Is Russia Really The Baddie?

[Fred Steeves]

So after having a legitimate thread deleted, and endured multiple ad hominem attacks on my character, I'm going to try once more just to see if a modicum of free speech is allowed on this once upon a time great forum.

But before I start, one more thing from the forum rules thread: 

2. This forum champions free speech. In this regard, its founders� role models include Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, and certain framers of the United States Constitution. 

Forum Rules

Does this forum really champion free speech? No, I think not, not any more, and daring to share any thoughts here not in lockstep agreement with admin will surely be the end of my tenure here. But let me just highlight that these people were instigators for truth, freedom of speech, and challenging establishment narratives, which is exactly what I'm doing here. Did I show back up here with that intent? Absolutely not! But once I happened to stumble into seeing how dissenting opinions are now treated here, it became my mission, my duty as a free man and a free thinker, establishment narratives cand threats of banning be damned. 



With no further ado here we go, straight to the soft spot of the western establishment narrative. I contend that Vladimir Putin is not the baddie of this story, that instead, he and his country are guilty of standing in the way of the western unipole order, remaining as such. I contend, that much of the hysteria we are witness to is a modern day McCarthyism. If you don't hate Russia with every fiber of your being, and if you don't long to see that the 3 year old proxy war against them continue on down until the last Ukrainian soldier is dead, then you are hereby rendered a despicable person and to be treated with great suspicion. Maybe even an enemy of the State? A Putin Puppet?

The way I see it, the US has been the world's sole hegemon since the fall of the Soviet Union circa 1991, it got comfortable there, and with the sudden rise of a multipolar world, it is desperate to regain that sole hegemon position at all cost. Perhaps even risking extinction of the huma race at large if it must come down to that. 

So why the shrieks of horror at someone going against the "Russia Bad!" narrative machine in today's polite society? Well that's pretty clear now, just as why is it now considered anti Semitic to speak out against the genocide of the Palestinians? Or why was Boy Bush compelled to say "either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists" as he lied our way into destroying Irag...

Getting back to direct topic here - this is not to say Putin is a nice man, this is to say, IMHO, that he is simply not the latest incarnation of Hitler as he is ubiquitously portrayed, and that the narrative of why he invaded Ukraine is a lie similar in magnitude to the big lie that manufactured consent to pave our way into the destruction of Iraq. 

Now I'm more than happy to back my opinion with verifying evidence; but being that this thread is likely to meet the same fate as the other deletions, I'm not inclined to go much further than state my opening opinion. This is what I was instructed to do, don't dare challenge the stated opinions of others, state your own case, and that's *precisely* what I'm doing.

[Lauren Johnson]

I think your question is very well worth discussing and has been addressed at length at DPF.

[Fred Steeves]

Alright, thanks Lauren. So I reckon to me, the base fundamental cause/concern over this whole mess would be NATO expansion. The Russians have long expressed deep concern about this, and from their perspective can't say that I blame them.

I like to think of it as if there was an armed gang that continued, slowly but surely, heading towards my property. They can say all they want about how they have no hostile intentions, but at what point does "Nyet Means Nyet" cease being a warning, and escalate to doing whatever is necessary to make them stop. Where is that red line so to speak? Should I wait until they're at my front door while still saying "everything is fine, we mean no harm"?

Classified By: Ambassador William J. Burns.  Reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).

1.  © Summary.  Following a muted first reaction to
Ukraine's intent to seek a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP)
at the Bucharest summit (ref A), Foreign Minister Lavrov and
other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition,
stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion
as a potential military threat.  NATO enlargement,
particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic"
issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also
underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and
Georgia.  In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue
could potentially split the country in two, leading to
violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force
Russia to decide whether to intervene.  Additionally, the GOR
and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership
would have a major impact on Russia's defense industry,
Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and bilateral relations
generally.  In Georgia, the GOR fears continued instability
and "provocative acts" in the separatist regions.  End
summary.

Cable: 08MOSCOW265_a




We can of course even go back to the beginning, with James Baker's   “not one inch eastward”

Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” (See Document 6) 

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive



So I'm just laying out some basic framework of which I'm sure we're all well aware. But even this alone, without going any further, should at the very least cast some doubt upon the ubiquitous western media mantra of "Unprovoked Russian Aggression".

