Comments by "pplr1" (@pplr1) on "Stephen Kotkin: Putin, Stalin, Hitler, Zelenskyy, and War in Ukraine | Lex Fridman Podcast #289" video.

  1. Funny, arguably fastest way to decrease the number of Nazis/fascists in Ukraine would be for Wagner to leave.
    2
  2. Source? That sounds like something someone made up.
    2
  3. He criticized the US action in Iraq. Though not in Afghanistan since what was done in Afghanistan was done in response to a direct attack.
    2
  4. Many of your complaints are bogus or just didn't happen. There is no genocide in Donbas regardless of how many times Russian PR lies about it. Complaining about NATO stopping ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia is being pro-ethnic cleansing (that should be a source of shame for the critic rather than NATO). Neither France, nor Germany, nor Sweden, nor the USA are trying to invade and annex Ukraine right now. Putin is. Complaining about them when they aren't doing the current problem while ignoring who is causing the current problem is trying to distract from rather than address the issue at hand. FYI Cuba has a military alliance which included Russian military bases in Cuba for most of the Cold War. The Cuba Missile Crisis did not result in Cuba not being allowed to have a military alliance with the Soviet Union. Your complaint about missiles misrepresents that issue. Considering that much of what you put our is propaganda and distortions it should be pretty easy to spot who is the propagandists here. Perhaps you should not be "immoral" (as put you it).
    2
  5. If you liked Oliver Stone then you love "narrative control" as long as it is pro-Putin. I suspect the "alternative reporting" you mention is less actual alternative and is primarily from people pushing Putin's PR.
    2
  6. I suspect some have been complaining about the USA for so long they don't know what to do when the problem is not the USA. And some of them may simply be cynical opportunists that didn't really care about what they claimed to before and that is being revealed now. The latter is why Kraut (on youtube) didn't bother to counter the points of some who supported Russia now-he realized they were using talking points they decried elsewhere and thus didn't even believe even as they repeated them now. He has a good video called A Critique of Realism.
    2
  7. "2014 coup displacing a democratic gov in kiev" This seems to miss that 2014 was not a coup so much as a popular revolt. Additionally the government in Kyiv right now is democratic. "illegal carpet bombing of serbia" Not only was in not carpet bombing but this was part of stopping ethnic cleansing. Are you for ethnic cleansing? "illegal war in iraq looking for colin powells wmd" NATO never invaded Iraq. Are you trying to tell people you don't know the history of NATO without directly saying so? "We need to pursue peace for the sake of ukrainians, russians, europeans and everyone on the planet." You should tell that to Putin, the person who started this war.
    1
  8. It is interesting info that after the breakup of the USSR money was sent into Russia and it disappeared-meaning the corruption or kleptocracy in Russia has been running for a long time.
    1
  9. That was the Oliver Stone interview.
    1
  10. War not going well for you Ivan?
    1
  11. Translation: You didn't hear what you wanted to.
    1
  12. J Sachs can show up to spread more lies, distortions, and other pieces of propaganda if he wants to. Oliver Stone already did. So if you are saying both sides of an issue have not been given a chance to speak that is not correct.
    1
  13. I congratulate you on trying to listen to more than 1 side and then thinking critically. I suspect you realized the facts tend to support Kotkin more than Stone.
    1
  14. The irony of this comment is that you made it as part of defending at attempt at imperialism by Putin.
    1
  15. Actually Afghanistan is an excellent example of NATO being defensive. The USA was attacked on 9/11 and NATO responded.
    1
  16. Seems you forgot that Russia-and Putin in specific-is am imperialist. Has been for some time.
    1
  17.  @activistbook3809  So your argument is now that Imperialism is ok as long as certain nations do it or only in certain regions? Not much of an anti-imperialist are you?
    1
  18.  @activistbook3809  "there is only one imperialist force on the planet" So you are telling me you know nothing of human history let alone the current world situation without actually saying those words. Explains much.. and why you are an imperialist.
    1
  19.  @activistbook3809  You are an imperialist. That is the kicker/irony. You support imperialism as long as it isn't from 1 source. Don't that isn't anti-imperialist its just being narrow-minded. Did you fail to touch the topic of your lack of knowledge "of human history let alone the current world situation". Perhaps I'm being unfair, it may not be a lack knowledge just willful ignorance.
