What does Putin want (and whatabout it)

jamie said:

Nan - are you onboard with this quote: 

Younger Russians are more susceptible to Western propaganda on social media, risk becoming zombified, believing such obvious disinfo as the Snake Island fable, the Ghost of Kiev & that Russia is targeting maternity hospitals not occupied by Azov NeoNazi deathsquads

Mark use UkraineNews a lot in his feed which we've already debunked as an incredibly pro-kremlin twitter handle.  Do you know know this?

Are you onboard with the detention center blown up by Ukraine also?

Seems like every bad missile strike was Ukraine hitting themselves.

I have been listening to Mark Sleboda for years.  He is from the US (Wilks-Barre, PA) but now lives in Russia with his wife, who is from Crimea.  He has relatives all over the Donbass.  He was a professor in Russia and he used to have a website--can't seem to find it now.  He's on Facebook.  

Anyway,  to me he is a trustworthy person and I value his opinion.  Did you listen to his interview with the New Atlas guy (whom is a new person I'm trying out!).  It's a good interview. 

jamie said:

For people who had such a high bar for any US invasion - you've certainly lowered it dramatically for this one.

Did you listen to the Australian journalist talking about Zelensky yet?  

Here are some more pissed off Donbas residents who have been abused by the West Ukranians.

jamie said:

Some response to the report:

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/06/1116179764/experts-widely-condemn-amnesty-international-report-alleging-ukrainian-war-crime

ESTRIN: So if what the Amnesty researchers documented is true, as you say, what is the criticism against the report?

HAYDA: Yeah, so the criticism mostly comes down to what the report doesn't say as opposed to what it does say. The report implies that Ukraine may be committing war crimes and says that soldiers actions might be interpreted as using civilians as human shields. So I talked to the report's author, Donatella Rivera, who's very well known in this area of human rights research. And she said that being in schools and hospitals isn't strictly against international law. And so critics are asking, who gets to determine what is or isn't within the bounds of international law? How far do soldiers need to be away from civilians, especially in cases of defensive urban warfare, to be within the bounds of legal warfare? It's just too ambiguous.

ESTRIN: This report has made a lot of people pretty mad in Ukraine, right?

HAYDA: Yeah. It's been the talk of the streets for days. There's even a viral meme that the organization might change its name to something like Shamnesty (ph) International. Now, one of the reasons for this is because Russia has been trying to justify its invasion of Ukraine since before it even happened. And Ukrainians are mad that Russian media has really run with this Amnesty report, and they've jumped onto some of those implied conclusions that Ukrainians are all war criminals. I talked to Ilya Lozovsky from the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which just like Amnesty, monitors compliance with international law in Ukraine. He says the Amnesty report was written so clumsily, it borders on negligent.

So, are you going to join the pile up and condemn this report?  You know the Ukrainians have been using civilians for human shields for months because Paul and I  have been bringing that up on MOL.  

Steve said:

Something about Nan's view of Ukrainians simply being pawns of the US/NATO/Atlantic Council (I should probably add in George Soros and Bill Gates) brings to mind a guy named Patrick Henry.  As I recall, he had something to say about a similar situation as the one in which the Ukrainians find themselves.  What was it that he said?  It's at the tip of my tongue - maybe Nan remembers.

OK, so I guess you do support the death of all the Ukrainians.  You got what you wanted.  Hope you are happy.  Not sure they are. 

nan said:

No, I don't concede anything.  The only numbers technically available are from the UN and those are 14,000 dead.  There was also a larger number for wounded.  We don't know if these numbers are accurate but they are all we have.

These numbers do not deny genocide in the Donbass.  If you think they do then you need to tell me what number justifies genocide.  Is it 14,0001?   Did we just miss it by one person?

There are many accounts by people living in the Donbass that they were fired upon by the Ukraine Military, specifically the Azov Batallion.  They lived in fear and many died.  They were hiding out in basements.  I have shown you multiple videos and movies documenting this and you ignored them or dismissed them and just keep asking for a specific number.  It's the sealion thing.

