Polish dude here. I don’t know what to make of this podcast, I don’t even know if I understood the message.
Of course US is very far from perfect, of course it wants to be the only empire out there, of course it uses dirty methods to achieve this goal. But here in Poland… out of all the empires we were given taste of, we strongly prefer to have US boot on our neck. It’s definitely the coziest. If this way of thinking, as well as the fact how genuinely glad we are of being part of NATO is programmed into us by US intelligence, I must say outstanding job!
Another Polish dude here, and, in case anyone wants to dismiss us for our bias, let me proclaim myself a Russophile, one who spent a significant time living in Moscow with the sole purpose of absorbing the culture and the language.
Had there only been two players in all of this, Russia and the U.S, Daryll would have been correct in his assessment. What he misses, unfortunately, are the voices and the agency of the smaller nations. The Poles, the Balts, the Ukrainians, and even a significant percentage of Russians (virtually all of Moscow's or St. Petersburg's youth) look westward with hope, and see the Kremlin as a place stagnant, with no future or potential.
Perhaps I'm not cynical enough, but it seems to me that if nations turn their faces toward us, looking for freedom and prosperity, then the long game we ought to play is to help them shed tyranny and stagnation.
I am grateful that I was born in a free and democratic Poland of the early 90s, grateful to the Western establishment which through years of pressure on the Soviet Union won that freedom for us.
I pray for the same thing for Ukrainians. I pray for the same thing for Russians.
Lithuanian dude here. Born 1969, military service in the Soviet Army 1987-89. Labelled as a Nazi by "good Gorbachev" when he sent the troops to crush us. Grateful to the people of Russia who came out into the streets of Moscow to support us when we were holding our hands to stop their tanks in January 1991. Grateful forever to US and NATO for expanding. Today our families are safe, unlike the ones who are in Ukraine or Georgia.
(holy shit, this must be the 5th time i comment in this episode commentsection, I'm not on a crusade, i think im just very worried - view my posts with some compassion for a fellow human , not as a guy on a cruzade)
Great contribution, Kas Stucinskas!
The perspective from your experience, the perspective from the countries like mine (swe) who feared the day we'd be called in to serve in defense, the perpective in generel in europe near the Soviet seems to get lost somehow.
My personal reaction to hearing these stuff (some new!) is:
I think that the feeling of the cold war, even not being in a country occupied by Soviet!, cannot be translated to someone living even in the same country, even less to someone across the pond.
USA being dirty? Even more so when they did their empire overreach after 91? We knew that shit already, I'm somewhat suprised this is still news to someone! When did the rest of the world (not you guys who got proxywarred or invaded) realise this? This has never been clean and I remember Olof Palme, up until 86 when he was gunned down a swedish polititian very heavy on the USA-critique, was describing in other words the cold war giants crushing the rest of us etc.
(/end personal emotional thoughtprocess)
I just dont think we grasp how aware or unaware people are about this depending on where you live. I grew up with a fearful eye on soviet while very sceptical about NATO. maybe it's just because i grew up during the 80's.
You're Swedish, right? The '80s was just icing on the cake of the World Wars. Churchill had his sights set on the north of Sweden until Hitler kicked the Allies out of Norway and put your country into a vise.
Yeah, WW2 was a balancing act, Sweden's stance on moving the counterweight constantly updated in favor of who seemed to be winning the war + who sent the strongest signals.
About the 80's; yes and u are right, it was. Butt our view is heavily dependant on quite far back. In the 80's we had people in church on Sundays, still, who seemed grumpy and didn't talk and i was told it was because".. He fought in the war, defending Finland against Russia" to explain it to me when back at home in the manner that a kid understands the between the lines of. The WW2 and later events colored everything we lived.
I know I'm kind of kicking in open doors saying that the today's view can thus be built on previous views held by people before even (in my my case, my own) our own lifetime.
For me The Soviet Union wasn't dying out, it was all its previous iteration as well, it was just more lines on a drawing trying to change the expression of the picture. Much like noone dared saying the Invasion-word more than a week before it undeniably happen.
It's only in hindsight the 80's was the last roar of the lion. 'Icing on the cake ' is just true to prophets.
Lets hope this war will be known as The Big European Hiccup or something like that and not the shot in Sarajevo. World wars have started from smaller a spark.
Could you not still be cozy without joining an expanding alliance hostile to Russia? What did NATO membership achieve that wouldn't have happened under a transition from a Soviet economy to liberal capitalism?
This is super complex topic, I don't think I can explain this in short (or even long) comment. But Darryl recorder great episode with Kristaps Andrejsons https://martyrmade.substack.com/p/on-the-front-lines-wthe-eastern-border?s=r I couldn't stop nodding with agreement listening to him. Highly recommend if you want to know more about "central and eastern europe countries mentality". This is how we were shaped having the place on the map that we have.
American here -- we honestly thought Putin would be cool with us including y'all in the coalition against Al-Qaeda, seeing as how they all fought against Russia in Chechnya and we were all trying to be buddy-buddy. Guess the fact that NATO never had more than a thousand or two troops in the East was lost on him, along with the USA's obvious motive to use you Slavs in Afghanistan, not in Russia.
I think my biggest issue with the commentary from yourself, Horton, Greenwald, and other similar folks is how much you don’t address. You talk about others having simplistic or Manichaean commentary. However, are you not guilty of this yourself, just from another direction? You give no time to Putin’s ideological motivations as laid down in his own past writings, and most recently, in his hour long speech just prior to recognizing the the 2 separatist republics and sending “peace keepers” in (just before the full invasion began). His views of Ukrainian ethnicity, how they owe Russia a great debt, have no right to exist independently from Russia, and how they betrayed Russia by seeking closer ties with the west are never addressed. It would be like looking at Hitler’s motivations and ignoring Mein Kampf or numerous other speeches and public statements. Nor is time given to how newly discovered resources in Ukraine might influence Putin’s decisions.
Instead, we get a grand narrative of how Russia was betrayed by the US and NATO (while the EU, which is at least as much of factor is barely mentioned). The so called “agreement” to not expand is endlessly cited as the cornerstone to this view. Yet no treaty or public agreement exists. We have disputed statements from behind the scenes talks. No mention of Gorbachev himself, never happy with NATO expansion, publicly stating later that a halt to NATO expansion was not part of the discussion. Further, besides the fact that no treaty was ever signed(and citing a German official’s statement as if it is the same thing is at least a large reach), the actual signed agreements Russia has violated by their actions in Ukraine are all conveniently ignored.
It is never explained just why Russia should have a veto over the foreign policy of its neighbors. The same neighbors who spent decades( (at least) under brutal Russian subjugation. In pursuit of “Strategic empathy,” the reasons Poland or Estonia or Ukraine might seek greater security & economic ties with the west are given no time. The role of the EU ( which has no murky, disputed statements regarding its expansion) is also strangely ignored. How close was Ukraine to joining NATO before this invasion? And why has Russia been able to function just fine with NATO member states on its border since 2003? Is its concern for NATO actually stemming from fears of invasion (while being a nuclear power)? Or is that concern more centered on how NATO is an obstacle towards re asserting its dominance over its neighbors in Eastern Europe.
If you’re going to make the argument that NATO expansion is Russia’s chief motivator here (which is an argument you can make) you at the very least need to address these other issues and why they are less important in factoring Russian motivations. Are Russian “security concerns” really all that defensive? Or are they centered removing obstacles towards re-establishing the greater Russian sphere?
This comment is already too long, but I’ll mention this. Your constant framing of the 2014 revolution as just a Coup is telling (especially while you ignore Russian meddling among those same states or wave them away as legitimate actions provoked by the west). As the Ukrainians themselves have now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, they think their country and current government is worth defending. The entire last third of your podcast, aims to at least imply the lack of legitimacy of the current Ukrainian state and painting Russian actions in Ukraine as defensive and in pursuit of “legitimate security concerns.” A throwaway a line about how Americans need only care and comment on American actions doesn’t change this. You either take a look at all factors in your analysis or you don’t get to accuse others of simplicity or Manichaeism.
Also, I would love for you to expand on that throwaway line crediting Putin for “stepping down” to be in the lower position of Prime minister, as if he gave up any power in reality. You then frame him regaining the presidency as only due to those dastardly Americans tricking Russia on Libya. Really?
Edit: Also, what exactly is your view on what the US and Europe should do? Is the current line hitting Russia via sanctions and giving Ukraine aid (military and otherwise) ok? What should be done?
But the other side is available from every TV channel, newspaper, magazine, and politician. I’m presenting the other side’s perspective, at a time when the propaganda machine is running at full capacity in one direction.
Also, as I said at the end, as an American my concern is with whether my country has done everything on our end to avoid this, or whether we’ve made it worse. That doesn’t mean we’re the sole cause.
Neither of these arguments make much sense though. A position being popular or dominant has no bearing on its merit. I believe you’re making this argument because you believe it, not just to balance out the popular narrative.
And likewise, an American should and can not be limited to only a sort of National self-criticism. That sort of thinking is, in effect, a sort of solipsism. People behave as if every country orbits the US and is only reacting to US ambitions. As if they have no true agency. Russia has plenty of ambitions all its own.
I have to say, i've been listening to Darryl's podcasts since the very beginning. I haven't agreed with his take on Twitter with American culpability and Putin's innocence at all during the last 3 weeks. This response out-does everything i was dreaming up in my head of writing when i could finally do it here instead of on social media. Yes, American government, intelligence and military (almost exclusively officers) is full of traitors to American values. But as much as we have fucked up the world, the last 3 weeks has proved that the world needs a policeman, and America is the best hegemon the world has ever had. At the same time, the clowns at the CIA couldn't have pulled off any of these color revolutions without legitimate, organic support. One thing I learned in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan is that no territory can be held without the legitimate support of the majority of the people. That statement contains some harsh truths, like how France had to be full of Nazi sympathizers to be taken over in 3 weeks by Hitler's horde. But it is true. and Ukraine is proving the opposite. Russia will never take and hold Ukraine. Putin's own actions have made a nation out of a people. To pretend that there is any nobility in his goals is betrayed by the fact that his $800M personal yacht (bought with stolen wealth from an impoverished people) was moved from Germany to Kaliningrad a couple of days before the invasion.
Propaganda machines pump out information to an audience (of course without context or nuance discussion) to paint whatever picture they want. It would not be something to brag about to have balanced that out. That is just pumping information in the opposite direction. We dont actually get the other side in any nuanced or meaningful way.