[Lauren Johnson]

Watch Putin's Munich 2007 speech. He was sneered at for saying that Russia wouldn't stand for it anymore.  He warned us.  There is nothing in this speech of the typical slobbering Slavic knuckledragger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cWly2hHVxg

[Fred Steeves]

That was interesting, a good one to add to the collection. It's definitely right in line with his "I'm more than willing to work with you, but you need to back off" mantra.

I also noticed that when he mentions the Soviet Union, he leaves little doubt that the term is being used in past tense, and will remain in the past. I'm still wondering where people get that his overriding goal is to reconstitute the Soviet Union, just not seeing it.

As a side note, I didn't know he was talking about the rise of multi polarity that long ago.

[Lauren Johnson]

If nor nothing else, Putin is speaking from notes -- not a manuscript and certainly not a teleprompter.  His speech is like a lawyer who has the facts and the law -- so he doesn't need to pound the table.

[Fred Steeves]

So Putin delivers that speech in February 2007, and what does NATO turn around and say a year later at the Bucharest Summit in April of '08? Essentially the big "Fuck You" we do as we please:

1. NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO.  We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.  Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations.  We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May.  MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership.  Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP.  Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications.  We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting.  Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.
   

NATO - Official text: Bucharest Summit Declaration issued by NATO Heads of State and Government (2008), 03-Apr.-2008

And away we go with Putin soon waking up one day, out of the blue, deciding he'll start things off with an "invasion" of Georgia. According to the western narrative machine.

[Peter Lemkin]

[Peter Lemkin]

There are many reasons Trump/Musk/MAGA/Project 2025/and Christian Nationalists align with Putin. I think it is mainly Putin's embrace and official support of the ultra-conservative/racist/sexist/nationalist Orthodox Russian Church. There is a parallel and equally dangerous entity in the USA [and in many Spanish/Portuguese American countries]. Here is the man I feel wrote 'the book' on the danger of the Christian Right [who Jesus would condemn totally] and who are the engine behind many of those in the MAGA movement. Totally anti-Democratic/racist/mysogist/misusing Judeo-Christian teachings to bring about a new fascism......

[Fred Steeves]

So while I can agree that I too, see a rapidly growing far right wing Christian Nationalism, and it scares the shit out of me what people are capable of doing in the name of god, this thread is not about that it's about whether Putin is a goodie or a baddie.

But at risk of derailment I'll just also add this: I also find it frightening how deeply the supposed left in this country, have snuggled into a nice warm bed with despot neocons like the Cheneys, the Lindsay Grahams, the Tom Cottons, etc. WTF is THAT all about??!! 

The way I view a facet of this terrible war could easily be a separate thread in the "Alchemy and Borderlands" section of this forum. Another great human sacrifice ritual, lots of frenzied feeding going on in both the inner and outer worlds... and to see good people who think they're fighting the good fight by screaming bloody murder this human sacrifice ritual must continue until Ukraine lays in flaming ruins and the last soldier is dead, gives me little more comfort than looking at the raving, bloodthirsty Christian Nationalists. It just lends more energy to the ritual.

As usual Chris Hedges is spot on in his analysis of the fanatical Christian Right, but it's also like Christians picking unrelated verses out of the Bible that (supposedly) lend credence to any given point they're trying to make, in that a true lefty Chris Hedges type would NEVER, EVER, sign on to the continuation of this terrible war. And I don't think he would want his name associated with those aims either.



Anyway, getting back to topic and taking a sneak peak to the end game here, what happens next once the guns and drones go silent will be quite telling to all. Or it should anyway. If a peace deal is indeed reached, security guarantees given, and Russian soldiers head back to their families, that should... tell us a lot as to Putin's true intentions once and for all. I suppose I might expect that certain bipartisan segment of the diehards to continue insisting that stopping the war was the gravest of all mistakes, that Putin is only using the time to regroup, rearm, and go back about his imperial/Hitleresque aims once again; but then again this would be the same segment of bipartisan diehards that have long insisted the same Russian army that is still struggling through only owning roughly 20% of Ukraine, is also poised to take eastern, and then maybe even western Europe.

I believe these people are in the process of discrediting themselves for all to see, but time will tell. Perhaps I'M in the process of discrediting myself, but the facts on the ground are surely not looking that way.

Which brings us back full circle to the original basis of this thread: The Facts On The Ground.