The evidence presented thus far for both assassinations is the same. So let's solve the earlier one first.

For that matter, lets start with the assassinations we know happened and get answers for deep state involvement in JFK and RFK's killing and the attempt on Reagan's life.

Realitybites said:

---

The evidence presented thus far for both assassinations is the same. So let's solve the earlier one first.

---

Like I said. Shill gonna shill.

Realitybites said:

---

Multiple replies and still no one posting evidence that Navalny was assassinated, much less by Putin.

Andrew Breitbart clearly was assassinated by Barack Hussein Obama days before he was going to release footage that he said would change the course of rhe 2012 election. Let's unravel that assassination first.

---

Oh, I see. You actually thought one of the posters on Baylorfans was going to break national news by presenting hard evidence directly linking Navalny's death with Putin. LOL.

Well, because the death occurred in a Russian prison, and because Putin for some odd reason is refusing to release or even disclose the location of Navalny's body to his family (hmm, I wonder why that is?), it is likely his body is already gone, and we will never have the hard evidence you so desperately need to link Putin's regime to the assassination. It's convenient because it allows Putin to plausibly deny any involvement, while at the same time allowing gullible fools such as yourself to say, "See, no evidence! Putin rocks!"

And just FYI, the same holds true for Putin's other political assassinations. The idea we are ever going to get definitive proof of their assassination outside of Russia is slim to none. So, of course, Putin dick suckers such as yourself can say there's no evidence that Prigozhin's plane suffered anything other than a malfunction, or there's no evidence that the Russian oligarchs who keep tripping and falling out of tall windows are dying by anything other than natural causes. All we will ever have is circumstantial evidence, which of course is not enough to link your boy Putin to the murders in your pea brain.

Like I said, it's convenient for you.

Realitybites said:

---

For that matter, lets start with the assassinations we know happened and get answers for deep state involvement in JFK and RFK's killing and the attempt on Reagan's life.

---

Wait a second. I thought you needed definitive proof before reaching such conclusion? What hard evidence do you have of the deep state's involvement?

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What it says:

Quote:

---

The dangers of ignoring Ukraine's neo-Nazis

Kyiv's tolerance for fascist extremism should cause the U.S. government to re-evaluate its support of Ukraine.

By Ben Choucroun
Published October 13, 2023

The name "Azov Brigade" should be recognizable to anyone who follows the conflict in Ukraine. To Ukraine, it is a key military unit composed of motivated fighters who have resisted Russian aggression. To Russia, the Azov Brigade is a neo-Nazi terrorist formation. Both of these narratives contain elements of truth. Azov Battalion is an important part of Ukraine's war effort, and it is a neo-Nazi formation that has committed numerous atrocities. The U.S.'s continuing military support for Ukraine despite its neo-Nazi problem and the whitewashing of the Azov by media outlets are fueling racism both in and outside of Ukraine.

The origins of the Azov Battalion lie in the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution, in which demonstrators overthrew the Ukrainian government. The revolutionaries were led by Andriy Parubiy, the founder of the neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (renamed Svoboda). After the revolution, members of Svoboda were appointed to key government positions, including minister of defense, head of the general prosecutor's office and deputy prime minister.

After Euromaidan, Russian-speaking territories in the eastern region of Donbas launched a rebellion against the far-right government in Kyiv. Volunteer militias, including the Azov Battalion (which was formed by the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine party), arose to fight the rebels.

Between 2014 and 2022, as the war in Donbas dragged on, Ukraine's far-right government continuously passed laws glorifying Nazi collaborators. In 2018, then-president Petro Poroshenko created a national holiday for Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator whose soldiers murdered up to 100,000 people during the Holocaust. Poroshenko even made it a criminal offense to denigrate Bandera's organization, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, and a government-funded museum opened an exhibit in their honor.

Unsurprisingly, Azov only grew. Between 2014 and 2022, Azov trained neo-Nazi terrorists and even recruited Brazilian fascists to fight in Ukraine. They were banned from Facebook for racist and antisemitic content (they titled one page "Gas Chambers"). Yet, they were described by Poroshenko as "our best warriors," and Vadim Troyan, a veteran of the Azov Battalion and Patriot of Ukraine, was appointed to be deputy minister of the interior, putting a neo-Nazi in charge of Ukraine's National Police.

When Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Azov gained more prominence. The unit garnered praise from the Ukrainian government and was further integrated into the Ukrainian military, being expanded from a regiment into a brigade. Some media outlets changed the way they describe Azov; German state-owned media outlet Deutsche Welle, which once described Azov as a neo-Nazi regiment, soon began labeling allegations of neo-Nazism as Russian propaganda. The BBC followed a similar line, moving from investigating Azov's neo-Nazi ideology in depth to downplaying Azov's neo-Nazism.

Azov has not been "de-Nazified" after it was further integrated into the Ukrainian military in 2022, as Azov and some media outlets claim. Much of Azov's leadership has been in the group since 2014 and has demonstrated neo-Nazi ties. Azov's press officer and the head of Azov's military school run social media accounts adorned with neo-Nazi symbolism. Azov's logo even contains the Wolfsangel, a neo-Nazi symbol. Not only is Azov a neo-Nazi military unit, but Western media outlets are complicit in whitewashing that fact, commiting journalistic malpractice of the highest order.

As Lev Golkin discussed in one article, Azov has a symbiotic relationship with Putin. Azov's existence allows Putin to justify his illegal invasion by claiming he is "de-Nazifying" Ukraine. Putin's rhetoric allows Azov to further justify its existence to Western countries based on its opposition to Putin, and receive more support from the Ukrainian government. This gives Putin even more rhetorical weight to justify his invasion of Ukraine, and so the cycle continues.

The losers of this dynamic are sure to be Ukrainian Jews and Roma people. In 2017, according to one report, Ukraine had more incidents of antisemitism than all other post-Soviet countries combined. In 2018, Nazi groups and police marched door to door, terrorizing Roma people. Among the groups marching was C14, a neo-Nazi organization which has in the past received funding from the Ukrainian government.

Additionally, the presence of neo-Nazi ideology in the Ukrainian government goes beyond Azov and similar gangs. Ukraine's parliament recently quoted Stepan Bandera in a statement. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense posted a picture of a Ukrainian soldier wearing a patch with neo-Nazi symbols before deleting it after outcry. A Ukrainian general was filmed threatening to destroy Jews.

By integrating Azov into its armed forces and outlawing the denigration of Holocaust perpetrators, the Ukrainian government has shown it is willing to tolerate neo-Nazi extremism, which directly threatens Ukrainian Jews and Roma people. If the U.S. cares about its stated commitment to human rights, it should immediately re-evaluate its support for Ukraine and stop ignoring the radicalization of Ukraine's military. Once a government starts employing neo-Nazis, it loses all moral superiority.

---

What Mothra sees:

Quote:

---

...

...

...
...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

!!!!ILLEGAL INVASION!!1!

....

...

...

---

---

Even if I engaged in this Russian propagated fantasy of a big Nazi problem, why is it any of Russia's business? They weren't even a threat to Russians until Putin invaded Crimea. Russia doesn't want a strong independent Ukraine, so they manufacture this crisis to marginalize Ukrainian nationalist sentiment. All part of the info war, until Russia decided to make it a real one.

---

Western media recognized it as a problem prior to the war. It's the denial since 2022 that is a form of propaganda. Putin didn't start the Donbas war by annexing Crimea. He sees the Nazis as a tool of US policy, and with good reason. It's what they have been to varying degrees ever since WWII.

---

Complete and utter BS, Sam. Putin started the Donbas War when Seperatists and Russian soldiers started occupying government buildings in Donetsk and Luhansk, aided by his forward positions in Crimea.

When you wonder how some of the Trumpers can excuse his actions with creative interpretation of events or whataboutism (as I do), try some reflection on Putin and your apologetics for him. It's eerily similar.

The Nazi problem is an overinflated fantasy of Putin and some of the liberal U.S. media swipes (like the White Supremacy problem). But for certain with both, the "Nazi threat" was no more of a threat to Russia than our "White Supremacy problem" is a threat to Canada.

---

And the separatists would have done that regardless. It's debatable whether Ukrainian Nazi groups would be a threat on their own. What you keep ignoring is that they're being armed, trained, and encouraged (if not directed) by the CIA. The last time that happened they ran a decade-long insurgency, committed hundreds of assassinations and terrorists acts, infiltrated the Soviet military, and massacred over a hundred thousand people.

---

Wait, are you tying WW2 Soviet resistance activities to the CIA?

---

Immediately post-war.

---

That's the same people, under the OSS. Didn't work out, so I'm not sure the germane nature of this, or you're attempting a huge stretch. It goes back to my Werner von Braun comment. Most of these folks ended up defecting and needing our protection in exchange for some attempts at Intel or some other resource or skill they had.

This has to be viewed in the context of the era. Both sides were enticing (or kidnapping) a bunch of Nazi Germans, including some unsavory ones, all for the purpose of strategic advantage. If you want something more relevant to today's issues, it was during this time that Stalin forcibly removed the Tartars from Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and replaced them with ethnic Russians.

---

The collaboration "worked out" in the sense that it was a big long-term investment and a big thorn in Russia's side. It may not have produced much useful intelligence, but that's beside the point. I don't know why you bring up the emigres' need for protection, as if that's supposed to excuse their extremism or our support of it. It's not as if protecting them was the purpose of the operation. The von Braun comparison likewise misses the point. The problem isn't simply that these people escaped justice. It's that they were completely unrepentant and were still pursuing the same goals after the war.

The CIA has been remarkably honest about this at times. They were worried about the ideology of these groups from the beginning. The more we came to rely on them, the more we tended to "blur the record" and make excuses for them. After a few years, the official line evolved into something very much like yours -- they were patriots first and foremost, and they only sided with the Nazis because of opposition to Russia.

It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. That's not to say there aren't true Ukrainian patriots. But there's no reason to let racist fanatics piggyback their agenda on top of Ukrainian nationalism. You're the one broad-brushing them together when you deny history and present-day reality in order to give the bad guys a pass.

---

Actually it was true and even the book chapter you refer to says as such (thanks I did read it). It's also why they were unreliable, and the program never took off. And as if to point out the obvious, it literally says "Ukrainian Nationists". Drawing even further, there is no history to "deny". Not only is there little of any history there, the "Nazi" piece is completely irrelevant to OSS interest, CIA interest, or anything else. The labeling is ONLY relevant to marginalize Ukrainian Nationalism. I'm sure there are bad dudes on all sides, but this is being used as an invasion precursor. Let me draw a similarly absurd equivalent that perhaps will resonate with you. This is like the U.S. using small amounts of mustard gas in Iraq as a WMD justification.

