Look at the Bay of Pigs failure. The CIA is not some omnipotent power that topples stable countries via a few quite words while enjoying cigars and brandy.
The CIA doesn’t topple regimens itself, it backs locals who do.
Not that different than what the US is doing in Ukraine right now. Not “toppling” this time, rather “backing” and last I checked lots of Americans seem to approve of our meddling.
My take is you either shit or get off the pot. The US decides to either “meddle” in other countries or not.
If you decide to “meddle”, well, you also need to accept that things can go sideways and the locals and the US end up in a worse situation than if they avoided getting involved in the first place.
Unless you have a crystal ball, nobody can tell what the outcome of meddling will be.
Yea helping country invaded by barbarians that destroy whole cities, rape and kill civilians les masses also openly speak about using nukes is same as destroying government elected in fair election (vatnik-meme.jpg).
Russia was attacking west for past 10+years on the cyber-front they even blew up few ammo depos in Central Europe (European Union and NATO countries), assassinate people living in UK without consequences, they were corrupting German politicians with Gasprom money, they were killing opposition inside and outside their country for past 10+ years.
They are barbarian nation and should be stopped and that was common knowledge for everyone living in Central/Eastern Europe and post USSR central asian countries for decades.
It's good that US and West wake up and I'm hoping Russia can get proper XX/XXI century leap in mentality sooner then later cause they definitely stopped growing as society about 1960. (or they can go all in and get destroyed in conventional war vs NATO both options seems good for everyone that isn't Russian oligarch)
I'd be wary about "Russia was attacking west for past 10+years on the cyber-front". Attribution is difficult enough as it is, but we only ever hear "trust us, we know" from the same people who said the same thing about WMDs in Iraq.
Russia was actively testing and attacking key infrastructure in Central Europe (NATO countries) for at least past 8 years and they aren't hiding it in Poland they even leak whole e-mail history of one of the ministers 2 years ago and laugh at it publicly (and indeed it was funny what they were writting), they attack key infrastructure in baltic countries at least once per year so we can trust 10+ countries that are in NATO at confirm it was Russia or believe in some grand conspiracy to destroy last moral country on earth that is Vatniks-heaven.
Its not "trust us" it is facts not even speaking about troll farms destroying social media for past 7/8+ years (and possibly 2016 US election)
What's your stance on on Vietnam? The Korean War? Or our involvement with Kuwait and the subsequent Iraq War? How did that go for us?
Are we going to "come to the rescue" of every country that has its territory threatened? No, we obviously pick out battles, not well, but we pick them.
My point is that an invasion happening 10,000 miles away from the US isn't automatically our business. It's gotten us mired in horrible wars and actually made a lot of situations worse not better.
And the hilarious part is that most commenters here are commenting on an article talking about how terrible the CIA is and somehow throwing all that out the window when it comes to Ukraine.
> And the hilarious part is that most commenters here are commenting on an article talking about how terrible the CIA is and somehow throwing all that out the window when it comes to Ukraine.
This you?
>>> Not that different than what the US is doing in Ukraine right now.
Ukraine has nothing to do with the CIA, but you brought it up, so here we are. We're not throwing anything out.
> Kuwait - America picked a fight and had to get Britain and then pretty much the whole rest of NATO in to save them, yet again.
Those British Abrams tanks, French paveway laser guided bombs, German Apache attack helicopters, and NATO ground troops. Without them, Desert Storm would have been more of a mild Desert Breeze.
> Not that different than what the US is doing in the Ukraine right now.
No. I know that we Americans are bone-weary of war. I know that there is a sector of industry and enabling politicians who will always be keen for more war. I know that Russia has been a scapegoat for American political failures.
No. This war is different. It is a genocidal, expansionist invasion from the last old-school, colonialist empire in Europe, and it has the potential to end our current era of unprecedented peace and prosperity.
Russia must be defeated not appeased, and Russian mafia leaders must be brought to trial for breaking international law. Anything other than that outcome will lead to instability for generations.
> Russia must be defeated not appeased, and Russian mafia leaders must be brought to trial for breaking international law. Anything other than that outcome will lead to instability for generations.
I think Russia is slowly losing the Ukraine war, but I don't see a scenario where Russian leaders are put on trial without Russia being itself invaded and conquered (not likely to happen as long as they have nuclear weapons) or the Russian government collapsing (more likely, but I wouldn't count on it).