Yes. I see why you made the episode the way you did it. And i have no intent lecture now, it's just ideas that has occured during this month.
Personal story of mine: when i became around 18 i left the "prosperity church" i wasn't born into but my parents moved out family to a new town to join.
When i left i left on somewhat good terms. I could no longer stomach living the lie that i "felt God in my heart"-ish and decided to live more true (best decision of my life). A friend of mine had an almost fanatical mom which made his similar move way more bitter. He became one of those atheists that weren't content with that station but had to also go on the offensive against Christianity as part of his life.
It reached to, for me, an unbearable situation and I had to cut ties (which is also when i stopped using Facebook) with him.
But to the point; he once responded to a question of mine that made a huge impact on me back then. I asked why he keeps bashing christians, why try to overwhelm them online with such seeming hated?
His answer was that he felt the same overwhelming wave of christians trying to 'win'.
"I'm in the minority, they have a huge churches and a massive amount of people in their other side. I'm alone against this massive movement".
I gave me pause. It was how I felt.
Not for myself but on behalf of my family members who lived a good life by any measurement, as christians. They were individuals he was bringing this huge online organisation to bear on.
My lesson back then was that when what I (or any person) believe is questioned, my view is individual and the 'other side' is a group.
So it's always gonna be perceived as unbalanced (no matter the actual state).
It seems to be a trait of us humans. Maybe it's because we (lazily) tend to attack others beliefs instead of the belief itself. Maybe both.
Also the flow of conversation on internet is not 'anchored' to a 'online village city hall'. So I could see a massive unbalanced newsbias and decide to balance it.
However that event chain (including my response) is not what happens when you read what i post on the matter. My work will almost always be perceived to be the starting point in a event chain for you which could prompt your action to bring balance to the discussion.
We're talk past each other while both might want the same thing: adress the important elephant in the room that needs to be addressed of we ever going to reach an agreement.
We're forever trying to move on the sidewalk in order to not crash into that ever closing person who just keeps moving into a collision course again. While comedic in essence, it's devastating to exchange of ideas.
Is the news of whose at fault (Putin) for the invasion unbalanced? I think not. On a zoomed out level it's pretty clear he turned to international violence.
But none really disagree with that and that is not what you are talking about either. I believe you stated it very clearly at the start of the episode even if the challenge to keep up with you after that makes it easy to forget.
You bring some interesting ideas to light after that, which will take a long time to read up on before I can even start to agree it disagree with.
As a swede I've been born into most of my beliefs and there is just no chance all of it is true.
That by chance be born into a family, in the location and time in humanity's history and also be right about their starting belief's is just not a valid assumption.
Take care man, avoid visual input. I personally only let the said and written word into my poor brain. My emotional response is just too strong when i see pictures or video. This is a bad time to not stay frosty.
Very well put. I guess we were writing our comments at around the same time, but you expressed some of my thoughts more clearly and thoroughly than I did.
To be clear, I see your comment as a rounding out of the important and oft-neglected perspective Darryl is bringing to the table. But I agree that without this rounding-out, the “blame US foreign policy” perspective is hopelessly riddled with blind spots.
That’s my main point. NATO expansion is a certainly a factor here. But it is by no means the sole or even the most important of factors in my mind. The singular focus on it by Daryl and others like Horton without even trying to address the other obvious things involved here bothers the hell out of me. Especially as they accuse others of lazy or black and white thinking.
Fair enough - however stuff like this is full of too much history, too many characters and actors with complex motivations - it's unreasonable to expect an hour long podcast to paint the full picture from the Baptism of the Kievan Rus, through Putin's life history and relationship to Dugin, and then on a deeper level how Putin and Dugin are dismantling the Western pseudomorphosis with a cultural immune Boundary Act.
Those are unreasonable expectations to place on Daryll - what he was doing was a sort of direct response to what we're seeing around us in our day to day media environment - comparisons w/ Hitler, and the 24/7 social media info barrage that creates this "out of nowhere and for no reason at all" narrative. Given that Daryll and most us listeners are American - it's completely reasonable that his focus was on a varying perspective - specifically U.S. foreign policy perspective starting from the end of the Cold War, and contrasting with what the u.s. foreign policy establishment is saying now with what they said and how they behaved previously.
Nowhere did he say NATO expansion was the ONLY factor - but it's entirely reasonable IMO to give background on the evolution of american foreign policy leading up to this point - especially when many of our foreign policy greats from previous decades explicitly predicted this sort of outcome / response from this sort of fp behavior.
I reject this. I’m expecting the same standard Daryl has set for himself in pretty every previous series/episodes on this podcast. Virtually all of the topics he covers are controversial, often with propaganda and conflicting narratives around them. He’s proven more the capable of giving each side its due on a subject, why not here?
If I had to guess the answer is time. What’s the prep time of any of his long form podcasts? Three months? Eight months? A year? Russia invaded less than a month ago, and Darryl was on vacation for some of that time. He also had previous commitments and other responsibilities (like The Unraveling Podcast). Would it be better for him not to release anything about it for six months until he can do a thorough six hour introduction? Also most of what Darryl covers is more than thirty years in the past which means the path is often well tread with lots of verifiable sources, it’s a matter of assimilating those sources in his own unique way. Much of what he has researched can be primarily researched reading books. But because this is so current reliable sources aren’t as readily available, information even from the fall of the USSR is still classified. Much of the information isn’t in published books, it has to be fished out of newspaper articles and blogs which is much harder, especially when that information is being purposely obfuscated by search engines. I use Duck Duck Go, not even Google but the descriptors of the Azov battalion on a search from today is almost the opposite of what I get if I change the publication time to 2016 or even 2018. Publications that are currently claiming the Azov neo-Nazi ties are propaganda wrote articles proclaiming that exact thing in 2018. It’s not impossible to do such research but it’s extremely time consuming.
Mar 14, 2022·edited Mar 14, 2022Liked by Darryl Cooper
This is an important perspective, particularly if all you have been exposed to is hawkish anti-Russian propaganda in the last couple of weeks. I found it easy enough to find more balanced views, but I’m sure that’s not the modal case, so thank you Darryl for laying out the other side with your usual thorough and spirited clarity.
I’m sympathetic to this viewpoint, to a point, but it treats the West a bit too monolithically and seems to overstate the importance of the hidden hand of America in foreign policy developments. We can’t forget that the EU, the West, and even NATO is not a monolith. There are many independent points of view here, and they all come together (or fail to come together) to give us exactly the balance of power and result we see today.
Poland and the Baltics have very good reasons to want to be in NATO without any prodding from Washington. If Putin saw this as American aggression, that is, in part, because he is overlooking the absolutely apocalyptic threat that these countries face from anyone who sees the fall of the Soviet Union as a catastrophic collapse. The proximity between Estonia and St. Petersburg runs both ways, but the power differential does not without NATO. (And it would probably be better for everyone involved if these countries had a European-only security alliance to join, but you face the future with the choices you have, not the ones you wish you had).
Also, I don’t think it would be possible for the US to institute (relatively) bloodless regime change if the organic support for it wasn’t there already. One just has to look at cases that have gone against the US to see why this is necessary (Bay of Pigs, 1979 Iran, Iraq 2, Afghanistan). So I see Euromaidan more as the US putting a thumb on the scale of a pre-existing conflict and not creating the conflict itself. And, roughly speaking for most cases, that is probably fair game because the other side(s) is putting their thumb on the scale too. The fact that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians right now are willing to risk their lives to resist the Russian invasion shows that there is a measure of organic support for the West (globohomo and all) over whatever Putin may have to offer them. And I think Ukrainians are in a unique position to be able to discern between the two alternative visions. And yes, the usual caveat about masses being swayed by propaganda applies because it always applies in every case.
This was probably the most well-researched case that I’ve heard on the NATO-is-to-blame side of things. And I’m a huge Darryl Cooper fan. I’ve been listening since he was only on part two of Fear and Loathing. But I think he’s a little worked up (aren’t we all?) I found the Unraveling episode he did with Jocko back in early February before the war started a bit more balanced.
I did want to add: whichever podcast or sub stack you listen to or read, it is critically important to resist the crazy voices in our midst calling for a no-fly zone (or more!) Whoever doesn’t get the stakes here or thinks that Putin wouldn’t call our bluff (looking at you Garry Kasparov) is extremely dangerous and has to have their arguments dismembered thoroughly and publicly before we stumble into global catastrophe. It’s fine to support the Ukrainians and wage the usual economic struggles, but we have to bend over backwards to avoid any actual possibility of a shooting war with Russia.
Mar 14, 2022·edited Mar 14, 2022Liked by Darryl Cooper
To declare my biases upfront; British, voted to leave the EU. Had Russian business partners and did business in Russia for five years. Best friend’s wife is Ukrainian and she has family in Lviv.
You make a difficult argument to hear that the west’s political actions bear some responsibility for provoking Putin, I can’t disagree with them. That does not excuse or mitigate putins war against Ukraine in my opinion.
Your written cover to the anti humans episode excellently summarises the horrors inflicted on soviet satellites during the Cold War and you have discussed the holodomor before as well. Contrasting that is the ancient history between russia and Ukraine and the translocation of Russians into Ukrainian land. Ignoring the right/wrong of the translocation policy surely those translocated people have been there long enough to be considered Ukrainians and having a valid political viewpoint.
As a result there are Ukrainians that are deeply anti Russian and those that are deeply pro Russian. It ignores both of those view points and a Geordian knot of historical relations between the two states to solely point at the actions Of western governments as casus belli for putin.
I don’t want to disappear into an unfocused post that goes on forever so I am going to leave it here for the moment just noting that you raise valid points on nato enlargement and what is acceptable in terms of interference in other states politics.
So the English have a better claim on the US? Damn those evil French supporting the colony getting its independence in 1776. They must have been supported by CIA(joke), dont think the people in the colony has the mental capabilty deciding for themself where they want to go in the future. Putin should decide for them(or the CIA, joke).
Mr Cooper says it in the beginning, Putin decided to invade (and trust me, only Putin, the SVR chief tried to be a bit sceptical but Putin didnt like that). We can all think this or that what happened before the invasion and the war and i agree with most what Mr Cooper tells you. NATO expansion was triggering the Kreml, but do i understand as a Swede why the former warsaw pact countries wanted to join, 100%. The focus on nazis are the weakest argument for the invasion, we have nazis in Sweden so i guess Russia should de-nazify us aswell? Or all countries having nazi-fringe groups. So the US? Thats just some theatre for the russian people by the Kreml propagandist, its about NATO. And that Ukraine wants to become a liberal democracy, with the pros and cons with that. Putin himself have made this obviously clear in his many statements.