Make no mistake. The real bad guys came rolling in from Russia. This war doesn't happen but for that.

---

No, it doesn't say that. The CIA said it to the Displaced Persons Commission in 1949, and the author cites it specifically as an example of the kind of dubious rationalizations they were employing.

The relevance is abundantly clear from the Nation article I posted earlier. After this particular program ran its course, we continued to use the same groups in other parts of Europe during the Cold War, and more recently they've started playing a major role in Ukraine again. The group primarily responsible for escalating the Maidan riots was literally the same one Bandera led during the original operations there.

But I understand why you want to minimize them and conflate them with people who just want an independent Ukraine. You have to, or else you'd have to admit that Putin might have a point.

---

Happy to get into the nuance of intelligence operations, especially what was happening right after WW2, when much of America and the West thought we were stumbling into the next World War between East and West, but that's a complete distraction.

However, even if I engaged in the belief there was some "Nazi" element in Ukraine, they still were never a threat to Russia. Furthermore, Putin isn't there for the Romanian gypsies or the LGBTQ Ukrainians (he has enacted laws against them in Russia), the main targets even your Nation article mentions. It is anyone regardless of stripe that rejects Russia. The absurdity as a justification or that it required some type of Russian concerned "denazification" is outrageous.

He is using it as an invasion justification, and he will use it to oppress Ukrainians in the future if he succeeds. All built on a great lie. He has precedent in his country and history.

---

It's telling that you keep going back to "but Putin's justifying himself!" as if that settled the issue. Conclusions follow from facts, not the other way around.

BTW, regarding the title from my earlier link, extreme nationalism is a well known feature of Nazism. They're not mutually exclusive as you imply.

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps, but...
...he's still kind of a Putin stooge. Saw him on TV a couple of days ago actually insisting that Putin didn't kill Nalvany. To reach that conclusion already is incredible. We all know Putin did it.

---

What evidence (besides "Russia! Russia! Russia!" and "Putin! Putin! Putin!" do you have that Putin ordered Navalny's assassination?

Probably vaccinated guy dies suddenly. There's a lot of that going on these days.

---

Hmm, I don't know. Perhaps its that he already tried to kill him once by poisoning him?

I know, I know. Probably just a coincidence.

---

We're taking the German government's word that Navalny was poisoned. When Russia requested the evidence, it was refused.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps, but...
...he's still kind of a Putin stooge. Saw him on TV a couple of days ago actually insisting that Putin didn't kill Nalvany. To reach that conclusion already is incredible. We all know Putin did it.

---

What evidence (besides "Russia! Russia! Russia!" and "Putin! Putin! Putin!" do you have that Putin ordered Navalny's assassination?

Probably vaccinated guy dies suddenly. There's a lot of that going on these days.

---

Hmm, I don't know. Perhaps its that he already tried to kill him once by poisoning him?

I know, I know. Probably just a coincidence.

---

We're taking the German government's word that Navalny was poisoned. When Russia requested the evidence, it was refused.

---

LOL I guess your pay is coming in too, comrade.

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps, but...
...he's still kind of a Putin stooge. Saw him on TV a couple of days ago actually insisting that Putin didn't kill Nalvany. To reach that conclusion already is incredible. We all know Putin did it.

---

What evidence (besides "Russia! Russia! Russia!" and "Putin! Putin! Putin!" do you have that Putin ordered Navalny's assassination?

Probably vaccinated guy dies suddenly. There's a lot of that going on these days.

---

Hmm, I don't know. Perhaps its that he already tried to kill him once by poisoning him?

I know, I know. Probably just a coincidence.

---

We're taking the German government's word that Navalny was poisoned. When Russia requested the evidence, it was refused.

---

LOL I guess your pay is coming in too, comrade.

---

Of course...why else would anyone ever question anything?

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What it says:

Quote:

---

The dangers of ignoring Ukraine's neo-Nazis

Kyiv's tolerance for fascist extremism should cause the U.S. government to re-evaluate its support of Ukraine.

By Ben Choucroun
Published October 13, 2023

The name "Azov Brigade" should be recognizable to anyone who follows the conflict in Ukraine. To Ukraine, it is a key military unit composed of motivated fighters who have resisted Russian aggression. To Russia, the Azov Brigade is a neo-Nazi terrorist formation. Both of these narratives contain elements of truth. Azov Battalion is an important part of Ukraine's war effort, and it is a neo-Nazi formation that has committed numerous atrocities. The U.S.'s continuing military support for Ukraine despite its neo-Nazi problem and the whitewashing of the Azov by media outlets are fueling racism both in and outside of Ukraine.

The origins of the Azov Battalion lie in the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution, in which demonstrators overthrew the Ukrainian government. The revolutionaries were led by Andriy Parubiy, the founder of the neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (renamed Svoboda). After the revolution, members of Svoboda were appointed to key government positions, including minister of defense, head of the general prosecutor's office and deputy prime minister.

After Euromaidan, Russian-speaking territories in the eastern region of Donbas launched a rebellion against the far-right government in Kyiv. Volunteer militias, including the Azov Battalion (which was formed by the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine party), arose to fight the rebels.

Between 2014 and 2022, as the war in Donbas dragged on, Ukraine's far-right government continuously passed laws glorifying Nazi collaborators. In 2018, then-president Petro Poroshenko created a national holiday for Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator whose soldiers murdered up to 100,000 people during the Holocaust. Poroshenko even made it a criminal offense to denigrate Bandera's organization, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, and a government-funded museum opened an exhibit in their honor.

Unsurprisingly, Azov only grew. Between 2014 and 2022, Azov trained neo-Nazi terrorists and even recruited Brazilian fascists to fight in Ukraine. They were banned from Facebook for racist and antisemitic content (they titled one page "Gas Chambers"). Yet, they were described by Poroshenko as "our best warriors," and Vadim Troyan, a veteran of the Azov Battalion and Patriot of Ukraine, was appointed to be deputy minister of the interior, putting a neo-Nazi in charge of Ukraine's National Police.

When Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Azov gained more prominence. The unit garnered praise from the Ukrainian government and was further integrated into the Ukrainian military, being expanded from a regiment into a brigade. Some media outlets changed the way they describe Azov; German state-owned media outlet Deutsche Welle, which once described Azov as a neo-Nazi regiment, soon began labeling allegations of neo-Nazism as Russian propaganda. The BBC followed a similar line, moving from investigating Azov's neo-Nazi ideology in depth to downplaying Azov's neo-Nazism.

Azov has not been "de-Nazified" after it was further integrated into the Ukrainian military in 2022, as Azov and some media outlets claim. Much of Azov's leadership has been in the group since 2014 and has demonstrated neo-Nazi ties. Azov's press officer and the head of Azov's military school run social media accounts adorned with neo-Nazi symbolism. Azov's logo even contains the Wolfsangel, a neo-Nazi symbol. Not only is Azov a neo-Nazi military unit, but Western media outlets are complicit in whitewashing that fact, commiting journalistic malpractice of the highest order.

As Lev Golkin discussed in one article, Azov has a symbiotic relationship with Putin. Azov's existence allows Putin to justify his illegal invasion by claiming he is "de-Nazifying" Ukraine. Putin's rhetoric allows Azov to further justify its existence to Western countries based on its opposition to Putin, and receive more support from the Ukrainian government. This gives Putin even more rhetorical weight to justify his invasion of Ukraine, and so the cycle continues.

The losers of this dynamic are sure to be Ukrainian Jews and Roma people. In 2017, according to one report, Ukraine had more incidents of antisemitism than all other post-Soviet countries combined. In 2018, Nazi groups and police marched door to door, terrorizing Roma people. Among the groups marching was C14, a neo-Nazi organization which has in the past received funding from the Ukrainian government.

Additionally, the presence of neo-Nazi ideology in the Ukrainian government goes beyond Azov and similar gangs. Ukraine's parliament recently quoted Stepan Bandera in a statement. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense posted a picture of a Ukrainian soldier wearing a patch with neo-Nazi symbols before deleting it after outcry. A Ukrainian general was filmed threatening to destroy Jews.

By integrating Azov into its armed forces and outlawing the denigration of Holocaust perpetrators, the Ukrainian government has shown it is willing to tolerate neo-Nazi extremism, which directly threatens Ukrainian Jews and Roma people. If the U.S. cares about its stated commitment to human rights, it should immediately re-evaluate its support for Ukraine and stop ignoring the radicalization of Ukraine's military. Once a government starts employing neo-Nazis, it loses all moral superiority.

---

What Mothra sees:

Quote:

---

...

...

...
...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

!!!!ILLEGAL INVASION!!1!

....

...

...

---

---

Even if I engaged in this Russian propagated fantasy of a big Nazi problem, why is it any of Russia's business? They weren't even a threat to Russians until Putin invaded Crimea. Russia doesn't want a strong independent Ukraine, so they manufacture this crisis to marginalize Ukrainian nationalist sentiment. All part of the info war, until Russia decided to make it a real one.

---

Western media recognized it as a problem prior to the war. It's the denial since 2022 that is a form of propaganda. Putin didn't start the Donbas war by annexing Crimea. He sees the Nazis as a tool of US policy, and with good reason. It's what they have been to varying degrees ever since WWII.

---

Complete and utter BS, Sam. Putin started the Donbas War when Seperatists and Russian soldiers started occupying government buildings in Donetsk and Luhansk, aided by his forward positions in Crimea.

When you wonder how some of the Trumpers can excuse his actions with creative interpretation of events or whataboutism (as I do), try some reflection on Putin and your apologetics for him. It's eerily similar.

The Nazi problem is an overinflated fantasy of Putin and some of the liberal U.S. media swipes (like the White Supremacy problem). But for certain with both, the "Nazi threat" was no more of a threat to Russia than our "White Supremacy problem" is a threat to Canada.

---

And the separatists would have done that regardless. It's debatable whether Ukrainian Nazi groups would be a threat on their own. What you keep ignoring is that they're being armed, trained, and encouraged (if not directed) by the CIA. The last time that happened they ran a decade-long insurgency, committed hundreds of assassinations and terrorists acts, infiltrated the Soviet military, and massacred over a hundred thousand people.

---

Wait, are you tying WW2 Soviet resistance activities to the CIA?

---

Immediately post-war.