And once again - Ukraine and Russia are fighting a proxy war -- so Ukraine does not have sovereignty.    They are innocent pawns in a deadly geopolitical game. 

so embarrassing

nan said:

jamie said:

Some response to the report:

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/06/1116179764/experts-widely-condemn-amnesty-international-report-alleging-ukrainian-war-crime

ESTRIN: So if what the Amnesty researchers documented is true, as you say, what is the criticism against the report?

HAYDA: Yeah, so the criticism mostly comes down to what the report doesn't say as opposed to what it does say. The report implies that Ukraine may be committing war crimes and says that soldiers actions might be interpreted as using civilians as human shields. So I talked to the report's author, Donatella Rivera, who's very well known in this area of human rights research. And she said that being in schools and hospitals isn't strictly against international law. And so critics are asking, who gets to determine what is or isn't within the bounds of international law? How far do soldiers need to be away from civilians, especially in cases of defensive urban warfare, to be within the bounds of legal warfare? It's just too ambiguous.

ESTRIN: This report has made a lot of people pretty mad in Ukraine, right?

HAYDA: Yeah. It's been the talk of the streets for days. There's even a viral meme that the organization might change its name to something like Shamnesty (ph) International. Now, one of the reasons for this is because Russia has been trying to justify its invasion of Ukraine since before it even happened. And Ukrainians are mad that Russian media has really run with this Amnesty report, and they've jumped onto some of those implied conclusions that Ukrainians are all war criminals. I talked to Ilya Lozovsky from the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which just like Amnesty, monitors compliance with international law in Ukraine. He says the Amnesty report was written so clumsily, it borders on negligent.

So, are you going to join the pile up and condemn this report?  You know the Ukrainians have been using civilians for human shields for months because Paul and I  have been bringing that up on MOL.  

On the one hand, AI is just a front for the west - UNTIL they do something that you agree with.

You have no integrity at all.

drummerboy said:

nan said:

No, I don't concede anything.  The only numbers technically available are from the UN and those are 14,000 dead.  There was also a larger number for wounded.  We don't know if these numbers are accurate but they are all we have.

These numbers do not deny genocide in the Donbass.  If you think they do then you need to tell me what number justifies genocide.  Is it 14,0001?   Did we just miss it by one person?

There are many accounts by people living in the Donbass that they were fired upon by the Ukraine Military, specifically the Azov Batallion.  They lived in fear and many died.  They were hiding out in basements.  I have shown you multiple videos and movies documenting this and you ignored them or dismissed them and just keep asking for a specific number.  It's the sealion thing.

And once again - Ukraine and Russia are fighting a proxy war -- so Ukraine does not have sovereignty.    They are innocent pawns in a deadly geopolitical game. 

so embarrassing

For you. 

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

No, I don't concede anything.  The only numbers technically available are from the UN and those are 14,000 dead.  There was also a larger number for wounded.  We don't know if these numbers are accurate but they are all we have.

These numbers do not deny genocide in the Donbass.  If you think they do then you need to tell me what number justifies genocide.  Is it 14,0001?   Did we just miss it by one person?

There are many accounts by people living in the Donbass that they were fired upon by the Ukraine Military, specifically the Azov Batallion.  They lived in fear and many died.  They were hiding out in basements.  I have shown you multiple videos and movies documenting this and you ignored them or dismissed them and just keep asking for a specific number.  It's the sealion thing.

And once again - Ukraine and Russia are fighting a proxy war -- so Ukraine does not have sovereignty.    They are innocent pawns in a deadly geopolitical game. 

so embarrassing

For you. 

Everyone here is laughing at you every time you use the 14001 argument.

You are so out of your depth on this one. Absolutely no understanding of the issue at hand, even though it's been explained countless times. It's literally like we've been talking to a tree stump.