Im a Swede, we had a big power earlier in history. We joke about it with our Danish friends, Norwegian friends, Finnish friends (or they joke more about it with us). We lost our big power, we moved on. And before the Putin-lovers jump me, im against Sweden joining NATO because the military leadership on the top of NATO is the US, always will be, and of course the nuclear weapon placement(also decided by the US). And the US tend to fuck up everything it does abroad after Korea. But please send more weapons to Ukraine, your good at that, giving stuff, and money.
But im telling you, which alot of americans and russians seems not capable to understand, there are more countries in the world than big countries. We have brains, we are not all controlled by the almighty CIA. And Sweden is a small country, but if Russia would "de-nazify" for example Finland, i would go fight for the Finnish people in a second. Or the baltic-countries(but they have NATO so Putin wont do it). Putin isnt the russian people. He decided to invade, its the only thing now that matters.
And for russian strategic goals(that aged well), now the EU is more unified than it ever was(unthinkable before the invasion), Germany is increasing its military spending to 2% GDP, unthinkable before the Russian invasion, here in Sweden also 2%(which no one here in Sweden thought possible before the invasion). Its not because CIA made us do it(they are EVERYWHERE, joke), its because Putin decided to invade Ukraine. Sweden have sent shitload of stuff to Ukraine, for example 4000 AT-4s, unthinkable before Putin decided to invade. Just war? It doesnt matter, Putin decided to invade, and my god the Ukrainians are defending themself and they have the right to do it. Im for the policy to help your neighbours not invading them.
A good book on the CIA, Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner. Im sorry to say there are not so many pedophiles(because the yanks seems obsessed by them) in there or reptilians.
Imagine having a president capable of such coherent thought, and we mindless Americans call Putin a lunatic. My best friend was severely mentally ill for most of his life, so I think I might be a bit more experienced than the average American, and I'll tell you, at least in my experience, lunatics don't write like this.
Mar 14, 2022·edited Mar 14, 2022Liked by Darryl Cooper
I believe you said that you worked on the DOD for 20+ years in another podcast episode. Then at the beginning of this podcast you said "For one thing, I don't like war. I'm over that stage in my life," followed by a quote from Scott Horton, a man who is vehemently against war. I would be very curious to hear about the mental journey you took, even if it was it's own podcast episode, about your position on war.
Mothers milk is nice, until you dont need it anymore. And why Mr Cooper is very thoughtful in his history podcasts but like an other person on toxic twitter (and he likes do delete alot). Im also curious as you are Artie.
Mar 14, 2022·edited Mar 14, 2022Liked by Darryl Cooper
I just subscribed in order to comment - and it turns out that I also listen to the Jocko Wilink podcasts... In any case, after 10 minutes, you seem spot on, you're saying the same kinds of things I'm saying. At 35 minutes, in talking about the neocons/neolibs, you're saying the same kinds of things I was saying in a discussion club we had in Kansas City in the 1990s - and the neoliberals have had a lock on the NatSecState since 1981 or so it seems, and the NatSecState sets policy. We need to have a real discussion about the role of the National Security State/Military Industrial Complex in the US - those are people who have formed what is essentially a secret double government in the US beyond the bounds of democratic and constitutional accountability, and it hasn't provided much in the way of security, national or otherwise. I'm sticking this up on my substack page, you're nailing it.
Mar 14, 2022·edited Mar 14, 2022Liked by Darryl Cooper
NATO and the US gave Putin lots and lots of reasons to get in this war - including the bioweapons/"public health" (your choice) labs, some on the Russian border (see https://streamfortyseven.substack.com/p/public-health-or-bioweapons-research)- sheer insanity given the past two years. What were they thinking? Were they thinking? And then there was the feigned prospect of NATO membership, a fake offer without the intent to follow through - conveyed not so much to Zelenskyy but as a threat to Putin. It's like Justin Trudeau going full CCP and installing PLA troops and missile batteries and the like in Ontario and British Columbia - what would the US response be? As regards Zelenskyy: https://streamfortyseven.substack.com/p/its-complicated-zelenskyy-turns-out
I can definitely see where Putin is coming from, and if he'd limited this to a counterforce strike, as it appears his original intention had been, my attitude would not have shifted in favor of the Ukrainian people defending themselves from indiscriminate attack by Russian forces, as it has unfortunately turned out to be. I've got to wonder how close that Russian missile strike at that maternity hospital in Mariupol was to the biological weapons lab there, same case for the bombardment at Kharkiv, essentially on the Russian border, with its labs, and at the over 20 other labs in the country...
The info on the biolabs predates the invasion by four years - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T9ktfz_FfA is a presentation made 3 years ago, the original article goes back to 2018. At the time I thought it was disinfo, but it has checked out from non-Russian sources - and yeah, I know about the Strategic Culture group of publications and their actual provenance.
And we could have wound them up in six months, brought the scientists back to universities in the US - they would have jumped at the chance as did so many others from Russia itself, and had the entire operation cleaned out in a year. 1992. There is *no* reason for *any* US-supported, financed, or aided bioweapons lab in Ukraine. None, period. So far as I'm concerned, biological or chemical warfare has no place in society, but that's just me. We should save insecticide for insects.
The worst thing about this is that we had credible intelligence since 2014 that the labs were an attractive nuisance for any invading Russian force - like the Russian Army forces that invaded Lugansk and Donetsk provinces in that year and who had been fighting Ukrainian Army units ever since. We could have cleaned them out long before the invasion this year and failed to do so - and wound up giving Putin a casus belli - and let it be known that Ukraine would *not* be joining NATO. Have a look at a map, with a ruler for distance scale, and that will tell you much about Putin's concerns, which in fact were quite legit.
There is a reason we didn’t do that. It’s the same reason we funded research that was little more than torture on dogs in Tunisia. The US public actually has really high standards and expectations for their scientists. Labs have to follow OSHA and EPA regulations. All proposed experiments at universities have to go through committees to receive permission and funding and they take such things as public health and needless suffering seriously. There are very few labs in the US that are rated to handle many of these pathogens (like Anthrax) and we aren’t particularly interested in creating more. So what do we do? We outsource our more questionable science to other countries that have lower standards for safety and suffering. Sometimes we just fund the science but other times we provide pretty much everything, it’s simply on foreign soil. A terrible accident on the Ukrainian/Russian border is much more manageable from a PR standpoint than the same terrible accident if it happens at UCLA. Certainly there is foreign collaborative research that doesn’t fall into this category, but it would be best to look skeptically at any science that America is involved in that takes place outside America. The only thing I’m not sure about is if leaving those labs completely unprotected was a blunder on par with arming the Taliban with our Afghanistan withdrawal or if it was purposeful. Frankly I’m not sure which reason is more concerning.
(inc ramble of thoughts , my best appologises for not writing the great way so many here do.)
It came to noone suprise that Putin wrote a "History of Russia" where he seeks to make solid foundation for the 3 unifying factors (church, language, leader was it right?) and I personally dislike the idea to motivate something, today, with history.
The reaon i grew tired of it was back in Kosovo 2001 (summer) when it seemed that the battle of the Kosovo Polje (in like 1380!!!!) was the real reason they had to fight now. Holy shit, all this suffering i saw, and it was because of that? Using history to legitimate your future claim don't work well. I cannot think of a single time that has played out well at all. Not even "ok".
So for me it is "simple". Ukraine is a sovereign country. We have lots of countries in Europe that are about as old as Ukraine. Sometimes there are changes, hopefully peaceful, i'd take crimea takeover as "peaceful" so the bar isn't set high. This might be one we lost the chance to have peaceful by greedy powerplays in the 90's .
But, Ukraine decide their affiliations themselves (yes ofc, in theory sadly enough). The idea that my country (sweden) would be horsetraded between the greater powers is simply put silly if you ask (a naive) me. Him (Putin) having any say over us in Sweden and Finland as it is in their "sphere of influence", essentially only because they "won"the world war 2, today should make anyone in our countries react. I couldn't be more grateful that we, probably by chance, gave up ideas of being a power again after 1790 ish. Nothing has served my country more! We "gave up" Finland that we had been one with (like russia ukraine) for 600 years+ and I am so thankful that we (to no credit to my anscestors, it just had to be chance really) didn't react the way we humans tend to do (I want revenge! respect me!)
I get that Russia has that idea of becomming "what it once was" (oh hi big serbia movement in the 90's). It is just not a good way to go forward. Am I dead set there should be no compromises (ie, denying russia the only warmwater port they have is bad imho) ? Nope, I'm for the resolving of that. After this episode so many questionmarks in my "knowledge" has popped up that I need to sleep on this, then listen again, sleep, listen. Then i might have a solid opinion again.
It's amazing how much facts vary though when it comes to east Ukraine. I heard stuff in this episode that made me halt and want to read up on the area's history and current history, appriciate the countless hours lost on that mr Cooper haha!
Most likely there never have been an objective truth when things are at this scale but it also makes you think about history and who wrote it. My first encounter with that was when I as a young teenager read three different books about Stalingrad. At times the experience made me think I had to be misstaken and accidently read about 3 separate world events instead of the very same one (and that was just a part of the war, not even the full campaign).
And if we can't even establish "what happened" 80 years ago, then exactly why do we humans still use some unconclusive battle on some slippery mud in Kosovo Polje over 600 years ago? It is fascinating how we humans work and was not this war so heartbreaking (of the european peace dream) to me, I'd study it with great interesst.
Actual reply to the post above !(sorry)
In Sweden we have had a long tradition (probably bc of our neutrality + swedish form of social democracy) ofmisstrust of Russia-Soviet-Russia's and NATO's benign nature. Esp to small countries like us. For me that grew up during the cold war this article don't say anything but how he wants us to think, wants us to think we know how he thinks. There is no end of dolls inside this one. We have just seen what actually happens.
sidenote to clarify: I lost trust in USA during the effects of 9/11 by the way, im in no way a fan of american (or the "old european planners") geopolitics. You want war against "terror"? yeah that is gonna play out well when you have legitimized that as a jailfree card to invade your neighbours...