I would like Russian leaders to be held accountable, I just don't think we should pin our hopes on that happening.
I agree with you though that Russia's war on Ukraine is barbaric, and they need to be stopped.
> I don't see a scenario where Russian leaders are put on trial without Russia being itself invaded and conquered (not likely to happen as long as they have nuclear weapons) or the Russian government collapsing (more likely, but I wouldn't count on it).
Russia to continue to be isolated and sanctioned until the war criminals are prosecuted. Will it work? Who knows. I suspect it will. Putin is probably out if the war is lost. He will have lost the illusion of invincible strength.
>it has the potential to end our current era of unprecedented peace and prosperity.
Is this supposed to be sarcastic?
Or are we just ignoring iraq, yemen, libya, afghanistan because they're far enough away and aren't white?
>Russia must be defeated not appeased
So I'm genuinely interested, how do you see that going? The Ukrainian army marching in red square? What do you think is more likely to lead to nuclear conflict, absolutism or a negotiated peace?
>Russian mafia leaders must be brought to trial for breaking international law
What it feels like you're doing is calling any form of negotiated settlement "appeasement", which seems to be the latest argument used by people with a poor understanding of history. The UK went to war in 1939 to defend Polish independence, but by 1945 Poland and eastern Europe were under Soviet control. Was it "appeasement" that the US and the UK allowed that? Or should we have continued the war after 1945 and invaded the Soviet Union to prevent it?
It should go without saying but with the current state of discourse on this matter I feel it necessary to state that I find this whole invasion to be abhorrent.
US violators of international law should also be tried in the Hague. Everyone involved in the torture regime, especially, and with "extraordinary rendition". They are fully as guilty as any Russian.
And, of course, in US criminal court.
This is not "what about". This is "prosecute all war crimes".
>> it has the potential to end our current era of unprecedented peace and prosperity.
>Is this supposed to be sarcastic? Or are we just ignoring iraq, yemen, libya, afghanistan because they're far enough away and aren't white?
Not at all. Even considering Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Syria, Tigray, Chad, Myanmar, Sudan, Rwanda, Nigeria, and all of the other conflicts combined, we are globally in an era of unprecedented peace and prosperity. Fewer people per capita are dying in wars than ever in the history of humanity. Fewer people live in poverty, by far, in the history of the world. Fewer children dying before 5 years old. I can speak more about this if anything is unclear.
> because they're far enough away and aren't white?
I'm not saying it's you, but those who are quick to fling accusations like that are often struggling internally with their own racism. Just a thought.
> So I'm genuinely interested, how do you see that going? The Ukrainian army marching in red square?
Russia entirely out of Ukraine. Despite what you have been told, the war is going quite well for Ukraine and quite badly for Russia. Ukraine has a very good chance to win, and by win that means Russia even out of Crimea.
> What do you think is more likely to lead to nuclear conflict, absolutism or a negotiated peace?
What is "likely" to lead to nuclear conflict is Russia deciding to use nuclear weapons. There is no other path to nuclear conflict. That is Russia's choice. Assuming the threat is real (arguable), being cowed in the face of such threats will lead to more threats and more escalation, not less. I can speak more about this if something is unclear.
> which seems to be the latest argument used by people with a poor understanding of history
Again, your own discourse here is pretty inflammatory. You can be more persuasive without hostility.
The relevant history here is - and it sucks to say this because Godwin has made a joke of it, but here we are - the relevant history here is Nazi Germany. The world should never have given into Hitler's demands, because doing so led to more instability, not less. That is a clear lesson we would ignore at our peril.
As an aside, the USSR and Nazi Germany were allies at the beginning of WW2. USSR didn't turn out to be better than the Nazis in any respect. While Germany has come to terms with its past, Russia never truly owned it. Russia is continuing the same policies, and the same genocides, as it did then.
>>Russian mafia leaders must be brought to trial for breaking international law
A condition of normalizing trade and diplomatic relationships will be Russia extraditing its war criminals. When Russia loses this war and Putin loses his leadership, the subsequent leadership may be willing to negotiate.
If this were true the time to engage was Crimea. Or arguably in the 90s when they began this long con with the frozen conflict zones in Transnistria, Abkhazia, etc.
I’ve spent considerable time in the Donbas, especially in Donetsk and Luhansk. I don’t condone anything the Russians have done but many of my former colleagues and friends there identify as Russian and speak Russian. They view their Ukrainian identity as an accident of modern geopolitics than an accurate reflection of their true lineage or historical allegiance(s).