---

That's the same people, under the OSS. Didn't work out, so I'm not sure the germane nature of this, or you're attempting a huge stretch. It goes back to my Werner von Braun comment. Most of these folks ended up defecting and needing our protection in exchange for some attempts at Intel or some other resource or skill they had.

This has to be viewed in the context of the era. Both sides were enticing (or kidnapping) a bunch of Nazi Germans, including some unsavory ones, all for the purpose of strategic advantage. If you want something more relevant to today's issues, it was during this time that Stalin forcibly removed the Tartars from Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and replaced them with ethnic Russians.

---

The collaboration "worked out" in the sense that it was a big long-term investment and a big thorn in Russia's side. It may not have produced much useful intelligence, but that's beside the point. I don't know why you bring up the emigres' need for protection, as if that's supposed to excuse their extremism or our support of it. It's not as if protecting them was the purpose of the operation. The von Braun comparison likewise misses the point. The problem isn't simply that these people escaped justice. It's that they were completely unrepentant and were still pursuing the same goals after the war.

The CIA has been remarkably honest about this at times. They were worried about the ideology of these groups from the beginning. The more we came to rely on them, the more we tended to "blur the record" and make excuses for them. After a few years, the official line evolved into something very much like yours -- they were patriots first and foremost, and they only sided with the Nazis because of opposition to Russia.

It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. That's not to say there aren't true Ukrainian patriots. But there's no reason to let racist fanatics piggyback their agenda on top of Ukrainian nationalism. You're the one broad-brushing them together when you deny history and present-day reality in order to give the bad guys a pass.

---

Actually it was true and even the book chapter you refer to says as such (thanks I did read it). It's also why they were unreliable, and the program never took off. And as if to point out the obvious, it literally says "Ukrainian Nationists". Drawing even further, there is no history to "deny". Not only is there little of any history there, the "Nazi" piece is completely irrelevant to OSS interest, CIA interest, or anything else. The labeling is ONLY relevant to marginalize Ukrainian Nationalism. I'm sure there are bad dudes on all sides, but this is being used as an invasion precursor. Let me draw a similarly absurd equivalent that perhaps will resonate with you. This is like the U.S. using small amounts of mustard gas in Iraq as a WMD justification.

Make no mistake. The real bad guys came rolling in from Russia. This war doesn't happen but for that.

---

No, it doesn't say that. The CIA said it to the Displaced Persons Commission in 1949, and the author cites it specifically as an example of the kind of dubious rationalizations they were employing.

The relevance is abundantly clear from the Nation article I posted earlier. After this particular program ran its course, we continued to use the same groups in other parts of Europe during the Cold War, and more recently they've started playing a major role in Ukraine again. The group primarily responsible for escalating the Maidan riots was literally the same one Bandera led during the original operations there.

But I understand why you want to minimize them and conflate them with people who just want an independent Ukraine. You have to, or else you'd have to admit that Putin might have a point.

---

Happy to get into the nuance of intelligence operations, especially what was happening right after WW2, when much of America and the West thought we were stumbling into the next World War between East and West, but that's a complete distraction.

However, even if I engaged in the belief there was some "Nazi" element in Ukraine, they still were never a threat to Russia. Furthermore, Putin isn't there for the Romanian gypsies or the LGBTQ Ukrainians (he has enacted laws against them in Russia), the main targets even your Nation article mentions. It is anyone regardless of stripe that rejects Russia. The absurdity as a justification or that it required some type of Russian concerned "denazification" is outrageous.

He is using it as an invasion justification, and he will use it to oppress Ukrainians in the future if he succeeds. All built on a great lie. He has precedent in his country and history.

---

It's telling that you keep going back to "but Putin's justifying himself!" as if that settled the issue. Conclusions follow from facts, not the other way around.

BTW, regarding the title from my earlier link, extreme nationalism is a well known feature of Nazism. They're not mutually exclusive as you imply.

---

So what you're telling me Sam is that the Nazi's invaded the Nazi's to root out the Nazis. Interesting theory.

And you'll have to continue to guide me through the Putin propaganda map when it comes to War reasoning. It's difficult to address logic to a manufactured fantasy developed in the Kremlin. But I'm sure they appreciate your efforts.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What it says:

Quote:

---

The dangers of ignoring Ukraine's neo-Nazis

Kyiv's tolerance for fascist extremism should cause the U.S. government to re-evaluate its support of Ukraine.

By Ben Choucroun
Published October 13, 2023

The name "Azov Brigade" should be recognizable to anyone who follows the conflict in Ukraine. To Ukraine, it is a key military unit composed of motivated fighters who have resisted Russian aggression. To Russia, the Azov Brigade is a neo-Nazi terrorist formation. Both of these narratives contain elements of truth. Azov Battalion is an important part of Ukraine's war effort, and it is a neo-Nazi formation that has committed numerous atrocities. The U.S.'s continuing military support for Ukraine despite its neo-Nazi problem and the whitewashing of the Azov by media outlets are fueling racism both in and outside of Ukraine.

The origins of the Azov Battalion lie in the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution, in which demonstrators overthrew the Ukrainian government. The revolutionaries were led by Andriy Parubiy, the founder of the neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (renamed Svoboda). After the revolution, members of Svoboda were appointed to key government positions, including minister of defense, head of the general prosecutor's office and deputy prime minister.

After Euromaidan, Russian-speaking territories in the eastern region of Donbas launched a rebellion against the far-right government in Kyiv. Volunteer militias, including the Azov Battalion (which was formed by the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine party), arose to fight the rebels.

Between 2014 and 2022, as the war in Donbas dragged on, Ukraine's far-right government continuously passed laws glorifying Nazi collaborators. In 2018, then-president Petro Poroshenko created a national holiday for Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator whose soldiers murdered up to 100,000 people during the Holocaust. Poroshenko even made it a criminal offense to denigrate Bandera's organization, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, and a government-funded museum opened an exhibit in their honor.

Unsurprisingly, Azov only grew. Between 2014 and 2022, Azov trained neo-Nazi terrorists and even recruited Brazilian fascists to fight in Ukraine. They were banned from Facebook for racist and antisemitic content (they titled one page "Gas Chambers"). Yet, they were described by Poroshenko as "our best warriors," and Vadim Troyan, a veteran of the Azov Battalion and Patriot of Ukraine, was appointed to be deputy minister of the interior, putting a neo-Nazi in charge of Ukraine's National Police.

When Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Azov gained more prominence. The unit garnered praise from the Ukrainian government and was further integrated into the Ukrainian military, being expanded from a regiment into a brigade. Some media outlets changed the way they describe Azov; German state-owned media outlet Deutsche Welle, which once described Azov as a neo-Nazi regiment, soon began labeling allegations of neo-Nazism as Russian propaganda. The BBC followed a similar line, moving from investigating Azov's neo-Nazi ideology in depth to downplaying Azov's neo-Nazism.

Azov has not been "de-Nazified" after it was further integrated into the Ukrainian military in 2022, as Azov and some media outlets claim. Much of Azov's leadership has been in the group since 2014 and has demonstrated neo-Nazi ties. Azov's press officer and the head of Azov's military school run social media accounts adorned with neo-Nazi symbolism. Azov's logo even contains the Wolfsangel, a neo-Nazi symbol. Not only is Azov a neo-Nazi military unit, but Western media outlets are complicit in whitewashing that fact, commiting journalistic malpractice of the highest order.

As Lev Golkin discussed in one article, Azov has a symbiotic relationship with Putin. Azov's existence allows Putin to justify his illegal invasion by claiming he is "de-Nazifying" Ukraine. Putin's rhetoric allows Azov to further justify its existence to Western countries based on its opposition to Putin, and receive more support from the Ukrainian government. This gives Putin even more rhetorical weight to justify his invasion of Ukraine, and so the cycle continues.

The losers of this dynamic are sure to be Ukrainian Jews and Roma people. In 2017, according to one report, Ukraine had more incidents of antisemitism than all other post-Soviet countries combined. In 2018, Nazi groups and police marched door to door, terrorizing Roma people. Among the groups marching was C14, a neo-Nazi organization which has in the past received funding from the Ukrainian government.

Additionally, the presence of neo-Nazi ideology in the Ukrainian government goes beyond Azov and similar gangs. Ukraine's parliament recently quoted Stepan Bandera in a statement. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense posted a picture of a Ukrainian soldier wearing a patch with neo-Nazi symbols before deleting it after outcry. A Ukrainian general was filmed threatening to destroy Jews.

By integrating Azov into its armed forces and outlawing the denigration of Holocaust perpetrators, the Ukrainian government has shown it is willing to tolerate neo-Nazi extremism, which directly threatens Ukrainian Jews and Roma people. If the U.S. cares about its stated commitment to human rights, it should immediately re-evaluate its support for Ukraine and stop ignoring the radicalization of Ukraine's military. Once a government starts employing neo-Nazis, it loses all moral superiority.

---

What Mothra sees:

Quote:

---

...

...

...
...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

!!!!ILLEGAL INVASION!!1!

....

...

...

---

---

Even if I engaged in this Russian propagated fantasy of a big Nazi problem, why is it any of Russia's business? %A0They weren't even a threat to Russians until Putin invaded Crimea. %A0Russia doesn't want a strong independent Ukraine, so they manufacture this crisis to marginalize Ukrainian nationalist sentiment. %A0All part of the info war, until Russia decided to make it a real one. %A0

---

Western media recognized it as a problem prior to the war. It's the denial since 2022 that is a form of propaganda. Putin didn't start the Donbas war by annexing Crimea. He sees the Nazis as a tool of US policy, and with good reason. It's what they have been to varying degrees ever since WWII.

---

Complete and utter BS, Sam. %A0Putin started the Donbas War when Seperatists and Russian soldiers started occupying government buildings in Donetsk and Luhansk, aided by his forward positions in Crimea. %A0

When you wonder how some of the Trumpers can excuse his actions with creative interpretation of events or whataboutism (as I do), try some reflection on Putin and your apologetics for him. %A0It's eerily similar. %A0

The Nazi problem is an overinflated fantasy of Putin and some of the liberal U.S. media swipes (like the White Supremacy problem). %A0But for certain with both, the "Nazi threat" was no more of a threat to Russia than our "White Supremacy problem" is a threat to Canada. %A0

---

And the separatists would have done that regardless. It's debatable whether Ukrainian Nazi groups would be a threat on their own. What you keep ignoring is that they're being armed, trained, and encouraged (if not directed) by the CIA. The last time that happened they ran a decade-long insurgency, committed hundreds of assassinations and terrorists acts, infiltrated the Soviet military, and massacred over a hundred thousand people.