But to anyone who still believes in Putins current "mask" (of which he has had about 3 as far as i remember) where he just corrects the wrongs commited, I guess this article really reads like Putin is reasonable. That Ukraine's politics comes out as a thin veneer of true Ukrainian belief in their own state, easily traded if only Putin "did a fast conquest of the Ukrainian leadership " like when he took Crimea. I have read diffferent takes on the "if the nazi groups made any impact" but I'm not surpised that it is a bat used by Putin to hammer Zelensky with, no matter the truth and actual importance. (cynic joke: hey another tv clown propped up with money got to be president?)
on the flip side: Putin is not a mad/rabbid dog either! He gives that impression with great sucess in terms of what he won with that play however.
In geopolitics I don't trust anyone. And if anything, im more reserved to Sweden
applying to NATO now than ever.
I don't think Russia (and i think Putin the is the word i should use) is entitled to anything at all when it comes to Ukraine. I still believe it can be discussed, with regards to compromises, though. He has worked long and hard with the patience of a true believer to hammer home the idea that Russia is "home" and alone (as in moving west) is to invite disaster.
I still believe there could be a peace amongst equals, but one faction's plundering in the 90's and then the other's current one really make it hard. We as a world could have ended the cold war so much better and it hurts my belief in humanity that the broader lessons from the world wars, were not heeded.
/ jonas
(sorry for wall of text , i tried to remove as much as possible but my dog is riverdancing at the doorstep now so I gotta go!)
By this logic Israel has no claim to Palestine. Ukraine may have been the rope in a tug of war between Russia and Poland for years, but it had been under control of the car for a good century before the communists partitioned it. I don't think Russia deserves the whole country, but that plebiscite on the east shows popular support for Donbass annexation.
Great recommendations, particularly the Glennon article. It would be interesting to think about ways to convey this information in the most efficient way possible. For instance-- Mr. Cooper noted that some people are skeptical about American involvement in the various color revolutions. If you have the time, you can gradually discover the evidence. What would be useful is something like a heavily-annotated/linked on-line timeline that would allow people to quickly assess the available evidence... and related evidence regarding the national security "double government..."
"If you have the time, you can gradually discover the evidence." I think I did that back in 2014, when I was informed of the actual provenance of the events unfolding in Maidan Square by a Kiev punk rocker - "It's not what you think it is, they're Nazis" and that set off a bunch of research. I really fell for the legend offered up, no doubt about that, hook, line, and sinker, but after a conversation over facebook - which booted me off at the beginning of February this year - I did the research. The trick is in finding it.
I see like Tucker Carlson, Jimmy Dore, Tulsi Gabbert, Aaron Mate and Max Blumenthal we have another Putin patsy here, (sarcasm). Thanks, Daryl for a well thought out response. It's refreshing to see someone use logic and rationality to analyze an extremely complex situation. Nuace is lost on most of the American public and the entire legacy corporate media. The best analogy I've heard describing the situation is that, if you push a bear into a corner and poke it with a stick for 20 years and you eventually get your arm mualed I understand why. It doesn't mean I'm pro bears mualing people either, I just understand why it happened.
Thanks for putting this out DC, great work. Hard to believe it but I actually miss the covid narrative from last season. I'm sorry for the long musings below.
Jokes aside, what has me down at the moment is not just the war itself but the propaganda, lies and deception in the West. Like you, I see this war as an absolute tragedy that could have been avoided and watching it unfold and escalate in real time is truly heartbreaking. I'll be honest and admit I was a pro-war dipshit when I was younger and I still have a weird view of war; that it is sometimes necessary and some good can come of it (for example, Ukrainian national identity will be strong for generations regardless of what the outcome of this is - except in the worst case of nuclear war and our subsequent return to the stone age). But this one was wholly avoidable :(
What really scares the fuck out of me is the escalation of hateful rhetoric in response to this from people I know were completely anti-war a month ago, seemingly without anyone wondering how we got here. Apparently Putin just appeared out of nowhere and like a movie villain he is dead set on wholesale destruction. I once heard that wars are only ever started over fear, fear of the other. It might be hard for a lot of us to imagine fearing America because we live inside the Empire. But if you're on the outside looking in, the American Empire is truly terrifying. It's almost unprecedented that a country can wage war(s) with almost zero effect on the homefront such as rationing, conscription and in the modern era the mass destruction of cities and civilian casualties. DC laid out the steps the West has taken over the last 30 years since the fall of the USSR, and once you know and understand that it's easier to understand how and why Putin and Russia are scared.
We're now at a place where you're a Putin shill for not wanting to go down the road to WWIII. I was young, not as clued in and it was a different world in the early 2000s but I distinctly remember calls to de-escalate any type of hatred of Arabs or the Muslim world during the global war of terror. But I am seeing something dark at the moment with the anti-Russian stuff. The Russian embassy in my country was attacked and the gates and fence were vandalised/graffitied, including Nazi symbols. It feels like we have all been put on a conveyor belt towards war, like something out of the Guns of August. Why the different media approach now?
If we are to hold Putin accountable for his actions and decision to invade (which we should), we should also hold our own governments accountable for their actions that lead us down this path. But no one seems to have any interest in that. A democracy out for blood is something very dangerous that I think a lot of people don't understand. And it feels like we are being prepped for something big. I'm not sure if it's true so someone please correct me if I'm wrong but am I right in saying in the last US presidential election foreign policy was not allowed to be debated by Biden and Trump? How can people hold their leaders accountable if diplomacy is not deemed worthy of public debate?
'War is a Racket' is a short but brilliant book by a former US marine, which details how much profiteering goes on during war time. America doesn't manufacture much in country anymore, but one thing it still does make is military hardware. The stock prices of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon etc are all up. Some people will make a lot of money the longer this conflict is stretched out. Even though I deeply deeply sympathise with a country like Ukraine with a big bully neighbour next door, but I will never (again) advocate for a war which I wouldn't be willing to fight and die in myself. We have all been brought down this path by hubris, greed and shit diplomacy, and we need to calm down before it's too late.
I think all of the criticisms of US foreign meddling, the MIC power in the US, and the denigration of Russian civilians are valid. It's crazy to blame average Russian people abroad for what Putin is doing. But it's also crazy to paint Putin as anything but a degenerate and a tyrant. He's siphoned off the blood of his own people for more than 30 years. He's sick. Being the richest and most powerful single person in the world is not enough. His ego demands even more in his death throes. He must restore a fictional glorious Russian past. Hopefully a bodyguard or a maid or a physician will have the courage to end this madness.
To be fair Nancy Pelosi did look like her person suit malfunctioned during the state of the union. It was eerily reminiscent of the alien wearing the Edgar suit in Men in Black. 😉
This was an excellent podcast. You certainly made a comprehensive and compelling case for the justified grievances held by Russia and the major role we played in setting those events in motion. You definitely gave me a lot of great content to provide context for what is going on.
Firstly, I am admittedly biased since my ancestors are from Galicia and they left there before the Bolsheviks continued the long list of tragedies these people have endured. It wasn't a good place to live then, and it only got worse...
I cannot, even for a second excuse what Putin has done. Sure, he wants Ukraine to stay in their sphere of influence, maybe Ukraine should have a say in that? Does he think indiscriminate bombing of civilians is going to entice the citizens of Ukraine to think, "Wow, these guys are great, let's definitely stay aligned with the guy who killed our families!" Look no further than the Irish with 800+ years of turmoil with the British.
Perhaps they would rather roll the dice with the EU? Having spent time in Russia and the EU, I certainly think the pitch for EU is far more attractive, but maybe that's just me.
Frankly, I believe in self determination for any country. I am tired of hearing about Ukraine as if it's some chess board piece between the US/EU and Russia.
The coming weeks/months/years are going to be hell over there and the death toll is going to be horrendous. But I will say this; the Ukrainians are going to grind the occupying force down with an insurgency and when it is all settled, they will have earned the right to go whatever direction they want to. And I stand behind them 100%.
Keep up the great work Darryl, and for God's sake throttle your twitter. Lol
If this had be limited to an occupation of eastern Ukraine, I think Putin would have a moral leg to stand on. And have most of that population on his side. Granted the country would have ended up like Germany, but that partition was enacted to prevent great power war too...
World hunger was all but eliminated, the James Webb telescope was launched, progress was made toward fusion reactors and inter planetary space travel. We're on the verge of accomplishing so much through our technology, but we have to do this shit again? More fucking wars for nothing to feed some disgusting pigs' corruption and conquest fantasy? Begs the question: can our institutions, or even humans generally be anything but corrupt?
I really appreciate Darryl Cooper's approach to analyze situations by carefully and thoroughly investigating both sides of a conflict with minimal emotional bias to either side even if he talks about atrocities that we all take an immediate side. This approach is crucial if you want to understand a conflict and resolve it. Thank you Darryl. I am at the last hour of the Fear and Loathing in the new Jerusalem and find this as an opportunity to thank you for your deep and wide analysis.
Polish dude here. I don’t know what to make of this podcast, I don’t even know if I understood the message.
Of course US is very far from perfect, of course it wants to be the only empire out there, of course it uses dirty methods to achieve this goal. But here in Poland… out of all the empires we were given taste of, we strongly prefer to have US boot on our neck. It’s definitely the coziest. If this way of thinking, as well as the fact how genuinely glad we are of being part of NATO is programmed into us by US intelligence, I must say outstanding job!
Another Polish dude here, and, in case anyone wants to dismiss us for our bias, let me proclaim myself a Russophile, one who spent a significant time living in Moscow with the sole purpose of absorbing the culture and the language.
Had there only been two players in all of this, Russia and the U.S, Daryll would have been correct in his assessment. What he misses, unfortunately, are the voices and the agency of the smaller nations. The Poles, the Balts, the Ukrainians, and even a significant percentage of Russians (virtually all of Moscow's or St. Petersburg's youth) look westward with hope, and see the Kremlin as a place stagnant, with no future or potential.
Perhaps I'm not cynical enough, but it seems to me that if nations turn their faces toward us, looking for freedom and prosperity, then the long game we ought to play is to help them shed tyranny and stagnation.
I am grateful that I was born in a free and democratic Poland of the early 90s, grateful to the Western establishment which through years of pressure on the Soviet Union won that freedom for us.
I pray for the same thing for Ukrainians. I pray for the same thing for Russians.