Furthermore, I’ve had to watch as friends in Kyiv have had their means of speaking out publicly and engaging in politics completely shut down via the dictatorial edicts of the current administration, who is conveniently using this war to consolidate power. And let’s not get into the massive cognitive dissonance it requires for Occupy Democrats types to post “Slava Ukraina” on Twitter while condemning Republicans as Neo-Nazis; meanwhile the Ukrainian states have not only supported an openly Neo-Nazi militia (Azov battalion, who have a decade long affiliation with Atomwaffen and others in the esoteric/Eurasian Nazi/Fascism scene) but have nationalized and integrated it into their army as an example of an exemplary task force.
(EDIT: The response here is hilarious. I’m devoting my own funds and time, having moved to Chișinău full time, to working on the ground in Moldova to provide remote jobs and housing for people displaced by this very war. The lack of substantive replies (instead choosing to drive-by downvote), on the other hand, is not helping but is rather furthering an inaccurate and harmful Western narrative of the conflict.)
Yup. The history of Ukraine goes way back. It's not like Putin decided to wake up one morning and invade it. Russia has long held that Ukraine is simply "southern Russia". The regions of Ukraine under Russian control have large Russian populations.
The enmity runs deep (on both side) and it goes back well over a century. To simplify it as "Russia invaded Ukraine" is foolish. There is way more to it.
> Russia has long held that Ukraine is simply "southern Russia".
That isn't for Russia to decide. Quoting from the Basic Laws of Human Stupidity by Carlos M. Cipolla:
"Let me resort once again to a banal example. Tom hits Dick on Dick's head and he derives satisfaction from his action. He may pretend that Dick was delighted to be hit on the head. Dick, however, may not share Tom's view. In fact he may regard the blow to his head as an unpleasant event. Whether the blow to Dick's head was a gain or a loss to Dick is up to Dick to decide and not to Tom."
It's also worth pointing out that while the regions Russia has had defacto control of for years have high concentrations of Russian-speaking people, many of whom might prefer to be part of Russia rather than Ukraine, Russia did not try to conquer just those regions, they started their invasion with a direct assault on Kyiv. They would have taken the whole country if they could.
I seem to recall Ukraine not doing much but yelling after Russia took crimea in 2014. Funnily enough the current hot conflict occurred after Russia declared Ukraine was a fake country and people and tried to blitzkrieg Kyiv.
If Russia had actually kept to the naturally Russian ethnic area this would be a much muddier and ideologically partisan discussion. But as they tried to take the whole country, and had sights on Moldova too, it’s pretty clear cut who the bad guys are now
It’s an answer in that I reacted to the event you were slyly trying to imply. The Ukrainians arrested the local leader of crimea and forced them to rewrite their laws to follow the Ukrainian constitution. When Russia took that region and Ukraine did nothing but yell, Russia had a much more solid argument in terms of it always being Russian land and wanting it returned.
They lost that veil of plausibility when they decided to go for the rest of Ukraine in their attempted blitz of Kyiv
> To simplify it as "Russia invaded Ukraine" is foolish.
Lol wat? It is that simple. Claiming that land other people live in, has its own language, and it’s own nation with internationally recognized borders, doesn’t make it not an invasion when you send troops over those borders.
Is China incapable of invading anyone because their past empires held the view that they were the Middle Kingdom and all land was Chinese but just didn’t know it yet? Does only Russia get this ability to invade but not have it be an invasion?
So when Vietnam invade Cambodia and overthrew the Khmer Rouge, we should have defended the Khmer Rouge’s “territorial integrity”?
Or was that “different”? Somehow when people are clamoring for war, it's always "different" this time. That's how we ended up in Vietnam.
"It's clear that China and the USSR are looking to take over SE Asia. Today it's Laos and Vietnam, tomorrow Malaysia, then Australia. We have to back South Vietnam as the security of the free world is at stake!"
Of course you know how silly that sounds because you have 20/20 hindsight. But that's how it was explained the public at the time.
Sound familiar at all?
Your rule that territorial integrity must be defended no matter what doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It's not a "red line" that we have to start a war over.
> So when Vietnam invade Cambodia and overthrew the Khmer Rouge, we should have defended the Khmer Rouge’s “territorial integrity”?
There are plenty of arguments to defend Vietnam in that instance. There are zero to argue that it wasn’t an invasion.