    1
  20.  @activistbook3809  Thanks for letting me know I'm correct.
    1
  21.  @activistbook3809  Its an accurate comment. You already defined yourself and I followed up with the implications of your statements. You're an imperialist. A limited and hypocritical imperialist because you oppose imperialism by 1 source and support it from any other but an imperialist nonetheless.
    1
  22.  @activistbook3809  "there is only one imperialist force on the planet bro" AND "Choosing non-alliance and defending against imperialism isn't Imperialism." The 1st is you claiming, falsely, that there is only 1 source of imperialism. Thus putting your stamp of approval on other sources of imperialism by not even being honest enough to call them what that are. And in the current situation Ukraine is defending itself against an imperialist Russia. Russia sure isn't "defending" itself (let alone against imperialism) otherwise its army wouldn't be in Ukraine. Also a bunch of the rest of the planet has good reason to disbelieve, strongly, the idea of there is just 1 source of imperialism.
    1
  23.  @activistbook3809  So you are trying to dodge addressing your own earlier statements that are factually wrong. Hypocrisy (or just plain dishonesty) is being pro-imperialist today as Russia is engaging in an imperialist war and claiming to be anti-imperialist. Your support for Russian imperialism stills shows the truth about you-you're an imperialist.
    1
  24. You comment is pretty ridiculous and devoid of a historical accuracy in terms of what did happen in the 20th Century-including the terrible things that did happen in Latin America.
    1
  25. Opinionated.. yes. Rubbish.. big no.
    1
  26. If Russia does something with a tactical nuke that invites a response. It will be taken seriously and because of that the response would be a serious one that-as you said-is escalating to de-escalate. By definition a war between 2 nations is not "an internal" matter.
    1
  27. It is Putin's aggression and not a reaction. BTW Cuba hosted Russian troops for most of the Cold War.
    1
  28. I remember Oliver Stone trying to downplay and dodge addressing the atrocities Putin's forces had been doing in Ukraine.
    1
  29. Not only does Ukraine not have nukes but it turned what it did have over to Russia years ago and in exchange Russia promised to respect Ukrainian territorial integrity. Ukraine is unlikely to make the mistake of trusting Russia again.
    1
  30. A point addressed and disproven in this discussion.
    1
  31. Because it fits. Putin has been trying to use excuses to blame Ukraine for the wrongs he is doing. Of course there is also the growing list of reported rapes done by Russian soldiers if a more literal situation is desired.
    1
  32. People in Ukraine can pick their leaders and change them if they want to. They cannot in Russia. That is a huge difference. Also this difference doesn't fix corruption in itself but offer the potential for it to be decreased.
    1
  33. Kotkin? Probably. And he would probably be right to.
    1
  34.  @samhatam8592  In this situation there may be far more right with US policies-and other nations trying to help Ukraine-than there is wrong. This is a situation where Ukraine was not attacking Russia but Putin decided to attack it and his forces have been found committing war crimes repeatedly-thus putting 1 bad on top of another bad.
    1
  35.  @samhatam8592  Many things can be complicated. But that does not mean in this specific situation Putin, and not the USA, is the aggressor. If NATO is spreading that is at least partly because other nations are requesting to join.
    1
  36. The USA is the reason the UK gave up its empire. The war with Japan actually delayed how soon the Philippines would become independent since the US was planning on giving it up-that is part of why local people in the Philippines were willing to help the USA fight Japan. Also the cost in lives of people in the USSR due to Stalin made his "victory" as you call it a loss.
    1
  37. You are aware the authoritarian you support finally got around to meeting with President Zelenskyy.. right?
    1
  38. In one of the debates Mearsheimer took part in he tried to argue that Putin saw Ukrainian people have a democracy (you know, being actually able to vote their leaders in and out of office honestly) as an unwelcome US influence. That is a pretty compelling argument.. that Putin does not have the best interest of Ukrainians in mind nor does he want them to have the freedom to make their own decisions.