Lithuanian dude here. Born 1969, military service in the Soviet Army 1987-89. Labelled as a Nazi by "good Gorbachev" when he sent the troops to crush us. Grateful to the people of Russia who came out into the streets of Moscow to support us when we were holding our hands to stop their tanks in January 1991. Grateful forever to US and NATO for expanding. Today our families are safe, unlike the ones who are in Ukraine or Georgia.
(holy shit, this must be the 5th time i comment in this episode commentsection, I'm not on a crusade, i think im just very worried - view my posts with some compassion for a fellow human , not as a guy on a cruzade)
Great contribution, Kas Stucinskas!
The perspective from your experience, the perspective from the countries like mine (swe) who feared the day we'd be called in to serve in defense, the perpective in generel in europe near the Soviet seems to get lost somehow.
My personal reaction to hearing these stuff (some new!) is:
I think that the feeling of the cold war, even not being in a country occupied by Soviet!, cannot be translated to someone living even in the same country, even less to someone across the pond.
USA being dirty? Even more so when they did their empire overreach after 91? We knew that shit already, I'm somewhat suprised this is still news to someone! When did the rest of the world (not you guys who got proxywarred or invaded) realise this? This has never been clean and I remember Olof Palme, up until 86 when he was gunned down a swedish polititian very heavy on the USA-critique, was describing in other words the cold war giants crushing the rest of us etc.
(/end personal emotional thoughtprocess)
I just dont think we grasp how aware or unaware people are about this depending on where you live. I grew up with a fearful eye on soviet while very sceptical about NATO. maybe it's just because i grew up during the 80's.
You're Swedish, right? The '80s was just icing on the cake of the World Wars. Churchill had his sights set on the north of Sweden until Hitler kicked the Allies out of Norway and put your country into a vise.
Yeah, WW2 was a balancing act, Sweden's stance on moving the counterweight constantly updated in favor of who seemed to be winning the war + who sent the strongest signals.
About the 80's; yes and u are right, it was. Butt our view is heavily dependant on quite far back. In the 80's we had people in church on Sundays, still, who seemed grumpy and didn't talk and i was told it was because".. He fought in the war, defending Finland against Russia" to explain it to me when back at home in the manner that a kid understands the between the lines of. The WW2 and later events colored everything we lived.
I know I'm kind of kicking in open doors saying that the today's view can thus be built on previous views held by people before even (in my my case, my own) our own lifetime.
For me The Soviet Union wasn't dying out, it was all its previous iteration as well, it was just more lines on a drawing trying to change the expression of the picture. Much like noone dared saying the Invasion-word more than a week before it undeniably happen.
It's only in hindsight the 80's was the last roar of the lion. 'Icing on the cake ' is just true to prophets.
Lets hope this war will be known as The Big European Hiccup or something like that and not the shot in Sarajevo. World wars have started from smaller a spark.
I've read a number of Churchill biographies and never once encountered mention of Churchill's designs on Sweden.
Could you not still be cozy without joining an expanding alliance hostile to Russia? What did NATO membership achieve that wouldn't have happened under a transition from a Soviet economy to liberal capitalism?
This is super complex topic, I don't think I can explain this in short (or even long) comment. But Darryl recorder great episode with Kristaps Andrejsons https://martyrmade.substack.com/p/on-the-front-lines-wthe-eastern-border?s=r I couldn't stop nodding with agreement listening to him. Highly recommend if you want to know more about "central and eastern europe countries mentality". This is how we were shaped having the place on the map that we have.
American here -- we honestly thought Putin would be cool with us including y'all in the coalition against Al-Qaeda, seeing as how they all fought against Russia in Chechnya and we were all trying to be buddy-buddy. Guess the fact that NATO never had more than a thousand or two troops in the East was lost on him, along with the USA's obvious motive to use you Slavs in Afghanistan, not in Russia.
I think my biggest issue with the commentary from yourself, Horton, Greenwald, and other similar folks is how much you don’t address. You talk about others having simplistic or Manichaean commentary. However, are you not guilty of this yourself, just from another direction? You give no time to Putin’s ideological motivations as laid down in his own past writings, and most recently, in his hour long speech just prior to recognizing the the 2 separatist republics and sending “peace keepers” in (just before the full invasion began). His views of Ukrainian ethnicity, how they owe Russia a great debt, have no right to exist independently from Russia, and how they betrayed Russia by seeking closer ties with the west are never addressed. It would be like looking at Hitler’s motivations and ignoring Mein Kampf or numerous other speeches and public statements. Nor is time given to how newly discovered resources in Ukraine might influence Putin’s decisions.
Instead, we get a grand narrative of how Russia was betrayed by the US and NATO (while the EU, which is at least as much of factor is barely mentioned). The so called “agreement” to not expand is endlessly cited as the cornerstone to this view. Yet no treaty or public agreement exists. We have disputed statements from behind the scenes talks. No mention of Gorbachev himself, never happy with NATO expansion, publicly stating later that a halt to NATO expansion was not part of the discussion. Further, besides the fact that no treaty was ever signed(and citing a German official’s statement as if it is the same thing is at least a large reach), the actual signed agreements Russia has violated by their actions in Ukraine are all conveniently ignored.
It is never explained just why Russia should have a veto over the foreign policy of its neighbors. The same neighbors who spent decades( (at least) under brutal Russian subjugation. In pursuit of “Strategic empathy,” the reasons Poland or Estonia or Ukraine might seek greater security & economic ties with the west are given no time. The role of the EU ( which has no murky, disputed statements regarding its expansion) is also strangely ignored. How close was Ukraine to joining NATO before this invasion? And why has Russia been able to function just fine with NATO member states on its border since 2003? Is its concern for NATO actually stemming from fears of invasion (while being a nuclear power)? Or is that concern more centered on how NATO is an obstacle towards re asserting its dominance over its neighbors in Eastern Europe.
If you’re going to make the argument that NATO expansion is Russia’s chief motivator here (which is an argument you can make) you at the very least need to address these other issues and why they are less important in factoring Russian motivations. Are Russian “security concerns” really all that defensive? Or are they centered removing obstacles towards re-establishing the greater Russian sphere?
This comment is already too long, but I’ll mention this. Your constant framing of the 2014 revolution as just a Coup is telling (especially while you ignore Russian meddling among those same states or wave them away as legitimate actions provoked by the west). As the Ukrainians themselves have now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, they think their country and current government is worth defending. The entire last third of your podcast, aims to at least imply the lack of legitimacy of the current Ukrainian state and painting Russian actions in Ukraine as defensive and in pursuit of “legitimate security concerns.” A throwaway a line about how Americans need only care and comment on American actions doesn’t change this. You either take a look at all factors in your analysis or you don’t get to accuse others of simplicity or Manichaeism.
Also, I would love for you to expand on that throwaway line crediting Putin for “stepping down” to be in the lower position of Prime minister, as if he gave up any power in reality. You then frame him regaining the presidency as only due to those dastardly Americans tricking Russia on Libya. Really?
Edit: Also, what exactly is your view on what the US and Europe should do? Is the current line hitting Russia via sanctions and giving Ukraine aid (military and otherwise) ok? What should be done?
But the other side is available from every TV channel, newspaper, magazine, and politician. I’m presenting the other side’s perspective, at a time when the propaganda machine is running at full capacity in one direction.
Also, as I said at the end, as an American my concern is with whether my country has done everything on our end to avoid this, or whether we’ve made it worse. That doesn’t mean we’re the sole cause.
Neither of these arguments make much sense though. A position being popular or dominant has no bearing on its merit. I believe you’re making this argument because you believe it, not just to balance out the popular narrative.
And likewise, an American should and can not be limited to only a sort of National self-criticism. That sort of thinking is, in effect, a sort of solipsism. People behave as if every country orbits the US and is only reacting to US ambitions. As if they have no true agency. Russia has plenty of ambitions all its own.
I have to say, i've been listening to Darryl's podcasts since the very beginning. I haven't agreed with his take on Twitter with American culpability and Putin's innocence at all during the last 3 weeks. This response out-does everything i was dreaming up in my head of writing when i could finally do it here instead of on social media. Yes, American government, intelligence and military (almost exclusively officers) is full of traitors to American values. But as much as we have fucked up the world, the last 3 weeks has proved that the world needs a policeman, and America is the best hegemon the world has ever had. At the same time, the clowns at the CIA couldn't have pulled off any of these color revolutions without legitimate, organic support. One thing I learned in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan is that no territory can be held without the legitimate support of the majority of the people. That statement contains some harsh truths, like how France had to be full of Nazi sympathizers to be taken over in 3 weeks by Hitler's horde. But it is true. and Ukraine is proving the opposite. Russia will never take and hold Ukraine. Putin's own actions have made a nation out of a people. To pretend that there is any nobility in his goals is betrayed by the fact that his $800M personal yacht (bought with stolen wealth from an impoverished people) was moved from Germany to Kaliningrad a couple of days before the invasion.
Propaganda machines pump out information to an audience (of course without context or nuance discussion) to paint whatever picture they want. It would not be something to brag about to have balanced that out. That is just pumping information in the opposite direction. We dont actually get the other side in any nuanced or meaningful way.
Yes. I see why you made the episode the way you did it. And i have no intent lecture now, it's just ideas that has occured during this month.
Personal story of mine: when i became around 18 i left the "prosperity church" i wasn't born into but my parents moved out family to a new town to join.
When i left i left on somewhat good terms. I could no longer stomach living the lie that i "felt God in my heart"-ish and decided to live more true (best decision of my life). A friend of mine had an almost fanatical mom which made his similar move way more bitter. He became one of those atheists that weren't content with that station but had to also go on the offensive against Christianity as part of his life.
It reached to, for me, an unbearable situation and I had to cut ties (which is also when i stopped using Facebook) with him.
But to the point; he once responded to a question of mine that made a huge impact on me back then. I asked why he keeps bashing christians, why try to overwhelm them online with such seeming hated?
His answer was that he felt the same overwhelming wave of christians trying to 'win'.
"I'm in the minority, they have a huge churches and a massive amount of people in their other side. I'm alone against this massive movement".
I gave me pause. It was how I felt.
Not for myself but on behalf of my family members who lived a good life by any measurement, as christians. They were individuals he was bringing this huge online organisation to bear on.
My lesson back then was that when what I (or any person) believe is questioned, my view is individual and the 'other side' is a group.
So it's always gonna be perceived as unbalanced (no matter the actual state).