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

No, I don't concede anything.  The only numbers technically available are from the UN and those are 14,000 dead.  There was also a larger number for wounded.  We don't know if these numbers are accurate but they are all we have.

These numbers do not deny genocide in the Donbass.  If you think they do then you need to tell me what number justifies genocide.  Is it 14,0001?   Did we just miss it by one person?

There are many accounts by people living in the Donbass that they were fired upon by the Ukraine Military, specifically the Azov Batallion.  They lived in fear and many died.  They were hiding out in basements.  I have shown you multiple videos and movies documenting this and you ignored them or dismissed them and just keep asking for a specific number.  It's the sealion thing.

And once again - Ukraine and Russia are fighting a proxy war -- so Ukraine does not have sovereignty.    They are innocent pawns in a deadly geopolitical game. 

so embarrassing

For you. 

Everyone here is laughing at you every time you use the 14001 argument.

You are so out of your depth on this one. Absolutely no understanding of the issue at hand, even though it's been explained countless times. It's literally like we've been talking to a tree stump.

You live in Plato's cave and you only know the shadows on the wall.  You could leave the cave but you prefer to stay there with your friends, the cave crickets.  

nan said:

So, are you going to join the pile up and condemn this report?  You know the Ukrainians have been using civilians for human shields for months because Paul and I  have been bringing that up on MOL.  

But that would require us to believe that anything you say is NOT an outright lie. Unfortunately, I can't make that leap of faith.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

So, are you going to join the pile up and condemn this report?  You know the Ukrainians have been using civilians for human shields for months because Paul and I  have been bringing that up on MOL.  

But that would require us to believe that anything you say is NOT an outright lie. Unfortunately, I can't make that leap of faith.

You have never done anything except attack me like a troll.  You have NEVER actually had a two way conversation where you questioned something I said.  So, if you think I was untruthful, it is news to me and the world.  From what I can tell, you don't agree with me in general and look for opportunities to launch personal attacks.   

drummerboy said:

Everyone here is laughing at you every time you use the 14001 argument.

You are so out of your depth on this one. Absolutely no understanding of the issue at hand, even though it's been explained countless times. It's literally like we've been talking to a tree stump.

You should’ve heard everyone laughing at me when I kept talking to a tree stump.

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

No, I don't concede anything.  The only numbers technically available are from the UN and those are 14,000 dead.  There was also a larger number for wounded.  We don't know if these numbers are accurate but they are all we have.

These numbers do not deny genocide in the Donbass.  If you think they do then you need to tell me what number justifies genocide.  Is it 14,0001?   Did we just miss it by one person?

There are many accounts by people living in the Donbass that they were fired upon by the Ukraine Military, specifically the Azov Batallion.  They lived in fear and many died.  They were hiding out in basements.  I have shown you multiple videos and movies documenting this and you ignored them or dismissed them and just keep asking for a specific number.  It's the sealion thing.

And once again - Ukraine and Russia are fighting a proxy war -- so Ukraine does not have sovereignty.    They are innocent pawns in a deadly geopolitical game. 

so embarrassing

For you. 

Everyone here is laughing at you every time you use the 14001 argument.

You are so out of your depth on this one. Absolutely no understanding of the issue at hand, even though it's been explained countless times. It's literally like we've been talking to a tree stump.

You live in Plato's cave and you only know the shadows on the wall.  You could leave the cave but you prefer to stay there with your friends, the cave crickets.  

er, ok.

nan said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

So, are you going to join the pile up and condemn this report?  You know the Ukrainians have been using civilians for human shields for months because Paul and I  have been bringing that up on MOL.  

But that would require us to believe that anything you say is NOT an outright lie. Unfortunately, I can't make that leap of faith.

You have never done anything except attack me like a troll.  You have NEVER actually had a two way conversation where you questioned something I said.  So, if you think I was untruthful, it is news to me and the world.  From what I can tell, you don't agree with me in general and look for opportunities to launch personal attacks.   