> Sound familiar at all?
Nah it doesn’t because that was America getting involved in a revolutionary/civil war for our own interests entirely. We were the invaders then, like Russia is now. And guess what, the US wasn’t the good guy in Vietnam just like Russia isn’t in Ukraine.
Sending war material to a people defending their homeland against invasion is a war I am completely comfortable getting behind ethically. Come back to me if we start putting boots on the ground in the region or Ukraine start taking Russian regions and it’ll be a lot more gray for me
The history of that region is indeed very long and very complex, and the black and white picture painted by both western and Russian media is downright frustrating.
To give examples, Crimea was historically neither Russian nor Ukrainian, it was Tatar, and Ukraine is itself a weird cultural patchwork of Poles, Lithuanians, Prussians, Russians and a long list of other minor ethnic groups.
If you want to get more historical it was greek, and whoever was there before them, and so on and so on. Is there any bit of land on earth that has only been held by one people ever?
Russia invaded Ukraine, a sovereign country with internationally recognized borders. It is simple.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine broke international law, and it will be punished by the international community for its war crimes, including the tactical use of rape, genocide, terror and destruction of civilian infrastructure. To put it simply.
You personally can choose to spread the propaganda of the enemy, or get on the right side of history and oppose the enemy. That may not be a simple choice for you. If you're Russian, you can oppose your government. You could be free someday. Not simple, though.
Man, there's no bothsidesing this. Sometimes one side is just wrong.
The wrong side here does all of this: invades a sovereign nation; kills, rapes and tortures its inhabitants; uses terror against civilians and civilian infrastructure as a tactic of war; moves orphans into their own territory to be raised there rather than finding relatives; forces residents to fight against their own countrymen; threatens nuclear war. That side is not Ukraine. That side, the wrong side, is Russia.
Russia could leave Ukraine any time, but by it's own free choice, remains in Ukraine fighting for lebensraum.
> Anything other than that outcome will lead to instability for generations.
Ukraine was already unstable and divided before Putin's war. That was very well known [1].
CIA's "stability" plan was to depose Yanukovych in favour of the pro-west (but equally corrupt as it turned out) Tymoshenko, while keeping Ukraine a unitary state. A truly stability-oriented meddling/intervention would also push Tymoshenko to start the process for making Ukraine a federation.
Just as CIA's involvement does not absolve Putin of his war crimes, we just can't oversee how their meddling lead us where we are.
Yanukovych ran on pro EU platform during the elections so as much as russian propoganda likes to push this very point you are regurgitating it's total BS.
The election map shows results of a dude/party who ran on Pro EU platform. As much as you like to spin it any other way that is an indisputable fact. Protest erupted when he refused to sign the EU association agreement.
> Anything other than that outcome will lead to instability for generations.
>> Ukraine was already unstable and divided before Putin's war.
I'm not talking about just Ukraine. I'm talking about Europe in particular and the global community in general. China will be emboldened to take Taiwan and throw its weight around the Pacific. Russia will be emboldened to continue into Moldova (because who cares about Moldova), and then on to the Baltics, the Balkans, Poland and possibly Finland. Then even more nations can experience the joys of being Russia's neighbor.
This will happen unless Russia is kneecapped from ever doing anything like this again. Any "negotiated peace" will be used by Russia to revamp and upgrade its military. This must be prevented.
> Russia will be emboldened to continue into Moldova (because who cares about Moldova), and then on to the Baltics, the Balkans, Poland and possibly Finland.
BS. All Baltics and Poland are already NATO members. And even USSR didn't manage to annex any of Poland, Finland, or any of the Balkans. No way today's Russia can do that. They have neither the political or military clout of the USSR.
And Moldova, while a feasible target, you said it yourself: who cares (strategically)? It's a poor, landlocked country.
My theory is that the US knew the sorry state of the Russian army and tried to start the war by having NATO flirt with Ukraine. The goal was to get the Russians involved in a war that, when it was lost, could result in regime change in Russia.
Someone might have thought so, but I think your theory needs some serious qualification - a lot of people were credibly surprised that it went so badly for Russia. The version I heard was that the US had extremely good (open source and not) intel on what the higher Russian military echelons thought about their chances - and they thought it would go well!
So the mistake the US might have made is to buy the self-confidence of the higher brass instead of looking at the reality at the ground. (Bad training, no combined arms, bad equipment, low morale etc.)