    1
  39.  @scottnineteen  Actually that is a very misleading way to refer to what happened in Ukraine. I'm guessing you are referring to 2014. To the worst part I'll point to 2 Ukrainian sources 1st is a the Elected Ukrainian Parliament at the time (which ruled that former President abandoned his office) and the 2nd is one of the Ukrainians I've spoken with online since all this started. The 2nd said the former President broke his campaign promises which resulted in a protest and then used force on the protesters which had a backlash that resulted in not just more protests but a popular revolt. Ironically enough there is an argument that the former President fled Ukraine because some of the security forces that were working for him felt he may betray them and leave them hanging out to dry in a deal with the opposition and getting all the blame from when force was used. So that is why a number of them pulled back in the capital-Kyiv-and he suddenly felt very vulnerable.
    1
  40. It was a corrupt President abandoning his post-that is not a coup. Additionally Ukraines elections for President have been honest-making the Ukrainian government better for and more concerned with the people of its nation than Russia.
    1
  41.  @NICHOLASBYRNE3931  Is that a backhanded way of acknowledging that a specific former President of Ukraine abandoned his post and-as important-that the following elections in Ukraine were done honestly thus President Zelenskyy is honestly elected?
    1
  42.  @NICHOLASBYRNE3931  Funny I thought Neo-cons got were blamed for when the USA invaded other nations rather than helping other nations that have been invaded. Further, referring to the honestly elected government of Ukraine as the proper government as "perverse" is itself "perverse".
    1
  43.  @NICHOLASBYRNE3931  Ukraine was not threatening to take up or avoid a petro dollar when Russia invaded so I'm pretty sure that isn't the issue for this war.
    1
  44. Your example is getting close to.a decade old-as far as we know-didn't happen with Ukrainian government help, especially not the current Ukrainian administration. Meanwhile being a journalist is risky in Russia right now.
    1
  45.  @jimwonderwood7651  Yeah, go to a nation at war where its very existence as a nation was threatened by the war at start propagandizing against the nation. Great idea (that is sarcasm). I noticed you did not disprove my point about your complaint being old news that has largely been against the larger trend for Ukraine. Also while it is usually not a good thing if a nation hinders freedom of speech (that is speech and not money pretending to be speech) one of the few times when censorship would be more understandable is during a war where the survival of the nation itself was one of the things at stake. May not like it and it may not be good but it is understandable. Remove the crisis-such as the current war and see if such censorship stays. If it doesn't that is evidence it was a product of the crisis rather than the nation itself. Though that is already evidence any censorship now is a product of the crisis rather than the nation-censorship and bans on political parties were largely not happening before Putin started this war. Additionally people like Gonzalo Lira were not just shooting off their mouths but trying to pass info to Russians. Being a spy is not free speech.
    1
  46. Would this be another reference to distortions put out by Putin as he tried to come up with excuses for his current imperialist actions?
    1
  47. Translation, you were really hoping Putin would win and the invasion isn't going so hot. And it doesn't make you feel better that some called Putin out on his excuses and distortions.
    1
  48. Oh the irony, someone claiming to support the "working class" is here trying to support a modern day wannabe Czar (Putin) who became a billionaire by being willing to steal from his own nation/people.
    1
  49. Which is why Finland joined NATO. Still things to worry about now, but there is some added safety.
    1
  50. Technically W used Saddam's WMD as the legal excuse for that war. But even if you don't like legal technicalities and simply oppose large nations bullying smaller nations that means you should oppose what Russia is trying to do in Ukraine. Also Russia has hit hospitals and shelters for civilian women and children. Hardly "pussy footing". More like Russia has been failing despite being willing to war crime.
    1
  51. Not quite. A long time ago a separate group of English speaking individuals seized power in Hawaii and that is when it was arguable Ukraine. But a funny thing happened. The US President was disgusted enough with their actions and how they took power that he blocked their requests to make Hawaii a US state. I don't know if coup was the right word but Hawaii was not an done by a US invasion.
    1
  52. Or they are more correct than you would like to acknowledge. This is Putin moving his nation's army into another when his nation was not attacked. Putin started this war. And that Putin has imperialistic goals does not make it better.