Fair enough...I detest you, and everything you claim to stand for. I have no intention of ever engaging you in any substantive way, since I can't imagine debating a rock.

nan said:

No, I don't concede anything.  The only numbers technically available are from the UN and those are 14,000 dead.  There was also a larger number for wounded.  We don't know if these numbers are accurate but they are all we have.

These numbers do not deny genocide in the Donbass.  If you think they do then you need to tell me what number justifies genocide.  Is it 14,0001?   Did we just miss it by one person?

There are many accounts by people living in the Donbass that they were fired upon by the Ukraine Military, specifically the Azov Batallion.  They lived in fear and many died.  They were hiding out in basements.  I have shown you multiple videos and movies documenting this and you ignored them or dismissed them and just keep asking for a specific number.  It's the sealion thing.

And once again - Ukraine and Russia are fighting a proxy war -- so Ukraine does not have sovereignty.    They are innocent pawns in a deadly geopolitical game. 

You can break down the number in the past five years- surely they must have ramped up to need such a strong response.

One thing is for certain - a nan is100% behind regime change - the decimation of Ukraine has been nan approved - it's all NATOs fault - Russia and Vlad are saviors of the region!

The Ukraine country, people, culture and language will be phased out.  Mother Russia will bring things back to where they should be.  nan- let me know if you're opposed to any of this?

What is your plan for the refuges who wish to return?  What tests must they pass.  How does one truly prove they are NOT a nazi?

nan said:

No, I don't concede anything.  The only numbers technically available are from the UN and those are 14,000 dead.  There was also a larger number for wounded.  We don't know if these numbers are accurate but they are all we have.

These numbers do not deny genocide in the Donbass.  If you think they do then you need to tell me what number justifies genocide.  Is it 14,0001?   Did we just miss it by one person?

do you conceded that Russia could have had ANY resposibility for the 14,000 dead?  Will you admit the Wagner group had some action with this?

https://nypost.com/2022/02/24/wagner-group-private-mercenaries-fighting-in-ukraine/

Do you think more than 200 civilians died in the past 2 years prior to the War?

nan said:

OK, so I guess you do support the death of all the Ukrainians.  You got what you wanted.  Hope you are happy.  Not sure they are. 

Are you happy with the deaths of all of the russians?  What is wrong with you?

What would have happened if Vlad never invaded?  What was happening the was so important to strike.  Other then the fact that from a military standpoint, the  weather would have been perfect.  And from a global standpoint, everyone was recovering from the covid outbreak, so that chances of and resistance would have been much less than in normal times.

Why were ALL of you "reporters" making fun of Biden claiming Russia was going to attack?

jamie said:

nan said:

No, I don't concede anything.  The only numbers technically available are from the UN and those are 14,000 dead.  There was also a larger number for wounded.  We don't know if these numbers are accurate but they are all we have.

These numbers do not deny genocide in the Donbass.  If you think they do then you need to tell me what number justifies genocide.  Is it 14,0001?   Did we just miss it by one person?

There are many accounts by people living in the Donbass that they were fired upon by the Ukraine Military, specifically the Azov Batallion.  They lived in fear and many died.  They were hiding out in basements.  I have shown you multiple videos and movies documenting this and you ignored them or dismissed them and just keep asking for a specific number.  It's the sealion thing.

And once again - Ukraine and Russia are fighting a proxy war -- so Ukraine does not have sovereignty.    They are innocent pawns in a deadly geopolitical game. 

You can break down the number in the past five years- surely they must have ramped up to need such a strong response.

OK, so let me get this straight.  You don't think the people in the Donbass were harassed and attacked by Ukraine militia.  You think Putin made the whole thing up so he could have an excuse to invade for a land grab on his way to world domination?  Is this what you actually think?  I know you don't believe the US had anything to do with the 2014 coup.  So, it's really just that Putin woke up and was in a bad mood and decided to invade?   Is that it?  There was nothing going on in the world that might have influenced him?  I just want to get a clear picture here. 

do you believe that Ukraine was fighting separatists in Donbass, and these separatists were engaged in a proxy war, backed by Russia, until Russia actually sent in their own troops?

or do you have a fairy tale to share with us?

jamie said:

nan said:

OK, so I guess you do support the death of all the Ukrainians.  You got what you wanted.  Hope you are happy.  Not sure they are. 