It seems to be a trait of us humans. Maybe it's because we (lazily) tend to attack others beliefs instead of the belief itself. Maybe both.
Also the flow of conversation on internet is not 'anchored' to a 'online village city hall'. So I could see a massive unbalanced newsbias and decide to balance it.
However that event chain (including my response) is not what happens when you read what i post on the matter. My work will almost always be perceived to be the starting point in a event chain for you which could prompt your action to bring balance to the discussion.
We're talk past each other while both might want the same thing: adress the important elephant in the room that needs to be addressed of we ever going to reach an agreement.
We're forever trying to move on the sidewalk in order to not crash into that ever closing person who just keeps moving into a collision course again. While comedic in essence, it's devastating to exchange of ideas.
Is the news of whose at fault (Putin) for the invasion unbalanced? I think not. On a zoomed out level it's pretty clear he turned to international violence.
But none really disagree with that and that is not what you are talking about either. I believe you stated it very clearly at the start of the episode even if the challenge to keep up with you after that makes it easy to forget.
You bring some interesting ideas to light after that, which will take a long time to read up on before I can even start to agree it disagree with.
As a swede I've been born into most of my beliefs and there is just no chance all of it is true.
That by chance be born into a family, in the location and time in humanity's history and also be right about their starting belief's is just not a valid assumption.
Take care man, avoid visual input. I personally only let the said and written word into my poor brain. My emotional response is just too strong when i see pictures or video. This is a bad time to not stay frosty.
Very well put. I guess we were writing our comments at around the same time, but you expressed some of my thoughts more clearly and thoroughly than I did.
To be clear, I see your comment as a rounding out of the important and oft-neglected perspective Darryl is bringing to the table. But I agree that without this rounding-out, the “blame US foreign policy” perspective is hopelessly riddled with blind spots.
That’s my main point. NATO expansion is a certainly a factor here. But it is by no means the sole or even the most important of factors in my mind. The singular focus on it by Daryl and others like Horton without even trying to address the other obvious things involved here bothers the hell out of me. Especially as they accuse others of lazy or black and white thinking.
Fair enough - however stuff like this is full of too much history, too many characters and actors with complex motivations - it's unreasonable to expect an hour long podcast to paint the full picture from the Baptism of the Kievan Rus, through Putin's life history and relationship to Dugin, and then on a deeper level how Putin and Dugin are dismantling the Western pseudomorphosis with a cultural immune Boundary Act.
Those are unreasonable expectations to place on Daryll - what he was doing was a sort of direct response to what we're seeing around us in our day to day media environment - comparisons w/ Hitler, and the 24/7 social media info barrage that creates this "out of nowhere and for no reason at all" narrative. Given that Daryll and most us listeners are American - it's completely reasonable that his focus was on a varying perspective - specifically U.S. foreign policy perspective starting from the end of the Cold War, and contrasting with what the u.s. foreign policy establishment is saying now with what they said and how they behaved previously.
Nowhere did he say NATO expansion was the ONLY factor - but it's entirely reasonable IMO to give background on the evolution of american foreign policy leading up to this point - especially when many of our foreign policy greats from previous decades explicitly predicted this sort of outcome / response from this sort of fp behavior.
I reject this. I’m expecting the same standard Daryl has set for himself in pretty every previous series/episodes on this podcast. Virtually all of the topics he covers are controversial, often with propaganda and conflicting narratives around them. He’s proven more the capable of giving each side its due on a subject, why not here?
If I had to guess the answer is time. What’s the prep time of any of his long form podcasts? Three months? Eight months? A year? Russia invaded less than a month ago, and Darryl was on vacation for some of that time. He also had previous commitments and other responsibilities (like The Unraveling Podcast). Would it be better for him not to release anything about it for six months until he can do a thorough six hour introduction? Also most of what Darryl covers is more than thirty years in the past which means the path is often well tread with lots of verifiable sources, it’s a matter of assimilating those sources in his own unique way. Much of what he has researched can be primarily researched reading books. But because this is so current reliable sources aren’t as readily available, information even from the fall of the USSR is still classified. Much of the information isn’t in published books, it has to be fished out of newspaper articles and blogs which is much harder, especially when that information is being purposely obfuscated by search engines. I use Duck Duck Go, not even Google but the descriptors of the Azov battalion on a search from today is almost the opposite of what I get if I change the publication time to 2016 or even 2018. Publications that are currently claiming the Azov neo-Nazi ties are propaganda wrote articles proclaiming that exact thing in 2018. It’s not impossible to do such research but it’s extremely time consuming.
This is an important perspective, particularly if all you have been exposed to is hawkish anti-Russian propaganda in the last couple of weeks. I found it easy enough to find more balanced views, but I’m sure that’s not the modal case, so thank you Darryl for laying out the other side with your usual thorough and spirited clarity.
I’m sympathetic to this viewpoint, to a point, but it treats the West a bit too monolithically and seems to overstate the importance of the hidden hand of America in foreign policy developments. We can’t forget that the EU, the West, and even NATO is not a monolith. There are many independent points of view here, and they all come together (or fail to come together) to give us exactly the balance of power and result we see today.
Poland and the Baltics have very good reasons to want to be in NATO without any prodding from Washington. If Putin saw this as American aggression, that is, in part, because he is overlooking the absolutely apocalyptic threat that these countries face from anyone who sees the fall of the Soviet Union as a catastrophic collapse. The proximity between Estonia and St. Petersburg runs both ways, but the power differential does not without NATO. (And it would probably be better for everyone involved if these countries had a European-only security alliance to join, but you face the future with the choices you have, not the ones you wish you had).
Also, I don’t think it would be possible for the US to institute (relatively) bloodless regime change if the organic support for it wasn’t there already. One just has to look at cases that have gone against the US to see why this is necessary (Bay of Pigs, 1979 Iran, Iraq 2, Afghanistan). So I see Euromaidan more as the US putting a thumb on the scale of a pre-existing conflict and not creating the conflict itself. And, roughly speaking for most cases, that is probably fair game because the other side(s) is putting their thumb on the scale too. The fact that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians right now are willing to risk their lives to resist the Russian invasion shows that there is a measure of organic support for the West (globohomo and all) over whatever Putin may have to offer them. And I think Ukrainians are in a unique position to be able to discern between the two alternative visions. And yes, the usual caveat about masses being swayed by propaganda applies because it always applies in every case.
This was probably the most well-researched case that I’ve heard on the NATO-is-to-blame side of things. And I’m a huge Darryl Cooper fan. I’ve been listening since he was only on part two of Fear and Loathing. But I think he’s a little worked up (aren’t we all?) I found the Unraveling episode he did with Jocko back in early February before the war started a bit more balanced.
I did want to add: whichever podcast or sub stack you listen to or read, it is critically important to resist the crazy voices in our midst calling for a no-fly zone (or more!) Whoever doesn’t get the stakes here or thinks that Putin wouldn’t call our bluff (looking at you Garry Kasparov) is extremely dangerous and has to have their arguments dismembered thoroughly and publicly before we stumble into global catastrophe. It’s fine to support the Ukrainians and wage the usual economic struggles, but we have to bend over backwards to avoid any actual possibility of a shooting war with Russia.
To declare my biases upfront; British, voted to leave the EU. Had Russian business partners and did business in Russia for five years. Best friend’s wife is Ukrainian and she has family in Lviv.
You make a difficult argument to hear that the west’s political actions bear some responsibility for provoking Putin, I can’t disagree with them. That does not excuse or mitigate putins war against Ukraine in my opinion.
Your written cover to the anti humans episode excellently summarises the horrors inflicted on soviet satellites during the Cold War and you have discussed the holodomor before as well. Contrasting that is the ancient history between russia and Ukraine and the translocation of Russians into Ukrainian land. Ignoring the right/wrong of the translocation policy surely those translocated people have been there long enough to be considered Ukrainians and having a valid political viewpoint.
As a result there are Ukrainians that are deeply anti Russian and those that are deeply pro Russian. It ignores both of those view points and a Geordian knot of historical relations between the two states to solely point at the actions Of western governments as casus belli for putin.
I don’t want to disappear into an unfocused post that goes on forever so I am going to leave it here for the moment just noting that you raise valid points on nato enlargement and what is acceptable in terms of interference in other states politics.
SrC
Last summer Vladimir Putin wrote an article about the historical relationship between Russia and Ukraine.
https://russiaeu.ru/en/news/article-russian-president-vladimir-putin-historical-unity-russians-and-ukrainians
In summary – due to extreme aggressiveness of US War party corrupt clique -- Russia intervention in Ukraine is – “Regretful but necessary.”
Russia has a better claim to Ukraine than the US has to Texas.
Fantastic article, thanks.
So the English have a better claim on the US? Damn those evil French supporting the colony getting its independence in 1776. They must have been supported by CIA(joke), dont think the people in the colony has the mental capabilty deciding for themself where they want to go in the future. Putin should decide for them(or the CIA, joke).
Mr Cooper says it in the beginning, Putin decided to invade (and trust me, only Putin, the SVR chief tried to be a bit sceptical but Putin didnt like that). We can all think this or that what happened before the invasion and the war and i agree with most what Mr Cooper tells you. NATO expansion was triggering the Kreml, but do i understand as a Swede why the former warsaw pact countries wanted to join, 100%. The focus on nazis are the weakest argument for the invasion, we have nazis in Sweden so i guess Russia should de-nazify us aswell? Or all countries having nazi-fringe groups. So the US? Thats just some theatre for the russian people by the Kreml propagandist, its about NATO. And that Ukraine wants to become a liberal democracy, with the pros and cons with that. Putin himself have made this obviously clear in his many statements.
Im a Swede, we had a big power earlier in history. We joke about it with our Danish friends, Norwegian friends, Finnish friends (or they joke more about it with us). We lost our big power, we moved on. And before the Putin-lovers jump me, im against Sweden joining NATO because the military leadership on the top of NATO is the US, always will be, and of course the nuclear weapon placement(also decided by the US). And the US tend to fuck up everything it does abroad after Korea. But please send more weapons to Ukraine, your good at that, giving stuff, and money.
But im telling you, which alot of americans and russians seems not capable to understand, there are more countries in the world than big countries. We have brains, we are not all controlled by the almighty CIA. And Sweden is a small country, but if Russia would "de-nazify" for example Finland, i would go fight for the Finnish people in a second. Or the baltic-countries(but they have NATO so Putin wont do it). Putin isnt the russian people. He decided to invade, its the only thing now that matters.