    1
  53.  @MrBahjatt  1st, there was no coup. I have 2 Ukrainian sources. 1st a Ukrainian person I spoke with and 2nd the elected Ukrainian Parliament at the time. The Ukrainian parliament declared Yanukovych abandoned his office. The Ukrainian I spoke with described a situation where there were people protesting Yanukovych over breaking his campaign promises and he decided to use force on them which resulted in more Ukrainians getting upset and not only protesting but engaging in a popular revolt. So calling it a coup is actually misleading as many Ukrainians felt he had betrayed them and gone against the practices of Ukraine. And he fled when his own actions resulted in a backlash and unrest. Where do you get the 14,000 number? Politifact (an organization that tests if politicians are lying by seeing if their words match the facts) referred to the UN Commission on Human Rights and found the number of civilian deaths to be much much lower than that. With most of those taking place in the earlier fighting between 2014 and 2016 and less than 500 civilian deaths from 2017-2021. While civilian deaths are bad that shows not only were Ukrainians not trying to commit genocide but the deaths were dropping and had been since partway through former President Poroshenko's term in office. Also the current President of Ukraine-whom Putin would like to kill-is a Russian speaker. Many of the Russian speakers that Putin claims he is supposedly protecting don't want him to control their government-1 of the factors in that probably is because they know Putin doesn't support having honest elections and many of them do. To them Putin is not bringing liberty but oppression.
    1
  54. Sachs is pretty much a propagandist these days so embracing him shows a lack of concern for a person's credibility. Mearsheimer at least has an ideological thought pattern. But support for that though pattern should be questioned since Mearsheimer once mentioned that Putin sees Ukrainian people having a democracy (that is the ability for them to pick their own leaders) as an unwelcome US influence to be ended. That says a great deal about Putin's disregard for the desires of Ukrainians.
    1
  55. In sum then, you didn't hear what you wanted to hear and need to cough up an excuse to let yourself pretend to not hear it.
    1
  56.  @sneetch42  I listen to many things. That said the "western narrative" as you try to write it off fits the facts much better than Russian claims they are trying to de-Nazify a state with a Jewish President.
    1
  57. He really let both people speak. I can understand people being upset as he let Oliver Stone spread lies and distortions but I came to the realization he is a believer in letting the guest say what he or she wants to say (even if a guest is as dishonest as Stone was).
    1
  58. Did someone have my earlier reply flagged? I didn't delete any and I came to reply to FullMetal replying to me (I see he is replying to me so I know I left a comment) yet it is not there. FullIMetal. I'm not sure what my earlier reply to your comment was. That said, this war is going badly for Russia. Not only were Russians (not just the USA) expecting to have a victory in months but even if Russia finally takes Bahkmut that is after months-not weeks-of trying and only 1 very small city after Ukraine has already had 2 very successful counteroffensives. There aren't riots in Russia as far as I know. However hundreds of thousands of people fled Russia. That doesn't happen if there aren't internal problems. Also polls from inside Russia aren't necessarily that trustworthy (people don't know if a supposed pollster works for the secret police or not) but from what little polling I've seen support for Putins war actually has been slowly dropping-that means support for it already peaked and is currently on the downside.
    1
  59. Thank you for showing me you sympathize with rapists while trying to not actually say you sympathize with rapists. And no, neither a rapist nor Putin, gets to use the excuse she knew there may be a rapist in town thus it is her fault for being raped.
    1
  60. That is probably because Russian claims of genocide in Dombass supposedly carried out by Ukraine have been debunked for years. There has been a conflict between the Ukrainian armed forces and Russian backed separatists but civilian deaths have been way down for years in that fight. Funny how Russia wants to abuse and misuse the word genocide while then committing war crimes.
    1
  61. Maybe most serious historians had no interest in defending Putin. Thus, as you hinted at, the bottom of the barrel had to be scraped to find someone to argue for Putin.
    1
  62. That Ukraine has resources and potentially the kind of resources that can compete with Russia is seen as 1 of the reasons why Putin may have actually started this war. Thus Putin wanted to gain control over even more resources and eliminate business competition at the same time. And no, Putin's kleptocracy isn't about being "loyal enough" to Russia. Its about being corrupt enough to pocket a fortune even if it is at the expense of the Russian population.