---

Wait, are you tying WW2 Soviet resistance activities to the CIA? %A0

---

Immediately post-war.

---

That's the same people, under the OSS. %A0Didn't work out, so I'm not sure the germane nature of this, or you're attempting a huge stretch. %A0It goes back to my Werner von Braun comment. %A0Most of these folks ended up defecting and needing our protection in exchange for some attempts at Intel or some other resource or skill they had. %A0

This has to be viewed in the context of the era. %A0Both sides were enticing (or kidnapping) a bunch of Nazi Germans, including some unsavory ones, all for the purpose of strategic advantage. %A0If you want something more relevant to today's issues, it was during this time that Stalin forcibly removed the Tartars from Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and replaced them with ethnic Russians. %A0

---

The collaboration "worked out" in the sense that it was a big long-term investment and a big thorn in Russia's side. It may not have produced much useful intelligence, but that's beside the point. I don't know why you bring up the emigres' need for protection, as if that's supposed to excuse their extremism or our support of it. It's not as if protecting them was the purpose of the operation. The von Braun comparison likewise misses the point. The problem isn't simply that these people escaped justice. It's that they were completely unrepentant and were still pursuing the same goals after the war.

The CIA has been remarkably honest about this at times. They were worried about the ideology of these groups from the beginning. The more we came to rely on them, the more we tended to "blur the record" and make excuses for them. After a few years, the official line evolved into something very much like yours -- they were patriots first and foremost, and they only sided with the Nazis because of opposition to Russia.

It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. That's not to say there aren't true Ukrainian patriots. But there's no reason to let racist fanatics piggyback their agenda on top of Ukrainian nationalism. You're the one broad-brushing them together when you deny history and present-day reality in order to give the bad guys a pass.

---

Actually it was true and even the book chapter you refer to says as such (thanks I did read it). %A0It's also why they were unreliable, and the program never took off. %A0And as if to point out the obvious, it literally says "Ukrainian Nationists". Drawing even further, there is no history to "deny". %A0Not only is there little of any history there, the "Nazi" piece is completely irrelevant to OSS interest, CIA interest, or anything else. The labeling is ONLY relevant to marginalize Ukrainian Nationalism. %A0I'm sure there are bad dudes on all sides, but this is being used as an invasion precursor. %A0Let me draw a similarly absurd equivalent that perhaps will resonate with you. %A0This is like the U.S. using small amounts of mustard gas in Iraq as a WMD justification. %A0

Make no mistake. %A0The real bad guys came rolling in from Russia. %A0This war doesn't happen but for that. %A0

---

No, it doesn't say that. The CIA said it to the Displaced Persons Commission in 1949, and the author cites it specifically as an example of the kind of dubious rationalizations they were employing.

The relevance is abundantly clear from the Nation article I posted earlier. After this particular program ran its course, we continued to use the same groups in other parts of Europe during the Cold War, and more recently they've started playing a major role in Ukraine again. The group primarily responsible for escalating the Maidan riots was literally the same one Bandera led during the original operations there.

But I understand why you want to minimize them and conflate them with people who just want an independent Ukraine. You have to, or else you'd have to admit that Putin might have a point.

---

Happy to get into the nuance of intelligence operations, especially what was happening right after WW2, when much of America and the West thought we were stumbling into the next World War between East and West, but that's a complete distraction. %A0

However, even if I engaged in the belief there was some "Nazi" element in Ukraine, they still were never a threat to Russia. %A0Furthermore, Putin isn't there for the Romanian gypsies or the LGBTQ Ukrainians (he has enacted laws against them in Russia), the main targets even your Nation article mentions. It is anyone regardless of stripe that rejects Russia. The absurdity as a justification or that it required some type of Russian concerned "denazification" is outrageous. %A0

He is using it as an invasion justification, and he will use it to oppress Ukrainians in the future if he succeeds. %A0All built on a great lie. %A0He has precedent in his country and history. %A0

---

It's telling that you keep going back to "but Putin's justifying himself!" as if %A0that settled the issue. Conclusions follow from facts, not the other way around.

BTW, regarding the title from my earlier link, extreme nationalism is a well known feature of Nazism. They're not mutually exclusive as you imply.

---

So what you're telling me Sam is that the Nazi's invaded the Nazi's to root out the Nazis. %A0Interesting theory.

And you'll have to continue to guide me through the Putin propaganda map when it comes to War reasowning. %A0It's difficult to address logic to a manufactured fantasy developed in the Kremlin. %A0But I'm sure they appreciate your efforts. %A0 %A0

---

I don't know what your first paragraph is supposed to mean.

The only part of Putin's reasoning that you've "addressed" is the Nazi issue, and on that you're squarely at odds with the evidence I've shown you. If you want to move on and explain how NATO never moved an inch to the east and the Kremlin made the whole thing up, go for it.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What it says:

Quote:

---

The dangers of ignoring Ukraine's neo-Nazis

Kyiv's tolerance for fascist extremism should cause the U.S. government to re-evaluate its support of Ukraine.

By Ben Choucroun
Published October 13, 2023

The name "Azov Brigade" should be recognizable to anyone who follows the conflict in Ukraine. To Ukraine, it is a key military unit composed of motivated fighters who have resisted Russian aggression. To Russia, the Azov Brigade is a neo-Nazi terrorist formation. Both of these narratives contain elements of truth. Azov Battalion is an important part of Ukraine's war effort, and it is a neo-Nazi formation that has committed numerous atrocities. The U.S.'s continuing military support for Ukraine despite its neo-Nazi problem and the whitewashing of the Azov by media outlets are fueling racism both in and outside of Ukraine.

The origins of the Azov Battalion lie in the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution, in which demonstrators overthrew the Ukrainian government. The revolutionaries were led by Andriy Parubiy, the founder of the neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (renamed Svoboda). After the revolution, members of Svoboda were appointed to key government positions, including minister of defense, head of the general prosecutor's office and deputy prime minister.

After Euromaidan, Russian-speaking territories in the eastern region of Donbas launched a rebellion against the far-right government in Kyiv. Volunteer militias, including the Azov Battalion (which was formed by the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine party), arose to fight the rebels.

Between 2014 and 2022, as the war in Donbas dragged on, Ukraine's far-right government continuously passed laws glorifying Nazi collaborators. In 2018, then-president Petro Poroshenko created a national holiday for Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator whose soldiers murdered up to 100,000 people during the Holocaust. Poroshenko even made it a criminal offense to denigrate Bandera's organization, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, and a government-funded museum opened an exhibit in their honor.

Unsurprisingly, Azov only grew. Between 2014 and 2022, Azov trained neo-Nazi terrorists and even recruited Brazilian fascists to fight in Ukraine. They were banned from Facebook for racist and antisemitic content (they titled one page "Gas Chambers"). Yet, they were described by Poroshenko as "our best warriors," and Vadim Troyan, a veteran of the Azov Battalion and Patriot of Ukraine, was appointed to be deputy minister of the interior, putting a neo-Nazi in charge of Ukraine's National Police.

When Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Azov gained more prominence. The unit garnered praise from the Ukrainian government and was further integrated into the Ukrainian military, being expanded from a regiment into a brigade. Some media outlets changed the way they describe Azov; German state-owned media outlet Deutsche Welle, which once described Azov as a neo-Nazi regiment, soon began labeling allegations of neo-Nazism as Russian propaganda. The BBC followed a similar line, moving from investigating Azov's neo-Nazi ideology in depth to downplaying Azov's neo-Nazism.

Azov has not been "de-Nazified" after it was further integrated into the Ukrainian military in 2022, as Azov and some media outlets claim. Much of Azov's leadership has been in the group since 2014 and has demonstrated neo-Nazi ties. Azov's press officer and the head of Azov's military school run social media accounts adorned with neo-Nazi symbolism. Azov's logo even contains the Wolfsangel, a neo-Nazi symbol. Not only is Azov a neo-Nazi military unit, but Western media outlets are complicit in whitewashing that fact, commiting journalistic malpractice of the highest order.

As Lev Golkin discussed in one article, Azov has a symbiotic relationship with Putin. Azov's existence allows Putin to justify his illegal invasion by claiming he is "de-Nazifying" Ukraine. Putin's rhetoric allows Azov to further justify its existence to Western countries based on its opposition to Putin, and receive more support from the Ukrainian government. This gives Putin even more rhetorical weight to justify his invasion of Ukraine, and so the cycle continues.

The losers of this dynamic are sure to be Ukrainian Jews and Roma people. In 2017, according to one report, Ukraine had more incidents of antisemitism than all other post-Soviet countries combined. In 2018, Nazi groups and police marched door to door, terrorizing Roma people. Among the groups marching was C14, a neo-Nazi organization which has in the past received funding from the Ukrainian government.

Additionally, the presence of neo-Nazi ideology in the Ukrainian government goes beyond Azov and similar gangs. Ukraine's parliament recently quoted Stepan Bandera in a statement. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense posted a picture of a Ukrainian soldier wearing a patch with neo-Nazi symbols before deleting it after outcry. A Ukrainian general was filmed threatening to destroy Jews.

By integrating Azov into its armed forces and outlawing the denigration of Holocaust perpetrators, the Ukrainian government has shown it is willing to tolerate neo-Nazi extremism, which directly threatens Ukrainian Jews and Roma people. If the U.S. cares about its stated commitment to human rights, it should immediately re-evaluate its support for Ukraine and stop ignoring the radicalization of Ukraine's military. Once a government starts employing neo-Nazis, it loses all moral superiority.

---

What Mothra sees:

Quote:

---

...

...

...
...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

!!!!ILLEGAL INVASION!!1!

....

...

...

---

---

Even if I engaged in this Russian propagated fantasy of a big Nazi problem, why is it any of Russia's business? %A0They weren't even a threat to Russians until Putin invaded Crimea. %A0Russia doesn't want a strong independent Ukraine, so they manufacture this crisis to marginalize Ukrainian nationalist sentiment. %A0All part of the info war, until Russia decided to make it a real one. %A0

---

Western media recognized it as a problem prior to the war. It's the denial since 2022 that is a form of propaganda. Putin didn't start the Donbas war by annexing Crimea. He sees the Nazis as a tool of US policy, and with good reason. It's what they have been to varying degrees ever since WWII.