Are you happy with the deaths of all of the russians?  What is wrong with you?

What would have happened if Vlad never invaded?  What was happening the was so important to strike.  Other then the fact that from a military standpoint, the  weather would have been perfect.  And from a global standpoint, everyone was recovering from the covid outbreak, so that chances of and resistance would have been much less than in normal times.

Why were ALL of you "reporters" making fun of Biden claiming Russia was going to attack?

I am anti-war and I think this one was very, very, very avoidable -- except it was not because it was planned.  

No one thought that Putin would attack because we thought he was too smart to take the bait. It had been eight years and he has always shown restraint.  What we did not know, which Biden knew, and Putin knew is that they were getting ready to launch a really big attack on the Donbas.  So, that was the last straw. 

"What we did not know, which Biden knew, and Putin knew is that they were
getting ready to launch a really big attack on the Donbas."

Now that begs for some background.

It's amazing how you add a new piece of fantasy every week.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

Paul was pushing his version of the Syrian conflict with a journalist who covered it on the ground.

Review by Michiko Kakutani in 2016, of "The Morning They Came for Us" by Janine DiGiovanni

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

In the five years since the Assad regime cracked down on peaceful antigovernment protests and the conflict escalated into full-blown civil war, more than 250,000 Syrians have been killed and some 12 million people — more than half the country’s prewar population — have been displaced, including five million who have fled to neighboring countries and to Europe in what the United Nations calls the largest refugee crisis since World War II.

In “The Morning They Came for Us,” Ms. di Giovanni gives us a visceral understanding of what it is like to live in wartime Syria, recounting some of the individual stories behind the numbing statistics: students who were whisked away by the police and interrogated and tortured; children who died from common infections because medicine and doctors were unavailable; women who were raped by soldiers at checkpoints and in jail; families who fled besieged cities like Homs, only to return because there was no place else to go.

The fact that much of the book’s on-the-ground reporting is confined to the early stages of the war only serves to remind the reader that the horrors she witnessed would escalate in the years to come — with still no end in sight.

...

A longtime reporter who covered the wars in Bosnia, Chechnya and Sierra Leone, Ms. di Giovanni writes here with urgency and anguish — determined to testify to what she has witnessed because she wants “people never to forget.” Her sorrow comes through in the writing — in the book’s staccato sentences, in its flashbacks to similar scenes of suffering in the Balkans, in its helpless empathy for people she met in Syria, like the ailing woman in a hospital who begged her to take her children away to some place safe.

Most of Ms. di Giovanni’s travels in Syria, described in detail here, were in 2012, a year into the conflict. In that spring and early summer, she notes, wealthy elites in Damascus were still in denial about the war — though explosions from the shelling could be heard during pool parties at the Dama Rose Hotel. By year’s end, the country had slipped down “the rabbit-hole of war.” The government was targeting civilian neighborhoods, and in the case of Aleppo, “opposition forces had cut off nearly all supply routes.” In that city, she writes, there were two criteria for staying alive: “hiding from the regime’s barrel bombs, and finding food.”

I made the simple point that the US regime-change policy against Assad -- which involved $1 billion to rebels (dominated by the Syrian Al Qaeda offshoot) -- resulted in civilian casualties. And I linked Jeffrey Sach's comments on Morning Joe as a reference. Di Giovanni -- a supporter of regime-change -- couldn't rebut the point so she blocked me. Just because a reporter covers a war "on the ground" doesn't mean they aren't purveyors of propaganda.