And for russian strategic goals(that aged well), now the EU is more unified than it ever was(unthinkable before the invasion), Germany is increasing its military spending to 2% GDP, unthinkable before the Russian invasion, here in Sweden also 2%(which no one here in Sweden thought possible before the invasion). Its not because CIA made us do it(they are EVERYWHERE, joke), its because Putin decided to invade Ukraine. Sweden have sent shitload of stuff to Ukraine, for example 4000 AT-4s, unthinkable before Putin decided to invade. Just war? It doesnt matter, Putin decided to invade, and my god the Ukrainians are defending themself and they have the right to do it. Im for the policy to help your neighbours not invading them.
A good book on the CIA, Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner. Im sorry to say there are not so many pedophiles(because the yanks seems obsessed by them) in there or reptilians.
I enjoyed your response, another good one is Confessions of an Economic Hit man by John Perkins.
Thanks, new books to read are always welcome.
Imagine having a president capable of such coherent thought, and we mindless Americans call Putin a lunatic. My best friend was severely mentally ill for most of his life, so I think I might be a bit more experienced than the average American, and I'll tell you, at least in my experience, lunatics don't write like this.
I believe you said that you worked on the DOD for 20+ years in another podcast episode. Then at the beginning of this podcast you said "For one thing, I don't like war. I'm over that stage in my life," followed by a quote from Scott Horton, a man who is vehemently against war. I would be very curious to hear about the mental journey you took, even if it was it's own podcast episode, about your position on war.
Mothers milk is nice, until you dont need it anymore. And why Mr Cooper is very thoughtful in his history podcasts but like an other person on toxic twitter (and he likes do delete alot). Im also curious as you are Artie.
You can call for the deaths of Russians, but don't you dare misgender them.
We truly live in the ashes of civilisation.
Haven't even listened yet and I know it's gonna be 100 percent spot on.
Comments like these scare me.
Not flying to Jonestown bud, just confident in DC's analysis.
I wonder what the Martyrmade agricultural project would be like... Coopertown Guyana lmao
What i thought. I'm a fan of Darryl, but not because he is never wrong.
Exactly, very happy this just went up.
I just subscribed in order to comment - and it turns out that I also listen to the Jocko Wilink podcasts... In any case, after 10 minutes, you seem spot on, you're saying the same kinds of things I'm saying. At 35 minutes, in talking about the neocons/neolibs, you're saying the same kinds of things I was saying in a discussion club we had in Kansas City in the 1990s - and the neoliberals have had a lock on the NatSecState since 1981 or so it seems, and the NatSecState sets policy. We need to have a real discussion about the role of the National Security State/Military Industrial Complex in the US - those are people who have formed what is essentially a secret double government in the US beyond the bounds of democratic and constitutional accountability, and it hasn't provided much in the way of security, national or otherwise. I'm sticking this up on my substack page, you're nailing it.
NATO and the US gave Putin lots and lots of reasons to get in this war - including the bioweapons/"public health" (your choice) labs, some on the Russian border (see https://streamfortyseven.substack.com/p/public-health-or-bioweapons-research)- sheer insanity given the past two years. What were they thinking? Were they thinking? And then there was the feigned prospect of NATO membership, a fake offer without the intent to follow through - conveyed not so much to Zelenskyy but as a threat to Putin. It's like Justin Trudeau going full CCP and installing PLA troops and missile batteries and the like in Ontario and British Columbia - what would the US response be? As regards Zelenskyy: https://streamfortyseven.substack.com/p/its-complicated-zelenskyy-turns-out
I can definitely see where Putin is coming from, and if he'd limited this to a counterforce strike, as it appears his original intention had been, my attitude would not have shifted in favor of the Ukrainian people defending themselves from indiscriminate attack by Russian forces, as it has unfortunately turned out to be. I've got to wonder how close that Russian missile strike at that maternity hospital in Mariupol was to the biological weapons lab there, same case for the bombardment at Kharkiv, essentially on the Russian border, with its labs, and at the over 20 other labs in the country...
As to the US national security state and double government, two references - https://fletcher.tufts.edu/sites/default/files/pubs_glennon-michael-national-security-double-government.pdf and https://www.fff.org/2020/12/11/the-national-security-establishment-is-in-charge/
If you believe Putin wanted to invade Ukraine because of these labs, i feel sorry for you mate. Its just political propaganda for the russian people.
The info on the biolabs predates the invasion by four years - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T9ktfz_FfA is a presentation made 3 years ago, the original article goes back to 2018. At the time I thought it was disinfo, but it has checked out from non-Russian sources - and yeah, I know about the Strategic Culture group of publications and their actual provenance.
the info on the biolabs goes back to 1991. they were Soviet labs. of course a degenerate KGB agent knows about them.
And we could have wound them up in six months, brought the scientists back to universities in the US - they would have jumped at the chance as did so many others from Russia itself, and had the entire operation cleaned out in a year. 1992. There is *no* reason for *any* US-supported, financed, or aided bioweapons lab in Ukraine. None, period. So far as I'm concerned, biological or chemical warfare has no place in society, but that's just me. We should save insecticide for insects.
The worst thing about this is that we had credible intelligence since 2014 that the labs were an attractive nuisance for any invading Russian force - like the Russian Army forces that invaded Lugansk and Donetsk provinces in that year and who had been fighting Ukrainian Army units ever since. We could have cleaned them out long before the invasion this year and failed to do so - and wound up giving Putin a casus belli - and let it be known that Ukraine would *not* be joining NATO. Have a look at a map, with a ruler for distance scale, and that will tell you much about Putin's concerns, which in fact were quite legit.
There is a reason we didn’t do that. It’s the same reason we funded research that was little more than torture on dogs in Tunisia. The US public actually has really high standards and expectations for their scientists. Labs have to follow OSHA and EPA regulations. All proposed experiments at universities have to go through committees to receive permission and funding and they take such things as public health and needless suffering seriously. There are very few labs in the US that are rated to handle many of these pathogens (like Anthrax) and we aren’t particularly interested in creating more. So what do we do? We outsource our more questionable science to other countries that have lower standards for safety and suffering. Sometimes we just fund the science but other times we provide pretty much everything, it’s simply on foreign soil. A terrible accident on the Ukrainian/Russian border is much more manageable from a PR standpoint than the same terrible accident if it happens at UCLA. Certainly there is foreign collaborative research that doesn’t fall into this category, but it would be best to look skeptically at any science that America is involved in that takes place outside America. The only thing I’m not sure about is if leaving those labs completely unprotected was a blunder on par with arming the Taliban with our Afghanistan withdrawal or if it was purposeful. Frankly I’m not sure which reason is more concerning.
(inc ramble of thoughts , my best appologises for not writing the great way so many here do.)
It came to noone suprise that Putin wrote a "History of Russia" where he seeks to make solid foundation for the 3 unifying factors (church, language, leader was it right?) and I personally dislike the idea to motivate something, today, with history.
The reaon i grew tired of it was back in Kosovo 2001 (summer) when it seemed that the battle of the Kosovo Polje (in like 1380!!!!) was the real reason they had to fight now. Holy shit, all this suffering i saw, and it was because of that? Using history to legitimate your future claim don't work well. I cannot think of a single time that has played out well at all. Not even "ok".
So for me it is "simple". Ukraine is a sovereign country. We have lots of countries in Europe that are about as old as Ukraine. Sometimes there are changes, hopefully peaceful, i'd take crimea takeover as "peaceful" so the bar isn't set high. This might be one we lost the chance to have peaceful by greedy powerplays in the 90's .
But, Ukraine decide their affiliations themselves (yes ofc, in theory sadly enough). The idea that my country (sweden) would be horsetraded between the greater powers is simply put silly if you ask (a naive) me. Him (Putin) having any say over us in Sweden and Finland as it is in their "sphere of influence", essentially only because they "won"the world war 2, today should make anyone in our countries react. I couldn't be more grateful that we, probably by chance, gave up ideas of being a power again after 1790 ish. Nothing has served my country more! We "gave up" Finland that we had been one with (like russia ukraine) for 600 years+ and I am so thankful that we (to no credit to my anscestors, it just had to be chance really) didn't react the way we humans tend to do (I want revenge! respect me!)
I get that Russia has that idea of becomming "what it once was" (oh hi big serbia movement in the 90's). It is just not a good way to go forward. Am I dead set there should be no compromises (ie, denying russia the only warmwater port they have is bad imho) ? Nope, I'm for the resolving of that. After this episode so many questionmarks in my "knowledge" has popped up that I need to sleep on this, then listen again, sleep, listen. Then i might have a solid opinion again.
It's amazing how much facts vary though when it comes to east Ukraine. I heard stuff in this episode that made me halt and want to read up on the area's history and current history, appriciate the countless hours lost on that mr Cooper haha!
Most likely there never have been an objective truth when things are at this scale but it also makes you think about history and who wrote it. My first encounter with that was when I as a young teenager read three different books about Stalingrad. At times the experience made me think I had to be misstaken and accidently read about 3 separate world events instead of the very same one (and that was just a part of the war, not even the full campaign).
And if we can't even establish "what happened" 80 years ago, then exactly why do we humans still use some unconclusive battle on some slippery mud in Kosovo Polje over 600 years ago? It is fascinating how we humans work and was not this war so heartbreaking (of the european peace dream) to me, I'd study it with great interesst.
Actual reply to the post above !(sorry)
In Sweden we have had a long tradition (probably bc of our neutrality + swedish form of social democracy) ofmisstrust of Russia-Soviet-Russia's and NATO's benign nature. Esp to small countries like us. For me that grew up during the cold war this article don't say anything but how he wants us to think, wants us to think we know how he thinks. There is no end of dolls inside this one. We have just seen what actually happens.
sidenote to clarify: I lost trust in USA during the effects of 9/11 by the way, im in no way a fan of american (or the "old european planners") geopolitics. You want war against "terror"? yeah that is gonna play out well when you have legitimized that as a jailfree card to invade your neighbours...
But to anyone who still believes in Putins current "mask" (of which he has had about 3 as far as i remember) where he just corrects the wrongs commited, I guess this article really reads like Putin is reasonable. That Ukraine's politics comes out as a thin veneer of true Ukrainian belief in their own state, easily traded if only Putin "did a fast conquest of the Ukrainian leadership " like when he took Crimea. I have read diffferent takes on the "if the nazi groups made any impact" but I'm not surpised that it is a bat used by Putin to hammer Zelensky with, no matter the truth and actual importance. (cynic joke: hey another tv clown propped up with money got to be president?)
on the flip side: Putin is not a mad/rabbid dog either! He gives that impression with great sucess in terms of what he won with that play however.