---

Complete and utter BS, Sam. %A0Putin started the Donbas War when Seperatists and Russian soldiers started occupying government buildings in Donetsk and Luhansk, aided by his forward positions in Crimea. %A0

When you wonder how some of the Trumpers can excuse his actions with creative interpretation of events or whataboutism (as I do), try some reflection on Putin and your apologetics for him. %A0It's eerily similar. %A0

The Nazi problem is an overinflated fantasy of Putin and some of the liberal U.S. media swipes (like the White Supremacy problem). %A0But for certain with both, the "Nazi threat" was no more of a threat to Russia than our "White Supremacy problem" is a threat to Canada. %A0

---

And the separatists would have done that regardless. It's debatable whether Ukrainian Nazi groups would be a threat on their own. What you keep ignoring is that they're being armed, trained, and encouraged (if not directed) by the CIA. The last time that happened they ran a decade-long insurgency, committed hundreds of assassinations and terrorists acts, infiltrated the Soviet military, and massacred over a hundred thousand people.

---

Wait, are you tying WW2 Soviet resistance activities to the CIA? %A0

---

Immediately post-war.

---

That's the same people, under the OSS. %A0Didn't work out, so I'm not sure the germane nature of this, or you're attempting a huge stretch. %A0It goes back to my Werner von Braun comment. %A0Most of these folks ended up defecting and needing our protection in exchange for some attempts at Intel or some other resource or skill they had. %A0

This has to be viewed in the context of the era. %A0Both sides were enticing (or kidnapping) a bunch of Nazi Germans, including some unsavory ones, all for the purpose of strategic advantage. %A0If you want something more relevant to today's issues, it was during this time that Stalin forcibly removed the Tartars from Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and replaced them with ethnic Russians. %A0

---

The collaboration "worked out" in the sense that it was a big long-term investment and a big thorn in Russia's side. It may not have produced much useful intelligence, but that's beside the point. I don't know why you bring up the emigres' need for protection, as if that's supposed to excuse their extremism or our support of it. It's not as if protecting them was the purpose of the operation. The von Braun comparison likewise misses the point. The problem isn't simply that these people escaped justice. It's that they were completely unrepentant and were still pursuing the same goals after the war.

The CIA has been remarkably honest about this at times. They were worried about the ideology of these groups from the beginning. The more we came to rely on them, the more we tended to "blur the record" and make excuses for them. After a few years, the official line evolved into something very much like yours -- they were patriots first and foremost, and they only sided with the Nazis because of opposition to Russia.

It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. That's not to say there aren't true Ukrainian patriots. But there's no reason to let racist fanatics piggyback their agenda on top of Ukrainian nationalism. You're the one broad-brushing them together when you deny history and present-day reality in order to give the bad guys a pass.

---

Actually it was true and even the book chapter you refer to says as such (thanks I did read it). %A0It's also why they were unreliable, and the program never took off. %A0And as if to point out the obvious, it literally says "Ukrainian Nationists". Drawing even further, there is no history to "deny". %A0Not only is there little of any history there, the "Nazi" piece is completely irrelevant to OSS interest, CIA interest, or anything else. The labeling is ONLY relevant to marginalize Ukrainian Nationalism. %A0I'm sure there are bad dudes on all sides, but this is being used as an invasion precursor. %A0Let me draw a similarly absurd equivalent that perhaps will resonate with you. %A0This is like the U.S. using small amounts of mustard gas in Iraq as a WMD justification. %A0

Make no mistake. %A0The real bad guys came rolling in from Russia. %A0This war doesn't happen but for that. %A0

---

No, it doesn't say that. The CIA said it to the Displaced Persons Commission in 1949, and the author cites it specifically as an example of the kind of dubious rationalizations they were employing.

The relevance is abundantly clear from the Nation article I posted earlier. After this particular program ran its course, we continued to use the same groups in other parts of Europe during the Cold War, and more recently they've started playing a major role in Ukraine again. The group primarily responsible for escalating the Maidan riots was literally the same one Bandera led during the original operations there.

But I understand why you want to minimize them and conflate them with people who just want an independent Ukraine. You have to, or else you'd have to admit that Putin might have a point.

---

Happy to get into the nuance of intelligence operations, especially what was happening right after WW2, when much of America and the West thought we were stumbling into the next World War between East and West, but that's a complete distraction. %A0

However, even if I engaged in the belief there was some "Nazi" element in Ukraine, they still were never a threat to Russia. %A0Furthermore, Putin isn't there for the Romanian gypsies or the LGBTQ Ukrainians (he has enacted laws against them in Russia), the main targets even your Nation article mentions. It is anyone regardless of stripe that rejects Russia. The absurdity as a justification or that it required some type of Russian concerned "denazification" is outrageous. %A0

He is using it as an invasion justification, and he will use it to oppress Ukrainians in the future if he succeeds. %A0All built on a great lie. %A0He has precedent in his country and history. %A0

---

It's telling that you keep going back to "but Putin's justifying himself!" as if %A0that settled the issue. Conclusions follow from facts, not the other way around.

BTW, regarding the title from my earlier link, extreme nationalism is a well known feature of Nazism. They're not mutually exclusive as you imply.

---

So what you're telling me Sam is that the Nazi's invaded the Nazi's to root out the Nazis. %A0Interesting theory.

And you'll have to continue to guide me through the Putin propaganda map when it comes to War reasowning. %A0It's difficult to address logic to a manufactured fantasy developed in the Kremlin. %A0But I'm sure they appreciate your efforts. %A0 %A0

---

I don't know what your first paragraph is supposed to mean.

The only part of Putin's reasoning that you've "addressed" is the Nazi issue, and on that you're squarely at odds with the evidence I've shown you. If you want to move on to explain how NATO never moved an inch to the east and the Kremlin made the whole thing up, go for it.

---

I wouldn't expect you to understand because you're duped and enamored with a despot.

By the way, Navalny was convicted of "extremist views" and "rehabilitating Nazi ideology" while still in prison. Got him 19 more years in jail and killed, whether by poison or his mystery transfer to an Arctic prison.

Your boy is playing you on this Nazi stuff, just like he plays it to his domestic audience, and you're lapping it up.

Enough other threads on the NATO topic. Feel free to resume there.

---

Yeah, I get it. Our government always tells the truth. We never do anything covert. We don't even do anything overt. And we've always been at war with Eastasia.

But I'm the dupe.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What it says:

Quote:

---

The dangers of ignoring Ukraine's neo-Nazis

Kyiv's tolerance for fascist extremism should cause the U.S. government to re-evaluate its support of Ukraine.

By Ben Choucroun
Published October 13, 2023

The name "Azov Brigade" should be recognizable to anyone who follows the conflict in Ukraine. To Ukraine, it is a key military unit composed of motivated fighters who have resisted Russian aggression. To Russia, the Azov Brigade is a neo-Nazi terrorist formation. Both of these narratives contain elements of truth. Azov Battalion is an important part of Ukraine's war effort, and it is a neo-Nazi formation that has committed numerous atrocities. The U.S.'s continuing military support for Ukraine despite its neo-Nazi problem and the whitewashing of the Azov by media outlets are fueling racism both in and outside of Ukraine.

The origins of the Azov Battalion lie in the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution, in which demonstrators overthrew the Ukrainian government. The revolutionaries were led by Andriy Parubiy, the founder of the neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (renamed Svoboda). After the revolution, members of Svoboda were appointed to key government positions, including minister of defense, head of the general prosecutor's office and deputy prime minister.

After Euromaidan, Russian-speaking territories in the eastern region of Donbas launched a rebellion against the far-right government in Kyiv. Volunteer militias, including the Azov Battalion (which was formed by the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine party), arose to fight the rebels.

Between 2014 and 2022, as the war in Donbas dragged on, Ukraine's far-right government continuously passed laws glorifying Nazi collaborators. In 2018, then-president Petro Poroshenko created a national holiday for Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator whose soldiers murdered up to 100,000 people during the Holocaust. Poroshenko even made it a criminal offense to denigrate Bandera's organization, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, and a government-funded museum opened an exhibit in their honor.

Unsurprisingly, Azov only grew. Between 2014 and 2022, Azov trained neo-Nazi terrorists and even recruited Brazilian fascists to fight in Ukraine. They were banned from Facebook for racist and antisemitic content (they titled one page "Gas Chambers"). Yet, they were described by Poroshenko as "our best warriors," and Vadim Troyan, a veteran of the Azov Battalion and Patriot of Ukraine, was appointed to be deputy minister of the interior, putting a neo-Nazi in charge of Ukraine's National Police.

When Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Azov gained more prominence. The unit garnered praise from the Ukrainian government and was further integrated into the Ukrainian military, being expanded from a regiment into a brigade. Some media outlets changed the way they describe Azov; German state-owned media outlet Deutsche Welle, which once described Azov as a neo-Nazi regiment, soon began labeling allegations of neo-Nazism as Russian propaganda. The BBC followed a similar line, moving from investigating Azov's neo-Nazi ideology in depth to downplaying Azov's neo-Nazism.

Azov has not been "de-Nazified" after it was further integrated into the Ukrainian military in 2022, as Azov and some media outlets claim. Much of Azov's leadership has been in the group since 2014 and has demonstrated neo-Nazi ties. Azov's press officer and the head of Azov's military school run social media accounts adorned with neo-Nazi symbolism. Azov's logo even contains the Wolfsangel, a neo-Nazi symbol. Not only is Azov a neo-Nazi military unit, but Western media outlets are complicit in whitewashing that fact, commiting journalistic malpractice of the highest order.

As Lev Golkin discussed in one article, Azov has a symbiotic relationship with Putin. Azov's existence allows Putin to justify his illegal invasion by claiming he is "de-Nazifying" Ukraine. Putin's rhetoric allows Azov to further justify its existence to Western countries based on its opposition to Putin, and receive more support from the Ukrainian government. This gives Putin even more rhetorical weight to justify his invasion of Ukraine, and so the cycle continues.

The losers of this dynamic are sure to be Ukrainian Jews and Roma people. In 2017, according to one report, Ukraine had more incidents of antisemitism than all other post-Soviet countries combined. In 2018, Nazi groups and police marched door to door, terrorizing Roma people. Among the groups marching was C14, a neo-Nazi organization which has in the past received funding from the Ukrainian government.

Additionally, the presence of neo-Nazi ideology in the Ukrainian government goes beyond Azov and similar gangs. Ukraine's parliament recently quoted Stepan Bandera in a statement. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense posted a picture of a Ukrainian soldier wearing a patch with neo-Nazi symbols before deleting it after outcry. A Ukrainian general was filmed threatening to destroy Jews.