Here's the transcript of the Sachs video:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/04/13/jeffrey_sachs_to_president_trump_please_get_us_out_of_syria_weve_done_enough_damage.html

JEFFREY SACHS: I think we need to step back and not put this in partisan terms. This is a U.S. mistake that started seven years ago. I remember the day on your show when President Obama said Assad must go, and I looked at you and Joe and said, 'Huh? How's he going to do that? Where's the policy for that?'

And we now know they sent in the CIA to overthrow Assad. The CIA and Saudi Arabia together in covert operations tried to overthrow Assad. It was a disaster. Eventually, it brought in both ISIS, as a splinter group to the Jihadists that went in. It also brought in Russia.

So we have been digging deeper and deeper. What we should do now is get out, and not continue to throw missiles. not have a confrontation with Russia. Seven years has been a disaster, under Obama and continued under Trump.

This is what I would call the "Permanent State."

This is the CIA, this is the Pentagon wanting to keep Iran and Russia out of Syria, but we have no way to do that. And so we have made a proxy war in Syria. It has killed 500,000 people, displaced ten million.

And I'll say predictably so, because I predicted it seven years ago, that there was no way to do this. And it would make a complete chaos.

And so what I would plead to President Trump is: Get out, like your instinct told you, by the way. That was his instinct.

But then all the establishment, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Pentagon said no, no that's irresponsible.

But his instinct is right: Get out. We've done enough damage in seven years. And now we really risk a confrontation with Russia that is extraordinarily dangerous and reckless...

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS: I think there are two problems with Professor Sachs's comments, although I certainly feel that sense of Middle East fatigue that we all have. Of course, it is not just Syria, it is Iraq, Afghanistan. There have been a whole series of things that have generated the kind of feeling that says let's pull out of the world and come back to the United States.

There are two fundamental problems with that: One is the use of chemical weapons, I think really does demand a response from the international community at a level of a military strike. I do support a strike here.

Secondly, I do think Professor Sachs is right to point out that this is a massive humanitarian disaster, I think the numbers are actually 600,000 dead and 14 million displaced. I am in complete agreement with him on the scale of this, but I would like to see the United States try and be part of the solution.

And here what I would do is look back to the Balkans in the 1990s, which looked somewhat like Syria of today. And there was eventually an international solution that included the United States and Russia working together. We've got a long way to go to get there, but if we just step away from it, as attractive as that feels to us, I don't think it is the right solution.

JEFFREY SACHS: We've got to remember how this happened. This happened because of us. These 600,000 are not just incidental. We started a war to overthrow a regime. It was covert. it was Timber Sycamore, people can look it up, the CIA operation.

Together with Saudi Arabia, still shrouded in secrecy, which is part of the problem in our country. A major war effort shrouded in secrecy, never debated by Congress, never explained to the American people. Signed by President Obama. Never explained.

And this created chaos. And so just throwing more missiles in right now is not a response. We need to, not walk away, but go to the U.N. Security Council and agree with Russia on a strategy for ending the fight.

Ending the fight means we stop trying to overthrow the government [of Bashar al Assad]. That we stop trying to support rebels who are committed to overthrowing the government. That is where this war continues. Because we, to this day, back rebels that are trying to overthrow a government, contrary to international law, contrary to the U.N. charter, contrary to common sense, contrary to practical path.

We cant do it. And it just creates an ongoing crisis, to the extent of facing an imminent confrontation with Russia.

Click to Read More

JEFFREY SACHS: I think we need to step back and not put this in partisan terms. This is a U.S. mistake that started seven years ago. I remember the day on your show when President Obama said Assad must go, and I looked at you and Joe and said, 'Huh? How's he going to do that? Where's the policy for that?'

And we now know they sent in the CIA to overthrow Assad. The CIA and Saudi Arabia together in covert operations tried to overthrow Assad. It was a disaster. Eventually, it brought in both ISIS, as a splinter group to the Jihadists that went in. It also brought in Russia.