    1
  63. I take it the war your guy started with Ukraine has not been going well. Perhaps that is a good thing.
    1
  64. "cannon fodder for NATO's power play". Really?? You seem to be laying the propaganda pretty thick here. Ukraine wanted to join NATO earlier and wasn't let in. With the current war that Russia started showing that appeasement often doesn't work the nations that opposed Ukraine joining earlier are likely to think differently. Also Lex Friedman already interviewed Oliver Stone and let Mr. Stone's propaganda efforts (making excuses for Putin) flow. Out of the many choice distortions here I think another ironic one is "our cynical pawn". Ukraine is not a pawn. That is what Putin would prefer. Specifically for it to be his puppet-though if reports he wants to absorb Belarus when its current dictator dies are true them maybe even that would be enough for him right now. You call for Mearsheimer to speak. He can, but 1 of the things he has already said is that Putin sees actual democracy in Ukraine-where the elections mater and vote totals are reported honestly-are something he holds against the USA and sees as US interference. If accurate that is some pretty twisted and yet revealing thinking on Putin's part. It shows he wants Ukrainian citizens to not have a say in who runs their (not Putin's nor the US's) own government. Kotkin directly addressed the invalidity of Putin's actions. He mentioned Russia already recognized Ukraine as a nation. This means, as its own nation, Ukraine has the ability to make decisions for itself. Kotkin interestingly compared the Russian complaints Ukraine was thinking of joining NATO as an excuse to start a war to a rapist complaining a girl was wearing a short skirt as an excuse for raping her. Neither excuse actually excuses the action. In both examples the perpetrators are trying to cover for their unjust actions. Also as Kraut correctly points out, it is followers of supposed "realism" like Mearsheimer that provide cover from terrible things like military coups in Latin American. They put forwards the idea that big nations should be able to bully small ones and that they can be party to any horrible action as long as it is within their "sphere of influence" as Russia would like Ukraine to be and realists have already treated Latin America as for the USA. If you support the things Russia has done in Ukraine no matter how horrible then you should support the horrible things the USA approved of or did in Latin America. Not to would be hypocrisy on your part. If you oppose things like torture and military coups in Latin America (not approve of them because they are supposedly in a US sphere of influence) then you should oppose Putin's murders, support for oppression in, and now war in parts of Eastern Europe-including Ukraine.
    1
  65. I see some repeating of Russian falsehoods but not much else. Eastern Ukraine generally speaks Russian but largely does not want to be under Putin's thumb right now. If that wasn't the case Putin's government would not have had to lie about the supposed referendum results. Instead it did. As 1 Eastern European who was not part of this discussion put it they dragged NATO eastwards. They had lived under Russia in the Soviet times and knew it was not liberation-thus they wanted protection against a nation that had been willing to dominate them in the past.
    1
  66. ​ @VLK-73  I guess thank you for highlighting the value of NSM since I'm pretty sure it is closer to the truth than what you wrote. Anyway had a conversation with a Russian speaking Ukrainian online. He pretty much hates the idea of Putin taking control of Ukraine and thinks of him as a murderer. That is the opposite of "being protected". If people Crimea were being protected then Putin wouldn't have lied about the Referendum there. That the option to stay part of Ukraine wasn't even on the ballot is a since that Putin was intent on his will being followed regardless of the views of the people there. If Putin were honest then he wouldn't limit options. Though lying about the results is still remarkably bad and, again, shows Putin was not intent on letting anything other than his will be reflected in the results. And I've heard the NATO bit before. 1st I put less credibility in it since Putin himself expressed no problems with NATO expansion at 1 point. But even worse is that Germany held up Ukraine joining so Ukraine wasn't even about to join NATO and Putin attacked after Germany tried to appease him over the issue. That reveals it is a likely a lie and has been for some time. And even if it was not a lie the whole rapist analogy fits since people generally aren't allowed to rape women even if those women put on a short skirt. So Putin has no good excuse for his imperialism.