By integrating Azov into its armed forces and outlawing the denigration of Holocaust perpetrators, the Ukrainian government has shown it is willing to tolerate neo-Nazi extremism, which directly threatens Ukrainian Jews and Roma people. If the U.S. cares about its stated commitment to human rights, it should immediately re-evaluate its support for Ukraine and stop ignoring the radicalization of Ukraine's military. Once a government starts employing neo-Nazis, it loses all moral superiority.

---

What Mothra sees:

Quote:

---

...

...

...
...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

!!!!ILLEGAL INVASION!!1!

....

...

...

---

---

Even if I engaged in this Russian propagated fantasy of a big Nazi problem, why is it any of Russia's business? %A0They weren't even a threat to Russians until Putin invaded Crimea. %A0Russia doesn't want a strong independent Ukraine, so they manufacture this crisis to marginalize Ukrainian nationalist sentiment. %A0All part of the info war, until Russia decided to make it a real one. %A0

---

Western media recognized it as a problem prior to the war. It's the denial since 2022 that is a form of propaganda. Putin didn't start the Donbas war by annexing Crimea. He sees the Nazis as a tool of US policy, and with good reason. It's what they have been to varying degrees ever since WWII.

---

Complete and utter BS, Sam. %A0Putin started the Donbas War when Seperatists and Russian soldiers started occupying government buildings in Donetsk and Luhansk, aided by his forward positions in Crimea. %A0

When you wonder how some of the Trumpers can excuse his actions with creative interpretation of events or whataboutism (as I do), try some reflection on Putin and your apologetics for him. %A0It's eerily similar. %A0

The Nazi problem is an overinflated fantasy of Putin and some of the liberal U.S. media swipes (like the White Supremacy problem). %A0But for certain with both, the "Nazi threat" was no more of a threat to Russia than our "White Supremacy problem" is a threat to Canada. %A0

---

And the separatists would have done that regardless. It's debatable whether Ukrainian Nazi groups would be a threat on their own. What you keep ignoring is that they're being armed, trained, and encouraged (if not directed) by the CIA. The last time that happened they ran a decade-long insurgency, committed hundreds of assassinations and terrorists acts, infiltrated the Soviet military, and massacred over a hundred thousand people.

---

Wait, are you tying WW2 Soviet resistance activities to the CIA? %A0

---

Immediately post-war.

---

That's the same people, under the OSS. %A0Didn't work out, so I'm not sure the germane nature of this, or you're attempting a huge stretch. %A0It goes back to my Werner von Braun comment. %A0Most of these folks ended up defecting and needing our protection in exchange for some attempts at Intel or some other resource or skill they had. %A0

This has to be viewed in the context of the era. %A0Both sides were enticing (or kidnapping) a bunch of Nazi Germans, including some unsavory ones, all for the purpose of strategic advantage. %A0If you want something more relevant to today's issues, it was during this time that Stalin forcibly removed the Tartars from Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and replaced them with ethnic Russians. %A0

---

The collaboration "worked out" in the sense that it was a big long-term investment and a big thorn in Russia's side. It may not have produced much useful intelligence, but that's beside the point. I don't know why you bring up the emigres' need for protection, as if that's supposed to excuse their extremism or our support of it. It's not as if protecting them was the purpose of the operation. The von Braun comparison likewise misses the point. The problem isn't simply that these people escaped justice. It's that they were completely unrepentant and were still pursuing the same goals after the war.

The CIA has been remarkably honest about this at times. They were worried about the ideology of these groups from the beginning. The more we came to rely on them, the more we tended to "blur the record" and make excuses for them. After a few years, the official line evolved into something very much like yours -- they were patriots first and foremost, and they only sided with the Nazis because of opposition to Russia.

It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. That's not to say there aren't true Ukrainian patriots. But there's no reason to let racist fanatics piggyback their agenda on top of Ukrainian nationalism. You're the one broad-brushing them together when you deny history and present-day reality in order to give the bad guys a pass.

---

Actually it was true and even the book chapter you refer to says as such (thanks I did read it). %A0It's also why they were unreliable, and the program never took off. %A0And as if to point out the obvious, it literally says "Ukrainian Nationists". Drawing even further, there is no history to "deny". %A0Not only is there little of any history there, the "Nazi" piece is completely irrelevant to OSS interest, CIA interest, or anything else. The labeling is ONLY relevant to marginalize Ukrainian Nationalism. %A0I'm sure there are bad dudes on all sides, but this is being used as an invasion precursor. %A0Let me draw a similarly absurd equivalent that perhaps will resonate with you. %A0This is like the U.S. using small amounts of mustard gas in Iraq as a WMD justification. %A0

Make no mistake. %A0The real bad guys came rolling in from Russia. %A0This war doesn't happen but for that. %A0

---

No, it doesn't say that. The CIA said it to the Displaced Persons Commission in 1949, and the author cites it specifically as an example of the kind of dubious rationalizations they were employing.

The relevance is abundantly clear from the Nation article I posted earlier. After this particular program ran its course, we continued to use the same groups in other parts of Europe during the Cold War, and more recently they've started playing a major role in Ukraine again. The group primarily responsible for escalating the Maidan riots was literally the same one Bandera led during the original operations there.

But I understand why you want to minimize them and conflate them with people who just want an independent Ukraine. You have to, or else you'd have to admit that Putin might have a point.

---

Happy to get into the nuance of intelligence operations, especially what was happening right after WW2, when much of America and the West thought we were stumbling into the next World War between East and West, but that's a complete distraction. %A0

However, even if I engaged in the belief there was some "Nazi" element in Ukraine, they still were never a threat to Russia. %A0Furthermore, Putin isn't there for the Romanian gypsies or the LGBTQ Ukrainians (he has enacted laws against them in Russia), the main targets even your Nation article mentions. It is anyone regardless of stripe that rejects Russia. The absurdity as a justification or that it required some type of Russian concerned "denazification" is outrageous. %A0

He is using it as an invasion justification, and he will use it to oppress Ukrainians in the future if he succeeds. %A0All built on a great lie. %A0He has precedent in his country and history. %A0

---

It's telling that you keep going back to "but Putin's justifying himself!" as if %A0that settled the issue. Conclusions follow from facts, not the other way around.

BTW, regarding the title from my earlier link, extreme nationalism is a well known feature of Nazism. They're not mutually exclusive as you imply.

---

So what you're telling me Sam is that the Nazi's invaded the Nazi's to root out the Nazis. %A0Interesting theory.

And you'll have to continue to guide me through the Putin propaganda map when it comes to War reasowning. %A0It's difficult to address logic to a manufactured fantasy developed in the Kremlin. %A0But I'm sure they appreciate your efforts. %A0 %A0

---

I don't know what your first paragraph is supposed to mean.

The only part of Putin's reasoning that you've "addressed" is the Nazi issue, and on that you're squarely at odds with the evidence I've shown you. If you want to move on to explain how NATO never moved an inch to the east and the Kremlin made the whole thing up, go for it.

---

I wouldn't expect you to understand because you're duped and enamored with a despot.

By the way, Navalny was convicted of "extremist views" and "rehabilitating Nazi ideology" while still in prison. Got him 19 more years in jail and killed, whether by poison or his mystery transfer to an Arctic prison.

Your boy is playing you on this Nazi stuff, just like he plays it to his domestic audience, and you're lapping it up.

Enough other threads on the NATO topic. Feel free to resume there.

---

Yeah, I get it. Our government always tells the truth. We never do anything covert. We don't even do anything overt. And we've always been at war with Eastasia.

But I'm the dupe.

---

Of course not. Our government has only told the truth and been transparent about COVID and Jan 6…

This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whatabout

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps, but...
...he's still kind of a Putin stooge. Saw him on TV a couple of days ago actually insisting that Putin didn't kill Nalvany. To reach that conclusion already is incredible. We all know Putin did it.

---

What evidence (besides "Russia! Russia! Russia!" and "Putin! Putin! Putin!" do you have that Putin ordered Navalny's assassination?

Probably vaccinated guy dies suddenly. There's a lot of that going on these days.

---

Hmm, I don't know. Perhaps its that he already tried to kill him once by poisoning him?

I know, I know. Probably just a coincidence.

---

We're taking the German government's word that Navalny was poisoned. When Russia requested the evidence, it was refused.

---

Well, I'd take the word of Nalvany himself and a Western democracy over the Russian govt.'s word any day of the week, but that's the difference between us. You prefer the word of despots and dictators.

And of course, young people without serious health issues die all the time in Russian prisons, right? It's perfectly natural, as is hiding their bodies. Kind of like planes carrying Putin's political opponents fall from the sky and his opponents fall from windows. I am sure he had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots.

---

I expected this reaction from a lot of people, but not so much from you. Sounds like you watched the first 20 minutes and tuned out, am I right?

---

Tucker is a Putin stooge.

---

Hardly

Tucker is merely the most successful 'talking head' of all time.

Has become extremely wealthy playing to his ever increasing audience world wide.

The dork has more influence than any politician outside of the president.

---

Perhaps, but...

...he's still kind of a Putin stooge. Saw him on TV a couple of days ago actually insisting that Putin didn't kill Nalvany. To reach that conclusion already is incredible. We all know Putin did it.

---

I certainly suspect Putin is responsible, but we all don't know for a fact at this point.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What it says:

Quote:

---

The dangers of ignoring Ukraine's neo-Nazis

Kyiv's tolerance for fascist extremism should cause the U.S. government to re-evaluate its support of Ukraine.

By Ben Choucroun
Published October 13, 2023

The name "Azov Brigade" should be recognizable to anyone who follows the conflict in Ukraine. To Ukraine, it is a key military unit composed of motivated fighters who have resisted Russian aggression. To Russia, the Azov Brigade is a neo-Nazi terrorist formation. Both of these narratives contain elements of truth. Azov Battalion is an important part of Ukraine's war effort, and it is a neo-Nazi formation that has committed numerous atrocities. The U.S.'s continuing military support for Ukraine despite its neo-Nazi problem and the whitewashing of the Azov by media outlets are fueling racism both in and outside of Ukraine.

The origins of the Azov Battalion lie in the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution, in which demonstrators overthrew the Ukrainian government. The revolutionaries were led by Andriy Parubiy, the founder of the neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (renamed Svoboda). After the revolution, members of Svoboda were appointed to key government positions, including minister of defense, head of the general prosecutor's office and deputy prime minister.

After Euromaidan, Russian-speaking territories in the eastern region of Donbas launched a rebellion against the far-right government in Kyiv. Volunteer militias, including the Azov Battalion (which was formed by the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine party), arose to fight the rebels.