> tried to start the war by having NATO flirt with Ukraine.
They've been trying to do this for over a decade. The reason the war started now is because this was the peak moment for Russian advantage - the Ukraine Maidan coup had been frozen for years in the east and the US was paying attention to other things, but the actor that the Ukrainian population had desperately and cynically elected for relief from the tug-of-war between the US and Russia (parallels with Trump) was a lightweight owned by an oligarch who would give the US whatever they wanted. That meant that assaults on the East would escalate, Ukraine would join NATO, and Russia would have anti-Russian troops stationed on its borders.
Russia's military and economy are horrible though (although not as bad as the poorest and most corrupt country in Europe, Ukraine.) If they were going to win they would have to win quickly before the US was able to ramp up again. They failed this, so now they're going to have to use nukes on Ukraine.
They don't have to use nukes on Ukraine. In fact, if they do, the resultant shit-storm will make the current sanctions seem like halcyon days of leisure and abundance. If they use nukes, it will be because they want to
What happened in your life that has led you to be vociferously defending this genocidal, terrorist state?
As the saying goes, "whenever a war starts, the first victim is the truth".
Your position is extremely naive and you need to educate yourself better before making such bold claims.
Specifically, you need to get out of the western media bubble and get exposed to the opposite point of view if you ever want to get an at most vague idea of what is really going on.
Google translate is your friend as it can convert entire web pages to your local dialect.
Once you've done that, start asking yourself what the US would do if some remote foreign power (think Russia or China) was busy slowly converting Mexico or Canada to their side, gaining local political, military and economic influence by replacing local leaders with foreign-funded officials hostile to the US?
Nothing you think?
The truth is that the US has had a very heavy hand in creating the current situation in Ukraine.
If you need to get an idea of the over-arching plans the US has for Russia, take a gander at the CIA-funded plan for the dismantlement of Russia, labeled the "Free Nations of Russia Forum" whose latest instance was held in Prague in July 2022:
What do you think the US would do if a foreign power financed a conference held in a close-by nation with an openly voiced goal of breaking apart and fragmenting the US in its component states?
You need to open your eyes. However evil Putin may seem to a US citizen subjected to the propaganda of its own state, the reality is nevertheless that the US is a warmongering state ready to fight Putin down to the last Ukrainian and without ever risking a single US life.
No. This war is different. It is a genocidal, expansionist invasion from the last old-school, colonialist empire in Europe, and it has the potential to end our current era of peace.
I have no doubt that very similar arguments were made for every single involvement of the US in other countries politics.
"If we don't stop [insert country] from doing [insert action] then we're not only risking the security of the US, but also regional and global stability."
Rinse and repeat.
And hey, it might be a worthy cause for the US to get involved. Or we may fuck it up entirely and make the situation far worse than if we had just stayed out.
> I have no doubt that very similar arguments were made for every single involvement of the US in other countries politics.
Oh that changes everything! “Sorry Ukrainian folks and freedom fighters, even though it applies now, we can’t use this argument again, since we used it as a straw man before! So long.:D”
> And hey, it might be a worthy cause for the US to get involved. Or we may fuck it up entirely and make the situation far worse than if we had just stayed out.
Right, because Russia is just [insert country], and not a terrorist state that threatens the world with Nuclear annihilation.
Sounds like an excuse to not get involved in something because our pattern of fucking things up.
You're absolutely 100% correct. Our track record is dismal. Out of the dozen of military or covert adventures the US undertook in the 20th century, maybe 2 or 3 turned out well. I'd guess the failure rate is >90%.
I prefer LBJ's approach (too bad he didn't follow his own advice): "But we are not about to send American boys 9,000 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.”"
Europe can handle it, let them. I'm ok if we sit this one out.
Look at the Bay of Pigs failure. The CIA is not some omnipotent power that topples stable countries via a few quite words while enjoying cigars and brandy.
The CIA doesn’t topple regimens itself, it backs locals who do.
Not that different than what the US is doing in Ukraine right now. Not “toppling” this time, rather “backing” and last I checked lots of Americans seem to approve of our meddling.
My take is you either shit or get off the pot. The US decides to either “meddle” in other countries or not.
If you decide to “meddle”, well, you also need to accept that things can go sideways and the locals and the US end up in a worse situation than if they avoided getting involved in the first place.
Unless you have a crystal ball, nobody can tell what the outcome of meddling will be.