So we have been digging deeper and deeper. What we should do now is get out, and not continue to throw missiles. not have a confrontation with Russia. Seven years has been a disaster, under Obama and continued under Trump.

This is what I would call the "Permanent State."

This is the CIA, this is the Pentagon wanting to keep Iran and Russia out of Syria, but we have no way to do that. And so we have made a proxy war in Syria. It has killed 500,000 people, displaced ten million.

And I'll say predictably so, because I predicted it seven years ago, that there was no way to do this. And it would make a complete chaos.

And so what I would plead to President Trump is: Get out, like your instinct told you, by the way. That was his instinct.

But then all the establishment, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Pentagon said no, no that's irresponsible.

But his instinct is right: Get out. We've done enough damage in seven years. And now we really risk a confrontation with Russia that is extraordinarily dangerous and reckless...

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS: I think there are two problems with Professor Sachs's comments, although I certainly feel that sense of Middle East fatigue that we all have. Of course, it is not just Syria, it is Iraq, Afghanistan. There have been a whole series of things that have generated the kind of feeling that says let's pull out of the world and come back to the United States.

There are two fundamental problems with that: One is the use of chemical weapons, I think really does demand a response from the international community at a level of a military strike. I do support a strike here.

Secondly, I do think Professor Sachs is right to point out that this is a massive humanitarian disaster, I think the numbers are actually 600,000 dead and 14 million displaced. I am in complete agreement with him on the scale of this, but I would like to see the United States try and be part of the solution.

And here what I would do is look back to the Balkans in the 1990s, which looked somewhat like Syria of today. And there was eventually an international solution that included the United States and Russia working together. We've got a long way to go to get there, but if we just step away from it, as attractive as that feels to us, I don't think it is the right solution.

JEFFREY SACHS: We've got to remember how this happened. This happened because of us. These 600,000 are not just incidental. We started a war to overthrow a regime. It was covert. it was Timber Sycamore, people can look it up, the CIA operation.

Together with Saudi Arabia, still shrouded in secrecy, which is part of the problem in our country. A major war effort shrouded in secrecy, never debated by Congress, never explained to the American people. Signed by President Obama. Never explained.

And this created chaos. And so just throwing more missiles in right now is not a response. We need to, not walk away, but go to the U.N. Security Council and agree with Russia on a strategy for ending the fight.

Ending the fight means we stop trying to overthrow the government [of Bashar al Assad]. That we stop trying to support rebels who are committed to overthrowing the government. That is where this war continues. Because we, to this day, back rebels that are trying to overthrow a government, contrary to international law, contrary to the U.N. charter, contrary to common sense, contrary to practical path.

We cant do it. And it just creates an ongoing crisis, to the extent of facing an imminent confrontation with Russia.

The Sachs transcript is irrelevant.

I provided the review by the respected Michiko Kakutani to show who it is that Paul is slandering with his false version of their exchange on the Twitter.

The review is irrelevant to what I tweeted, which was what caused Di Giovanni to block me. What I tweeted was a comment and a reference to Jeffrey Sach's comments on Morning Joe. So the Sachs transcript is relevant.

Who did I allegedly "slander" and what is the evidence of that allegation?

drummerboy said:

do you believe that Ukraine was fighting separatists in Donbass, and these separatists were engaged in a proxy war, backed by Russia, until Russia actually sent in their own troops?

or do you have a fairy tale to share with us?

What are your answers to these questions?

jamie said:

One thing is for certain - a nan is100% behind regime change - the decimation of Ukraine has been nan approved - it's all NATOs fault - Russia and Vlad are saviors of the region!

The Ukraine country, people, culture and language will be phased out.  Mother Russia will bring things back to where they should be.  nan- let me know if you're opposed to any of this?

What is your plan for the refuges who wish to return?  What tests must they pass.  How does one truly prove they are NOT a nazi?

Where did I say I was behind regime change?   I think Zelensky might be on the way out, but not by the Russians. If he dies though, they will be blamed.  He's getting some bad press I notice.  That's never a good sign. 

