into Russian captivity with other Azovs in due course, then (if you get lucky and avoid the pink mist option proved by Russian heavy ordnance).
I suggest you get a prominent “DS” tat in amongst the swastikas and 14/88s and black suns, so we can pick you out in the crowds.
If the West gave no promises, why did Moscow agree to withdraw from central and eastern Europe? What was the quo for the quid? Free lifetime membership for Gorbachev in Skull and Bones?
TROLL ALERT !
Please do not feed the trolls.
I’d be interested in your specific definition of troll, hux, and your argument for what constitutes “feeding” them and why it should be avoided, because clearly we disagree to some extent on this matter.
Backlash for instance has been around here a while, and while clearly he (I use the male here in the established English language usage for the general case where the sex is unknown to me) is quite abrupt, aggressive and personally offensive at times, and we disagree strongly on this and other issues, I’ve seen comments from him on other issues that I agree with.
Is he a “troll” because he refuses to agree on this issue?
I think we all know who the trolls are. The ones who deliberately draw people into pointless arguments that go no where and basically destroy a thread.
There are people I disagree with and trolls. I am prepared to offer a counter point of view to those I disagree with, the trolls I ignore.
The builders merchant is an obnoxious waste of space. The Finnish draft dodger is a time waster. I can’t be bothered doing a character demolition on the rest. If trolls are about I ignore them and those responding to them.
I do not have the patience nor hubris to believe my time is worthwhile spent in a game of “I’m cleverer than you.”
No personal offence intended.
Let’s just see what was actually put in writing and signed up to, shall we?
Oh!…..
Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation
‘To achieve the aims of this Act, NATO and Russia will base their relations on a shared commitment to the following principles:
….respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of borders and peoples’ right of self-determination as enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents’
‘Provisions of this Act do not provide NATO or Russia, in any way, with a right of veto over the actions of the other nor do they infringe upon or restrict the rights of NATO or Russia to independent decision-making and action. They cannot be used as a means to disadvantage the interests of other states.’
Paris 27 May 1997
‘Russian actions are driven by mistrust.’
There is a great deal of mistrust about.
‘In Estonia I originally come from one of the least integrated Russian speaking families and so I regularly come into contact with the most pro Russian people in the country. And while usually I am the only one arguing against them at the table, right now literally no one supports Russia or even tries to defend them. The most pro Russian position you will hear, is that the conflict needs to stop as soon as possible. For many of my own relatives this conflict served as an eye opening moment, that made them stop looking at Russian realities through their rose tinted glasses.’
If you wish for peace, then prepare for war.
Anecdotal evidence – it’s worth less-than-nothing.
Oh! You mean like: ‘Russian actions are driven by mistrust’.
The entire article is anecdotal; complete nonsense.
But we do know that Finland and Sweden are now joining NATO.
That is not anecdotal
Ukraine: Politicians Who Want War Should Be Forced Into the Ring
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF7onj6tMfA
Gerald Celente
Stand for freedom with our Yellow Boards By The Road next events
Saturday 28th May 3pm to 5pm
Yellow Boards LONDON
Junction Buckingham Palace Road/Victoria St,
London SW1E 5LB
Tuesday 31st May 2022 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
High St
(between Marlow Bridge & Pound Lane)
Marlow SL7 2AA
Stand in the Park Sundays from 10am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens
Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
All you need to know about the subject.
“Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?””
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
These allegations of historical commitments, none of which ever formed the part of any formal and signed agreements, are all irrelevant to the fact that in spite of the false claims Russia has (at least recently) not feared either NATO or its expansion;
If it had it would not have invaded Ukraine, thus giving NATO (and any other alliance or individual country) an entirely legitimate excuse to intervene under UN Article 51 ‘Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations’.
The Ukraine invasion has also encouraged other countries such as Finland and Sweden to join the defensive alliance, something which was entirely predictable.
The whole NATO fear issue is in fact hand-waving to try and distract from the unilateral and unprovoked nature of the Russian invasion.
A formal agreement has never stopped a war in the past, more important is the spirit of any negotiations which, by most accounts, have rarely been undertaken in good faith by the west and NATO. I include a short and by any reasonable definition, a comparatively neutral perspective on the matter from the Indian magazine, Frontline. https://tinyurl.com/ynvwma3k unprovoked nature of the Russian invasion. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, and you have sought to ignore, the Russian intervention was not unprovoked. Whilst 150,000 Russian troops were assembled on the easter Ukrainian/Russian border, western Ukraine embarked on a seven day artillery assault on the Donbas region. This is not in doubt as it was recorded by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine. As eastern Ukraine has been under siege for the last eight years from western Ukraine, a large scale artillery strike can only be an indication of an imminent armoured assault on the region. An offensive artillery barrage is invariably followed up by a ground assault. There can be only two reasons for this activity: Being that Russia had troops on standby, it was a suicide mission or, It was provocation to have Russia intervene, which it… Read more »
A formal agreement has never stopped a war in the past, more important is the spirit of any negotiations which, by most accounts, have rarely been undertaken in good faith by the west and NATO. I include a short and by any reasonable definition, a comparatively neutral perspective on the matter from the Indian magazine, Frontline. https://tinyurl.com/ynvwma3k Far from supporting it this Indian article further undermines the proclaimed Russian fear of NATO as an excuse for invading Ukraine, re: In 1997 NATO and Russia signed the “Founding Act” on mutual relations, cooperation, and security, and the NATO-Russia Council was founded in 2002, both of which were intended to boost cooperation. Moscow received access and a permanent presence at NATO headquarters in Brussels. But this exchange has been largely halted since Russia’s attack on Ukraine in 2014. In other words Russia showed absolutely no fundamental concerns about NATO, indeed fully cooperated with it, until the Putin regime decided to attack a country (by directly supporting the Donbas insurgency and annexing Crimea) that was showing a strong in interest in joining the alliance It thereafter increasingly used a manufactured NATO threat as one of its main militarily expansionist excuses. Whilst 150,000 Russian troops… Read more »
Regardless of whether it was promised or not, NATO expansion has always been a genuine concern for Russia who’s been very vocal about it, but arrogantly ignored by the US/West. Why Soviet nukes in Cuba and Chinese military bases on the Solomon Islands is a security concern for US, but Russian neighbours being in NATO is not?
Western countries broke these “informal assurances” Or not really….. ‘The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.” Michael Gorbachev 16 Oct 2014 So Baker’s informal assurance referred to NATO forces in eastern Germany, not to a broader commitment not to enlarge the Alliance. And then, on 27 May 1997, Russia signed the ‘Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation’ committing to: ‘…respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of borders… Read more »
Thankfully, you agree, you have said enough.
Perhaps you will now bore off.
You’re on the Bucky again.
Bringing NATO expansion into the argument is a smokescreen.
Countries join NATO entirely voluntarily of their own sovereign democratic free will.
I have never seen a logical explanation of why Russia should have any say on which countries join.
There was nothing to stop Russia creating its own NATO-like organisation and inviting neighbouring countries to join. But we all know, for obvious reasons, not a single country would have wanted to.