Between 2014 and 2022, as the war in Donbas dragged on, Ukraine's far-right government continuously passed laws glorifying Nazi collaborators. In 2018, then-president Petro Poroshenko created a national holiday for Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator whose soldiers murdered up to 100,000 people during the Holocaust. Poroshenko even made it a criminal offense to denigrate Bandera's organization, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, and a government-funded museum opened an exhibit in their honor.

Unsurprisingly, Azov only grew. Between 2014 and 2022, Azov trained neo-Nazi terrorists and even recruited Brazilian fascists to fight in Ukraine. They were banned from Facebook for racist and antisemitic content (they titled one page "Gas Chambers"). Yet, they were described by Poroshenko as "our best warriors," and Vadim Troyan, a veteran of the Azov Battalion and Patriot of Ukraine, was appointed to be deputy minister of the interior, putting a neo-Nazi in charge of Ukraine's National Police.

When Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Azov gained more prominence. The unit garnered praise from the Ukrainian government and was further integrated into the Ukrainian military, being expanded from a regiment into a brigade. Some media outlets changed the way they describe Azov; German state-owned media outlet Deutsche Welle, which once described Azov as a neo-Nazi regiment, soon began labeling allegations of neo-Nazism as Russian propaganda. The BBC followed a similar line, moving from investigating Azov's neo-Nazi ideology in depth to downplaying Azov's neo-Nazism.

Azov has not been "de-Nazified" after it was further integrated into the Ukrainian military in 2022, as Azov and some media outlets claim. Much of Azov's leadership has been in the group since 2014 and has demonstrated neo-Nazi ties. Azov's press officer and the head of Azov's military school run social media accounts adorned with neo-Nazi symbolism. Azov's logo even contains the Wolfsangel, a neo-Nazi symbol. Not only is Azov a neo-Nazi military unit, but Western media outlets are complicit in whitewashing that fact, commiting journalistic malpractice of the highest order.

As Lev Golkin discussed in one article, Azov has a symbiotic relationship with Putin. Azov's existence allows Putin to justify his illegal invasion by claiming he is "de-Nazifying" Ukraine. Putin's rhetoric allows Azov to further justify its existence to Western countries based on its opposition to Putin, and receive more support from the Ukrainian government. This gives Putin even more rhetorical weight to justify his invasion of Ukraine, and so the cycle continues.

The losers of this dynamic are sure to be Ukrainian Jews and Roma people. In 2017, according to one report, Ukraine had more incidents of antisemitism than all other post-Soviet countries combined. In 2018, Nazi groups and police marched door to door, terrorizing Roma people. Among the groups marching was C14, a neo-Nazi organization which has in the past received funding from the Ukrainian government.

Additionally, the presence of neo-Nazi ideology in the Ukrainian government goes beyond Azov and similar gangs. Ukraine's parliament recently quoted Stepan Bandera in a statement. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense posted a picture of a Ukrainian soldier wearing a patch with neo-Nazi symbols before deleting it after outcry. A Ukrainian general was filmed threatening to destroy Jews.

By integrating Azov into its armed forces and outlawing the denigration of Holocaust perpetrators, the Ukrainian government has shown it is willing to tolerate neo-Nazi extremism, which directly threatens Ukrainian Jews and Roma people. If the U.S. cares about its stated commitment to human rights, it should immediately re-evaluate its support for Ukraine and stop ignoring the radicalization of Ukraine's military. Once a government starts employing neo-Nazis, it loses all moral superiority.

---

What Mothra sees:

Quote:

---

...

...

...
...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

!!!!ILLEGAL INVASION!!1!

....

...

...

---

---

Even if I engaged in this Russian propagated fantasy of a big Nazi problem, why is it any of Russia's business? %A0They weren't even a threat to Russians until Putin invaded Crimea. %A0Russia doesn't want a strong independent Ukraine, so they manufacture this crisis to marginalize Ukrainian nationalist sentiment. %A0All part of the info war, until Russia decided to make it a real one. %A0

---

Western media recognized it as a problem prior to the war. It's the denial since 2022 that is a form of propaganda. Putin didn't start the Donbas war by annexing Crimea. He sees the Nazis as a tool of US policy, and with good reason. It's what they have been to varying degrees ever since WWII.

---

Complete and utter BS, Sam. %A0Putin started the Donbas War when Seperatists and Russian soldiers started occupying government buildings in Donetsk and Luhansk, aided by his forward positions in Crimea. %A0

When you wonder how some of the Trumpers can excuse his actions with creative interpretation of events or whataboutism (as I do), try some reflection on Putin and your apologetics for him. %A0It's eerily similar. %A0

The Nazi problem is an overinflated fantasy of Putin and some of the liberal U.S. media swipes (like the White Supremacy problem). %A0But for certain with both, the "Nazi threat" was no more of a threat to Russia than our "White Supremacy problem" is a threat to Canada. %A0

---

And the separatists would have done that regardless. It's debatable whether Ukrainian Nazi groups would be a threat on their own. What you keep ignoring is that they're being armed, trained, and encouraged (if not directed) by the CIA. The last time that happened they ran a decade-long insurgency, committed hundreds of assassinations and terrorists acts, infiltrated the Soviet military, and massacred over a hundred thousand people.

---

Wait, are you tying WW2 Soviet resistance activities to the CIA? %A0

---

Immediately post-war.

---

That's the same people, under the OSS. %A0Didn't work out, so I'm not sure the germane nature of this, or you're attempting a huge stretch. %A0It goes back to my Werner von Braun comment. %A0Most of these folks ended up defecting and needing our protection in exchange for some attempts at Intel or some other resource or skill they had. %A0

This has to be viewed in the context of the era. %A0Both sides were enticing (or kidnapping) a bunch of Nazi Germans, including some unsavory ones, all for the purpose of strategic advantage. %A0If you want something more relevant to today's issues, it was during this time that Stalin forcibly removed the Tartars from Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and replaced them with ethnic Russians. %A0

---

The collaboration "worked out" in the sense that it was a big long-term investment and a big thorn in Russia's side. It may not have produced much useful intelligence, but that's beside the point. I don't know why you bring up the emigres' need for protection, as if that's supposed to excuse their extremism or our support of it. It's not as if protecting them was the purpose of the operation. The von Braun comparison likewise misses the point. The problem isn't simply that these people escaped justice. It's that they were completely unrepentant and were still pursuing the same goals after the war.

The CIA has been remarkably honest about this at times. They were worried about the ideology of these groups from the beginning. The more we came to rely on them, the more we tended to "blur the record" and make excuses for them. After a few years, the official line evolved into something very much like yours -- they were patriots first and foremost, and they only sided with the Nazis because of opposition to Russia.

It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. That's not to say there aren't true Ukrainian patriots. But there's no reason to let racist fanatics piggyback their agenda on top of Ukrainian nationalism. You're the one broad-brushing them together when you deny history and present-day reality in order to give the bad guys a pass.

---

Actually it was true and even the book chapter you refer to says as such (thanks I did read it). %A0It's also why they were unreliable, and the program never took off. %A0And as if to point out the obvious, it literally says "Ukrainian Nationists". Drawing even further, there is no history to "deny". %A0Not only is there little of any history there, the "Nazi" piece is completely irrelevant to OSS interest, CIA interest, or anything else. The labeling is ONLY relevant to marginalize Ukrainian Nationalism. %A0I'm sure there are bad dudes on all sides, but this is being used as an invasion precursor. %A0Let me draw a similarly absurd equivalent that perhaps will resonate with you. %A0This is like the U.S. using small amounts of mustard gas in Iraq as a WMD justification. %A0

Make no mistake. %A0The real bad guys came rolling in from Russia. %A0This war doesn't happen but for that. %A0

---

No, it doesn't say that. The CIA said it to the Displaced Persons Commission in 1949, and the author cites it specifically as an example of the kind of dubious rationalizations they were employing.

The relevance is abundantly clear from the Nation article I posted earlier. After this particular program ran its course, we continued to use the same groups in other parts of Europe during the Cold War, and more recently they've started playing a major role in Ukraine again. The group primarily responsible for escalating the Maidan riots was literally the same one Bandera led during the original operations there.

But I understand why you want to minimize them and conflate them with people who just want an independent Ukraine. You have to, or else you'd have to admit that Putin might have a point.

---

Happy to get into the nuance of intelligence operations, especially what was happening right after WW2, when much of America and the West thought we were stumbling into the next World War between East and West, but that's a complete distraction. %A0

However, even if I engaged in the belief there was some "Nazi" element in Ukraine, they still were never a threat to Russia. %A0Furthermore, Putin isn't there for the Romanian gypsies or the LGBTQ Ukrainians (he has enacted laws against them in Russia), the main targets even your Nation article mentions. It is anyone regardless of stripe that rejects Russia. The absurdity as a justification or that it required some type of Russian concerned "denazification" is outrageous. %A0

He is using it as an invasion justification, and he will use it to oppress Ukrainians in the future if he succeeds. %A0All built on a great lie. %A0He has precedent in his country and history. %A0

---

It's telling that you keep going back to "but Putin's justifying himself!" as if %A0that settled the issue. Conclusions follow from facts, not the other way around.

BTW, regarding the title from my earlier link, extreme nationalism is a well known feature of Nazism. They're not mutually exclusive as you imply.

---

So what you're telling me Sam is that the Nazi's invaded the Nazi's to root out the Nazis. %A0Interesting theory.

And you'll have to continue to guide me through the Putin propaganda map when it comes to War reasowning. %A0It's difficult to address logic to a manufactured fantasy developed in the Kremlin. %A0But I'm sure they appreciate your efforts. %A0 %A0

---

I don't know what your first paragraph is supposed to mean.

The only part of Putin's reasoning that you've "addressed" is the Nazi issue, and on that you're squarely at odds with the evidence I've shown you. If you want to move on to explain how NATO never moved an inch to the east and the Kremlin made the whole thing up, go for it.

---

I wouldn't expect you to understand because you're duped and enamored with a despot.

By the way, Navalny was convicted of "extremist views" and "rehabilitating Nazi ideology" while still in prison. Got him 19 more years in jail and killed, whether by poison or his mystery transfer to an Arctic prison.

Your boy is playing you on this Nazi stuff, just like he plays it to his domestic audience, and you're lapping it up.

Enough other threads on the NATO topic. Feel free to resume there.

---

I knew Sam had some odd, often times anti-American views, but I didn't realize he was such a rube.

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots.