    1
  67. ​ @VLK-73  When talking to individual people there is probably some luck of the draw, but if what you said was correct about Russian speaking Ukrainians supposedly supporting Putin the odds would be against with Ukrainians like the 1 I spoke with having the views he does. Instead the opposite is true. Where do you get the Dnipro River idea from? I doubt that it is true. Especially since a majority in each of the areas East of the Dnipro River voted to be independent back in 1991. It was a closer margin than in Western Ukraine but it was still a majority in each of the Eastern regions. And those vote totals are something that goes beyond luck. Putin did not complain about NATO enlargement when he was in Rome 2002 and spoke of deepening NATO-Russian relations. Now that was only slightly more than 20 years ago but enlarging NATO was a topic at hand during that time. Now even if Putin does mind there are still 2 points which makes that not a good excuse. 1. Germany had been blocking Ukraine from joining NATO so Russia already had the appeasement it wanted before Putin tried to invade in 2022. 2. As Mr. Kotkin correctly pointed out that even if Putin minded is not an excuse and has no more validity than a rapist claiming a woman invited rape by wearing a short skirt (or some other article of clothing). Which of those 4 nations has the USA tried to annex? None. Where where you in 2001 when the USA was attacked? It is well established that if a nation is attacked it is not imperialism for that nation to go to war. The worst of those examples morally is probably Iraq-no massacres to try to prevent and outright invasion of a nation that was not planning to attack the USA as far as most people know.. and the USA didn't try to annex Iraq. Instead the USA withdrew its troops from Iraq when an agreement could not be made between the Iraqi (elected by the Iraqi people) government and the USA that would allow US troops to stay. That is not the action of an imperialist. So even in the worst morally of the 4 situations you mentioned it wasn't imperialist. Now if you opposed the USA's invasion of Iraq because you believe big nations should not be allowed to invade smaller nations then you should oppose Putin's invasion of Ukraine for the same reason. Meanwhile, Putin declared that Ukraine's government has no right to exist-disregarding that it is elected by the Ukrainian people-and already tried to annex parts of Ukraine. That is imperialist. The "real" aggressor in this situation is Putin. There is no silence or "crickets" about that. "Russia stands up to something" Russia is not standing up to anything in this situation. Russia is invading. Another nation-Ukraine-is standing up to Russia. Since you mentioned Afghanistan earlier and Russia falsely standing "up to something" earlier I'll point out it was report that Putin offered GWBush all the support he could want in Afghanistan if Putin would let Russia have control over Eastern Europe. GWBush did not accept because he was not in a position to accept as it would be ignoring the views of nations in Eastern Europe and that they were their own nations and not part of any empire. Thus Putin may have had imperialist urges and a disrespect for seeing other nations as other nations for years. "This type of hipocrisy is literally mind bobbling and it all comes from your side." This not only is this statement false but I would ask if your "side" is projecting.
    1
  68.  @VLK-73  You never answered my question of which of those 4 did the USA try to annex. Nor where you got your Dinpro River idea. When I referred to "2001" that was a reference to 9/11-not Iraq. I don't think it was an "inside job". Speaking of inside jobs I think there is a stronger argument that apartment buildings that were bombed inside Moscow before the attack on Chechnya were an "inside job" but that also is a different topic. In the current war there isn't even an "inside job" cover-not that it was make Russia attack Ukraine better if there was as it would still be an invasion with Russia deciding it should be able to decide what another nation's policies and Presidents are if not an outright land grab.
    1
  69.  @VLK-73  I saw your shorter post 1st-which is why I responded to that as it was the only reply you made. Anyway to address this comment.. "The Dnipro river is a rough divider that is used by historians and analysts, as far as which side is pro-Russian or anti-Russian. There is of course some overlap, but for most part the eastern part is pro Russian, because of the proximity to the Russian border and these people lived there for long time as Russians and part of the Soviet Union....it only makes sense" You said "used by historians". That is not a test of if the people living there like Putin or not. Moreover I already pointed out that in each region of Ukraine a majority of people voted for independence in 1991. While the margin was smaller in places closer to Russia the vote there was still a majority in favor of independence. So the history available doesn't directly disprove the idea that Russian speaking Ukrainians like Putin it does directly disprove the idea a majority of them see themselves as part of the Soviet Union or Russia. It does not make sense to claim that people who voted for independence a few decades ago supposedly want Putin now. I think it is quite possible a majority of them or their children who were too young to vote back in 1991 see Putin as a murderer and do not want him in control of where they live. Your Mexico scenario is wrong or a very misleading