In geopolitics I don't trust anyone. And if anything, im more reserved to Sweden
applying to NATO now than ever.
I don't think Russia (and i think Putin the is the word i should use) is entitled to anything at all when it comes to Ukraine. I still believe it can be discussed, with regards to compromises, though. He has worked long and hard with the patience of a true believer to hammer home the idea that Russia is "home" and alone (as in moving west) is to invite disaster.
I still believe there could be a peace amongst equals, but one faction's plundering in the 90's and then the other's current one really make it hard. We as a world could have ended the cold war so much better and it hurts my belief in humanity that the broader lessons from the world wars, were not heeded.
/ jonas
(sorry for wall of text , i tried to remove as much as possible but my dog is riverdancing at the doorstep now so I gotta go!)
By this logic Israel has no claim to Palestine. Ukraine may have been the rope in a tug of war between Russia and Poland for years, but it had been under control of the car for a good century before the communists partitioned it. I don't think Russia deserves the whole country, but that plebiscite on the east shows popular support for Donbass annexation.
Great recommendations, particularly the Glennon article. It would be interesting to think about ways to convey this information in the most efficient way possible. For instance-- Mr. Cooper noted that some people are skeptical about American involvement in the various color revolutions. If you have the time, you can gradually discover the evidence. What would be useful is something like a heavily-annotated/linked on-line timeline that would allow people to quickly assess the available evidence... and related evidence regarding the national security "double government..."
"If you have the time, you can gradually discover the evidence." I think I did that back in 2014, when I was informed of the actual provenance of the events unfolding in Maidan Square by a Kiev punk rocker - "It's not what you think it is, they're Nazis" and that set off a bunch of research. I really fell for the legend offered up, no doubt about that, hook, line, and sinker, but after a conversation over facebook - which booted me off at the beginning of February this year - I did the research. The trick is in finding it.
It's *really hard* to convey the information unless the person you're talking with has some sort of background information - that's a lot of reading and hard work. Here's something from the Russian point of view - https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Hot%20Spots/Documents/Russia/Color-Revolutions-Brychkov-Nikonorov.pdf The translation is pretty good, except that the "Three Party Club" should be the Trilateral Commission and the "Roman Club" should be the Club of Rome. Here's a good article from the John Birch Society's New American website on the topic - https://thenewamerican.com/experts-trump-is-target-of-color-revolution/ And some good background on Ukraine from 2006 - https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2006/09/29/the-color-revolutions-fade-to-black/ And a piece from William Engdahl, who writes for a Duginist website - and so this is going to be probably a product of FSB and Russian-centric as well: http://williamengdahl.com/englishNEO16Jun2020.php And another source which I haven't checked out - https://geopoliticsandempire.com/2021/05/08/richard-poe-globalism-rooted-in-british-liberal-imperialism-not-american-empire/ Somewhere in there, the truth of the matter resides. Making it simple is another matter, and in all cases you have to consider the source and their motivations and their points of view.
No need for apologies! We’re happy to hear regardless of audio issues :)
I see like Tucker Carlson, Jimmy Dore, Tulsi Gabbert, Aaron Mate and Max Blumenthal we have another Putin patsy here, (sarcasm). Thanks, Daryl for a well thought out response. It's refreshing to see someone use logic and rationality to analyze an extremely complex situation. Nuace is lost on most of the American public and the entire legacy corporate media. The best analogy I've heard describing the situation is that, if you push a bear into a corner and poke it with a stick for 20 years and you eventually get your arm mualed I understand why. It doesn't mean I'm pro bears mualing people either, I just understand why it happened.
This x10
In a just society Tulsi would be president.
Thanks for putting this out DC, great work. Hard to believe it but I actually miss the covid narrative from last season. I'm sorry for the long musings below.
Jokes aside, what has me down at the moment is not just the war itself but the propaganda, lies and deception in the West. Like you, I see this war as an absolute tragedy that could have been avoided and watching it unfold and escalate in real time is truly heartbreaking. I'll be honest and admit I was a pro-war dipshit when I was younger and I still have a weird view of war; that it is sometimes necessary and some good can come of it (for example, Ukrainian national identity will be strong for generations regardless of what the outcome of this is - except in the worst case of nuclear war and our subsequent return to the stone age). But this one was wholly avoidable :(
What really scares the fuck out of me is the escalation of hateful rhetoric in response to this from people I know were completely anti-war a month ago, seemingly without anyone wondering how we got here. Apparently Putin just appeared out of nowhere and like a movie villain he is dead set on wholesale destruction. I once heard that wars are only ever started over fear, fear of the other. It might be hard for a lot of us to imagine fearing America because we live inside the Empire. But if you're on the outside looking in, the American Empire is truly terrifying. It's almost unprecedented that a country can wage war(s) with almost zero effect on the homefront such as rationing, conscription and in the modern era the mass destruction of cities and civilian casualties. DC laid out the steps the West has taken over the last 30 years since the fall of the USSR, and once you know and understand that it's easier to understand how and why Putin and Russia are scared.
We're now at a place where you're a Putin shill for not wanting to go down the road to WWIII. I was young, not as clued in and it was a different world in the early 2000s but I distinctly remember calls to de-escalate any type of hatred of Arabs or the Muslim world during the global war of terror. But I am seeing something dark at the moment with the anti-Russian stuff. The Russian embassy in my country was attacked and the gates and fence were vandalised/graffitied, including Nazi symbols. It feels like we have all been put on a conveyor belt towards war, like something out of the Guns of August. Why the different media approach now?
If we are to hold Putin accountable for his actions and decision to invade (which we should), we should also hold our own governments accountable for their actions that lead us down this path. But no one seems to have any interest in that. A democracy out for blood is something very dangerous that I think a lot of people don't understand. And it feels like we are being prepped for something big. I'm not sure if it's true so someone please correct me if I'm wrong but am I right in saying in the last US presidential election foreign policy was not allowed to be debated by Biden and Trump? How can people hold their leaders accountable if diplomacy is not deemed worthy of public debate?
'War is a Racket' is a short but brilliant book by a former US marine, which details how much profiteering goes on during war time. America doesn't manufacture much in country anymore, but one thing it still does make is military hardware. The stock prices of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon etc are all up. Some people will make a lot of money the longer this conflict is stretched out. Even though I deeply deeply sympathise with a country like Ukraine with a big bully neighbour next door, but I will never (again) advocate for a war which I wouldn't be willing to fight and die in myself. We have all been brought down this path by hubris, greed and shit diplomacy, and we need to calm down before it's too late.
I think all of the criticisms of US foreign meddling, the MIC power in the US, and the denigration of Russian civilians are valid. It's crazy to blame average Russian people abroad for what Putin is doing. But it's also crazy to paint Putin as anything but a degenerate and a tyrant. He's siphoned off the blood of his own people for more than 30 years. He's sick. Being the richest and most powerful single person in the world is not enough. His ego demands even more in his death throes. He must restore a fictional glorious Russian past. Hopefully a bodyguard or a maid or a physician will have the courage to end this madness.
Calling for his death has a lot to do with why Putin felt obligated to do what he did.
The immense DNC-CIA’s Russia-gate hoax DIRECTLY led to the current catastrophe and tragedy in Ukraine
How US-backed Maidan coup, Russia-gate led to war in Ukraine
How US-backed Maidan coup, Russiagate led to war in Ukraine - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_Gzgu47wAc
------------------------------------------------------------
Ukraine on Fire – Oliver Stone (now censored by Amazon, Google, etc.)
Ukraine On Fire (rumble.com)
https://rumble.com/vwxxi8-ukraine-on-fire.html
Dont forget the reptilians.
Why are you trolling here?
To be fair Nancy Pelosi did look like her person suit malfunctioned during the state of the union. It was eerily reminiscent of the alien wearing the Edgar suit in Men in Black. 😉
This was an excellent podcast. You certainly made a comprehensive and compelling case for the justified grievances held by Russia and the major role we played in setting those events in motion. You definitely gave me a lot of great content to provide context for what is going on.
Firstly, I am admittedly biased since my ancestors are from Galicia and they left there before the Bolsheviks continued the long list of tragedies these people have endured. It wasn't a good place to live then, and it only got worse...
I cannot, even for a second excuse what Putin has done. Sure, he wants Ukraine to stay in their sphere of influence, maybe Ukraine should have a say in that? Does he think indiscriminate bombing of civilians is going to entice the citizens of Ukraine to think, "Wow, these guys are great, let's definitely stay aligned with the guy who killed our families!" Look no further than the Irish with 800+ years of turmoil with the British.
Perhaps they would rather roll the dice with the EU? Having spent time in Russia and the EU, I certainly think the pitch for EU is far more attractive, but maybe that's just me.
Frankly, I believe in self determination for any country. I am tired of hearing about Ukraine as if it's some chess board piece between the US/EU and Russia.
The coming weeks/months/years are going to be hell over there and the death toll is going to be horrendous. But I will say this; the Ukrainians are going to grind the occupying force down with an insurgency and when it is all settled, they will have earned the right to go whatever direction they want to. And I stand behind them 100%.
Keep up the great work Darryl, and for God's sake throttle your twitter. Lol
If this had be limited to an occupation of eastern Ukraine, I think Putin would have a moral leg to stand on. And have most of that population on his side. Granted the country would have ended up like Germany, but that partition was enacted to prevent great power war too...
well said, sir
World hunger was all but eliminated, the James Webb telescope was launched, progress was made toward fusion reactors and inter planetary space travel. We're on the verge of accomplishing so much through our technology, but we have to do this shit again? More fucking wars for nothing to feed some disgusting pigs' corruption and conquest fantasy? Begs the question: can our institutions, or even humans generally be anything but corrupt?
I really appreciate Darryl Cooper's approach to analyze situations by carefully and thoroughly investigating both sides of a conflict with minimal emotional bias to either side even if he talks about atrocities that we all take an immediate side. This approach is crucial if you want to understand a conflict and resolve it. Thank you Darryl. I am at the last hour of the Fear and Loathing in the new Jerusalem and find this as an opportunity to thank you for your deep and wide analysis.