The decimation of Ukraine has been Jamie approved.  I wanted peace negotiations.  You wanted to fight to the last Ukrainian.  You got your wish and now we are getting close to the last Ukrainian.  

Hope you are happy.  

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

do you believe that Ukraine was fighting separatists in Donbass, and these separatists were engaged in a proxy war, backed by Russia, until Russia actually sent in their own troops?

or do you have a fairy tale to share with us?

What are your answers to these questions?

That should be obvious.

drummerboy said:

"What we did not know, which Biden knew, and Putin knew is that they were
getting ready to launch a really big attack on the Donbas."

Now that begs for some background.

It's amazing how you add a new piece of fantasy every week.

I think I'm going to go back to ignoring your posts.  You need to stop insulting me and show some respect.  You don't have to be Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farms but you can take it down more than a few notches and  still be you.  

nan said:

....  You wanted to fight to the last Ukrainian.  You got your wish and now we are getting close to the last Ukrainian.  

There you go again. Repeating meaningless nonsense.

And actually lying too. Jamie never said he wanted to fight to the last Ukrainian.

You should apologize.

As a matter of fact, no one has said that except for one guy (not counting the people who have endlessly repeated it on the anti-anti-Putin team.)

Do you actually understand what dishonesty is?

drummerboy said:

nan said:

jamie said:

Some response to the report:

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/06/1116179764/experts-widely-condemn-amnesty-international-report-alleging-ukrainian-war-crime

ESTRIN: So if what the Amnesty researchers documented is true, as you say, what is the criticism against the report?

HAYDA: Yeah, so the criticism mostly comes down to what the report doesn't say as opposed to what it does say. The report implies that Ukraine may be committing war crimes and says that soldiers actions might be interpreted as using civilians as human shields. So I talked to the report's author, Donatella Rivera, who's very well known in this area of human rights research. And she said that being in schools and hospitals isn't strictly against international law. And so critics are asking, who gets to determine what is or isn't within the bounds of international law? How far do soldiers need to be away from civilians, especially in cases of defensive urban warfare, to be within the bounds of legal warfare? It's just too ambiguous.

ESTRIN: This report has made a lot of people pretty mad in Ukraine, right?

HAYDA: Yeah. It's been the talk of the streets for days. There's even a viral meme that the organization might change its name to something like Shamnesty (ph) International. Now, one of the reasons for this is because Russia has been trying to justify its invasion of Ukraine since before it even happened. And Ukrainians are mad that Russian media has really run with this Amnesty report, and they've jumped onto some of those implied conclusions that Ukrainians are all war criminals. I talked to Ilya Lozovsky from the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which just like Amnesty, monitors compliance with international law in Ukraine. He says the Amnesty report was written so clumsily, it borders on negligent.

So, are you going to join the pile up and condemn this report?  You know the Ukrainians have been using civilians for human shields for months because Paul and I  have been bringing that up on MOL.  

On the one hand, AI is just a front for the west - UNTIL they do something that you agree with.

You have no integrity at all.

AI demolished the narrative that "Russia targets civilians". That is upsetting to those who want to push that narrative even if it's proven false. Because it justifies the refusal to acknowledge why Russia invaded which constitutes the only possible terms for a negotiated settlement.

I haven't done an analysis, but my guess is that 99.9% of those who are upset with AI are opposed to negotiations.

drummerboy said:

nan said:

....  You wanted to fight to the last Ukrainian.  You got your wish and now we are getting close to the last Ukrainian.  

There you go again. Repeating meaningless nonsense.

And actually lying too. Jamie never said he wanted to fight to the last Ukrainian.

You should apologize.

As a matter of fact, no one has said that except for one guy (not counting the people who have endlessly repeated it on the anti-anti-Putin team.)

Do you actually understand what dishonesty is?

Just go away.  I saw what you wrote to Paul and you are just horrible tonight in general.  Really over the top.  Read my last post, please.