way to try to refer to Ukraine. President Zelenskyy was honestly elected-not appointed by the USA. "Russia would then install their puppet regime and flow weapons and military consultants into Mexico" Wasn't Obama criticized for not sending weapons to Ukraine? Again the history disproves rather than supports your analogy. And, again, President Zelenskyy was honestly elected by Ukrainian citizens as a whole when they voted-not installed by some other nation. "If the Cuban missile crisis could be used as an indicator, we already know the answer to that one." The US government didn't like Castro's revolution. That said, it never invaded officially itself (Bay of Pigs arguably failed or failed sooner because the US did not use its official military) and the "Cuban missile crisis" was over missiles. Not a coup. The Bay of Pigs makes me think a bit of Russian supported separatists in Ukraine's east-except it was actually Russia soldiers that shot down that civilian passenger jet as the supposed separatists order. And didn't Putin pro-claim the supposed areas separatists control are part of Russia anyway partway through this war? Not really aiming for independence after all. "Russia's patience had finally run out and this is the result." Other nations get to choose if they will ask to join NATO or not. If Russia doesn't like that then there is a question of if Russia had any "patience" in the 1st place. Instead such claims reveal that Russia views itself as having the authority to make other nations decisions for them regardless of if they agree. Out of order in terms of when you mentioned it but this was worth returning to.: "If you want to see some actual, independent journalism on this topic, look up Eva Bartlett." I did look up Eva Barlett. I found out she writes columns for RT-Russia Today. That is the opposite of "independent journalism". I already watched the discussion when Lex interviewed the person who made the documentary "Ukraine on Fire". That person is Oliver Stone. I felt he was full of distortions and excuses in that interview and would fully expect the same of a documentary he made.
    1
  70.  @VLK-73  I'm only going to rely 1 time with 1 comment to the 4 you made. 1st and most telling is that you-not any media but you-said Eva Bartlett was an "independent journalist". I checked and found out she writes for RT or Russia Today so that is not true. Not only is it not true but when I pointed it out to you your response to to repeat the "independent" falsehood. And after you repeated a falsehood after I pointed out why it was a falsehood you called me "brainwashed" near the end of you last comment. Now there are other things I can point disproving the narrative of your comments such as that Zelenskyy recieved a majority of the vote from Eastern parts of Ukraine Russia didn't occupy and thus were still able to have honest elections while a significant portion of the people there are Russian speakers. But there is a problem. People can start having a discussion or even a disagreement with very different views but if they go over the evidence honesty they can see which of them is correct, if both are correct, or if neither of them are. But going over the evidence is very different from willfully ignoring the evidence and even trying to dodge it by complaining (or projecting) about other supposed propagandists and repeating a falsehood after why it is false has already been said. Maybe its just that I'm tired but when that happens it is a sign of dishonesty and also that still going on with the discussion is a waste of time since evidence will not be discussed honestly. I do not feel a need to waste my time right now. I don't know if I will return to this discussion thread. If you want for there to be a chance that I do you should start next reply you make with acknowledging that Eva Bartlett writes for RT or Russia Today.
    1
  71. Said by someone who does not have to be a Westerner (though may be anyway) to show his own arrogance.
    1
  72. India and Mexico are actually in the process of growing economically. Additionally if Russia had gone democratic that would likely have avoided the waste (in lives and resources) of the current war. Last but not least, there are levels of corruption in many democracies but democracy does offer a way to chip away at corruption by getting rid of politicians that are deeply in bed with the corruption. No promise that it will happen but it can.
    1
  73.  @JAMAICADOCK  Never said it wasn't squalid in developing nations-democracies or not. That said India is still rising as a nation. Russia and China are both very corrupt and they don't have narco-cartels as an excuse as Mexico does. I suspect both-especially China-have a drop off in living standards in rural areas vs major cities. Much of Latin America and Africa are currently democratic. Asia is more questionable.
    1
  74. Excellent video maker.
    1
  75. "and even Brazil wants to join BRICS" This would be you showing you don't know what you are talking about.
    1
  76. I was pointing out you don't know what you are talking about a you didn't catch a few things you are missing. 1st, Brazil has been part of BRICS for a long time. 2nd, multiple nations that are part of BRICS are rivals and may even go to war at some point. 3rd, some nations may not want to pay for their rivals screwups-an easy example is do other nations want to cover the costs of Russia's unjustified current attempted invasion of Ukraine? They have their own economies they could spend that money on and so probably would not want to.
    1
  77. Or this guy could say multiple things to Jeffrey Sachs.
    1
  78. Don't forget that it was realists with arguments in favor of big nations having "spheres of influence" within which they got to bully smaller nations that are arguing in favor of Russia now. If you want people in the different nations in Latin America to have the freedom to chose their own governments (such as elect them) then you should support that for Ukraine as well.
    1
  79. You claim has already been disproven during the Cold War-the Soviets made a military alliance with Cuba through most if it and Cuba is still there today.
    1
  80. Lol, you said it in a rather blunt way. But sometimes obvious questions have to be asked to be sure an issue is addressed directly.
    1
  81. You are only the 20th person I seen come up with this already disproven analogy. Cuba had Soviet military bases through most of the Cold War. Also the "world community" seems to take an increasingly sour view of nuclear powers absorbing other nations-perhaps it is sane for them to do so.
    1
  82.  @gondolacrescent5  Actually I already disproved your analogy in my earlier reply. I already pointed out that Cuba made an alliance with the Soviet Union during the cold war-an alliance that even included Russian bases and military forces inside Cuba. That you aren't the only person making an inaccurate analogy doesn't make the inaccurate analogy somehow accurate. Swap out Canada for Cuba and China for Russia in your analogy and we end up discussing something that already happened.
    1
  83. Translation he said many well informed things.. but you don't like them so you end a comment calling someone who is very well informed the equivalent of a moron. Funny thing is he wasn't imperialist and was critical of how the "West" can operate its power-yet you accuse him of such anyway.
    1
  84. Hasn't Jeffrey Sachs gone off the deep end in recent years-though interestingly enough finding time to take China side in whatever issue comes up in recent years. Also it looks like the death rate for journalists dropped with the Zelenskyy Presidency-perhaps a sign he is doing something else correctly as well.
    1
  85. Higher. He likely expects better from both of them than Putin.
    1
  86. Far closer to the truth than much of the BS Oliver Stone pushed when he was speaking. Kotkin arguably held back considering how much Oliver Stone tried to distort things and come up with excuses for Putin.
    1
  87. Funny, did a quick search on Kotkin and apartheid and didn't find much saying he supported it. Now maybe I missed something but even if I did that doesn't make him wrong to point out that Putin complaining about Ukraine wanting to join NATO is no more valid than a rapist trying to use the excuse a girl is wearing a short skirt-neither is.
    1
  88. "Yugoslavia" So you are for ethnic cleansing then? That is what was stopped. Russia is not a superpower. And even if it was the actions it is taken deserve the opposite of respect. If Putin's Russia wanted respect then maybe it should've acted in a respectable way.
    1
  89. Calling a popular revolt a coup both misrepresents what happened and is repeating pro-Putin propaganda. Additionally it is disrespectful to Ukrainians since they were the once who decided they needed oust a President after that President used force on people who dared protest him for breaking his campaign promises.
    1
  90. I though I already provided a good link to a youtube video critical of Mersheimer. For some reason I don't see it now. I'll post it again. It is called "A Critique of Realism" by Kraut and it goes into the history of the ideology that calls itself realism (which Mersheimer follows).
    1
  91. Here is the link. Since this is a valid youtube video I'm not sure why youtube would not allow the link to be shared. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXmwyyKcBLk
    1
  92. Didn't hear what you wanted to Ivan?
    1
  93. Or Gaddafi did.
    1
  94. Ukraine is the victim of NATO not expanding enough. Had NATO including Ukraine there would not be a war today. Also Russia did place nukes in Cuba (Cuban Missile Crisis), the USA did not place them in Ukraine. So your analogy is not only wrong but shows you know little about real world history.
    1
  95. LOL. The reason Russia's borders are where they are right now is because Russia repeatedly started wars and seized lands by military force. Now I don't blame Putin for that as it is the past. But him starting this war by moving Russia army past another nation's borders is his fault.
    1
  96. "Never poisoned btw." I see you were laying the propaganda thick that day.
    1
  97. I see you come to complain in support of a corrupt wannabe Czarist steals from his own people twice (and not as replies so something someone else mentioned) in 1 day. Couldn't let all your support for billionaire authoritarians out of your system with just 1 comment that day-could you?
    1
  98. If you weren't so willing to embrace Putin's lies and distortions perhaps you wouldn't be so unhappy when someone called him out on them.
    1