---

I expected this reaction from a lot of people, but not so much from you. Sounds like you watched the first 20 minutes and tuned out, am I right?

---

Tucker is a Putin stooge.

---

Hardly

Tucker is merely the most successful 'talking head' of all time.

Has become extremely wealthy playing to his ever increasing audience world wide.

The dork has more influence than any politician outside of the president.

---

Perhaps, but...

...he's still kind of a Putin stooge. Saw him on TV a couple of days ago actually insisting that Putin didn't kill Nalvany. To reach that conclusion already is incredible. We all know Putin did it.

---

I certainly suspect Putin is responsible, but we all don't know for a fact at this point.

---

We will never know it as a fact. Nalvany's body is most likely gone. Only his mother is reported to have seen his bruised body, and she states she is being blackmailed by Russian authorities, who have advised her she can have his body only if she agrees to a secret funeral, and to not perform an autopsy (hmm, wonder why?). So we will never know for certain.

But the circumstantial evidence lays out a very strong case to any reasonable, non-rube. First, you have the Nalvany poisoning from a few years ago - something that seems to happen frequently to expats who don't toe the party line. Then when he returns to Russia, he is arrested on trumped-up charges. Next, he's convicted in secret, on a trial not open to the public of even more trumped up charges, including Nazism (despite the absence of evidence regarding same). Then he is transferred to a remote prison, where the videos recording the prisoners somehow malfunctioned (convenient, isn't it?). And then of course, a 40-something man in good health somehow dies in said Russian prison of natural causes. Of course, we can't verify that for sure because the Russians are hiding the body and won't release it (again, convenient isn't it).

Anyone with half a brain realizes what's going on here, just like they realize planes aren't magically falling to the ground, and oligarchs aren't magically dropping from tall buildings. Only the Russian shills like Sam dispute the plainly obvious.

I've found a good rule of thumb on these boards over the years is that if Sam believes something or argues for a certain position, the opposite is usually the truth or morally correct. His positions are more often than not morally bankrupt, unfortunately.

My Masters is in Business Management with a concentration in Accounting, so I won't pretend to be an expert on East European Geopolitics.

But I do trust the old Mark 1.0 Eyeball and Common-Sense Noggin. They tell me the following:

* Russia has made it a regular thing to roll tanks and troops into neighboring countries. Even if take Sam's word that the people so invaded were delighted by the action, I am sure that there were a lot of people not happy with the actions, especially the ones who lost their homes, jobs, well-being and in many cases lives.

* A lot of people who criticized Putin or stood in his way when he wanted something have died pretty suddenly in the last couple decades. I'm sure it's just a coincidence ... a lot of coincidences

* A lot of people have been telling us how vital it is for us to keep pouring money into aid for Ukraine. The fact that they never tell us how we can be sure how the money is spent, well we're not supposed to worry about that.

* There is less than a 50% chance that Joe Biden can tell what day of the week it is, much less run the nation. Whoever is running US policy viz a viz Ukraine/Russia/Foreign Policy in general, it ain't Joe.

Oldbear83 said:

---

My Masters is in Business Management with a concentration in Accounting, so I won't pretend to be an expert on East European Geopolitics.

But I do trust the old Mark 1.0 Eyeball and Common-Sense Noggin. They tell me the following:

* Russia has made it a regular thing to roll tanks and troops into neighboring countries. Even if take Sam's word that the people so invaded were delighted by the action, I am sure that there were a lot of people not happy with the actions, especially the ones who lost their homes, jobs, well-being and in many cases lives.

* A lot of people who criticized Putin or stood in his way when he wanted something have died pretty suddenly in the last couple decades. I'm sure it's just a coincidence ... a lot of coincidences

* A lot of people have been telling us how vital it is for us to keep pouring money into aid for Ukraine. The fact that they never tell us how we can be sure how the money is spent, well we're not supposed to worry about that.

* There is less than a 50% chance that Joe Biden can tell what day of the week it is, much less run the nation. Whoever is running US policy viz a viz Ukraine/Russia/Foreign Policy in general, it ain't Joe.

---

I think that is a great run down of the facts.

I also think it's important to add some more.

*Moscow is no friend of the West but it's rusting out ex-Soviet military and conscript army is no threat to the Western NATO alliance of 700 million plus people.

*NATO is important and should be maintained but we should not sponsor coups and proxy wars around Russia's borders…or else we help spark off conflicts

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps, but...
...he's still kind of a Putin stooge. Saw him on TV a couple of days ago actually insisting that Putin didn't kill Nalvany. To reach that conclusion already is incredible. We all know Putin did it.

---

What evidence (besides "Russia! Russia! Russia!" and "Putin! Putin! Putin!" do you have that Putin ordered Navalny's assassination?

Probably vaccinated guy dies suddenly. There's a lot of that going on these days.

---

Hmm, I don't know. Perhaps its that he already tried to kill him once by poisoning him?

I know, I know. Probably just a coincidence.

---

We're taking the German government's word that Navalny was poisoned. When Russia requested the evidence, it was refused.

---

Well, I'd take the word of Nalvany himself and a Western democracy over the Russian govt.'s word any day of the week, but that's the difference between us. You prefer the word of despots and dictators.

And of course, young people without serious health issues die all the time in Russian prisons, right? It's perfectly natural, as is hiding their bodies. Kind of like planes carrying Putin's political opponents fall from the sky and his opponents fall from windows. I am sure he had absolutely nothing to do with it.

---

The difference between us is that I prefer evidence. I don't think Putin has even said anything one way or another.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots.

---

I expected this reaction from a lot of people, but not so much from you. Sounds like you watched the first 20 minutes and tuned out, am I right?

---

Tucker is a Putin stooge.

---

Hardly

Tucker is merely the most successful 'talking head' of all time.

Has become extremely wealthy playing to his ever increasing audience world wide.

The dork has more influence than any politician outside of the president.

---

Perhaps, but...

...he's still kind of a Putin stooge. Saw him on TV a couple of days ago actually insisting that Putin didn't kill Nalvany. To reach that conclusion already is incredible. We all know Putin did it.

---

I certainly suspect Putin is responsible, but we all don't know for a fact at this point.

---

We will never know it as a fact. Nalvany's body is most likely gone. Only his mother is reported to have seen his bruised body, and she states she is being blackmailed by Russian authorities, who have advised her she can have his body only if she agrees to a secret funeral, and to not perform an autopsy (hmm, wonder why?). So we will never know for certain.

But the circumstantial evidence lays out a very strong case to any reasonable, non-rube. First, you have the Nalvany poisoning from a few years ago - something that seems to happen frequently to expats who don't toe the party line. Then when he returns to Russia, he is arrested on trumped-up charges. Next, he's convicted in secret, on a trial not open to the public of even more trumped up charges, including Nazism (despite the absence of evidence regarding same). Then he is transferred to a remote prison, where the videos recording the prisoners somehow malfunctioned (convenient, isn't it?). And then of course, a 40-something man in good health somehow dies in said Russian prison of natural causes. Of course, we can't verify that for sure because the Russians are hiding the body and won't release it (again, convenient isn't it).

Anyone with half a brain realizes what's going on here, just like they realize planes aren't magically falling to the ground, and oligarchs aren't magically dropping from tall buildings. Only the Russian shills like Sam dispute the plainly obvious.

I've found a good rule of thumb on these boards over the years is that if Sam believes something or argues for a certain position, the opposite is usually the truth or morally correct. His positions are more often than not morally bankrupt, unfortunately.

---

Again, a good rule of thumb is to follow the evidence, not react hysterically to other posters and wed yourself to all kinds of assumptions. If that's morally bankrupt, I don't know what to tell you.

Redbrickbear said:

---

.
*Moscow is no friend of the West but it's rusting out ex-Soviet military and conscript army is no threat to the Western NATO alliance of 700 million plus people.

*NATO is important and should be maintained but we should not sponsor coups and proxy wars around Russia's borders…or else we help spark off conflicts

---

The fact that Moscow is no friend of the west today is nothing but a sad testament to our ability to waste a historic peace dividend after the end of the USSR. There is no natural cultural animus between Russia and the US (unlike Iran and China) that forces this to be true. Or at least no natural cultural animus between Russia and what America once was before we started transing the kids and threw our inheritence of the British legal tradition under the bus.

As far as NATO, it is an expensive and useless relic that has lived long past the threat it was designed to confront went away.

What natural alliances do we have with atheistic, socialist countries of Western Europe with rapidly exploding Muslim populations? Given current trends, Germany is tracking to be 20 percent Muslim by 2050, with native Germans reproducing at half the replacement rate.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/the-growth-of-germanys-muslim-population-2/

It is entirely possible that by the end of this century that NATO has mutiple Islamic nations as members. That isn't a mutual defense treaty I want any part of.

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world."

President George Washington
Farewell Address to the People of the United States | Monday, September 19, 1796

Realitybites said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

.
*Moscow is no friend of the West but it's rusting out ex-Soviet military and conscript army is no threat to the Western NATO alliance of 700 million plus people.

*NATO is important and should be maintained but we should not sponsor coups and proxy wars around Russia's borders…or else we help spark off conflicts

---

The fact that Moscow is no friend of the west today is nothing but a sad testament to our ability to waste a historic peace dividend after the end of the USSR. There is no natural cultural animus between Russia and the US (unlike Iran and China) that forces this to be true. Or at least no natural cultural animus between Russia and what America once was before we started transing the kids and threw our inheritence of the British legal tradition under the bus.

As far as NATO, it is an expensive and useless relic that has lived long past the threat it was designed to confront went away.

What natural alliances do we have with atheistic, socialist countries of Western Europe with rapidly exploding Muslim populations? Given current trends, Germany is tracking to be 20 percent Muslim by 2050, with native Germans reproducing at half the replacement rate.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/the-growth-of-germanys-muslim-population-2/

It is entirely possible that by the end of this century that NATO has mutiple Islamic nations as members. That isn't a mutual defense treaty I want any part of.

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world."

President George Washington
Farewell Address to the People of the United States | Monday, September 19, 1796

---

Lol I see the tinfoil hat is way tight today.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots.

---

I expected this reaction from a lot of people, but not so much from you. Sounds like you watched the first 20 minutes and tuned out, am I right?

---

Tucker is a Putin stooge.

---

Hardly

Tucker is merely the most successful 'talking head' of all time.

Has become extremely wealthy playing to his ever increasing audience world wide.

The dork has more influence than any politician outside of the president.

---

Perhaps, but...

...he's still kind of a Putin stooge. Saw him on TV a couple of days ago actually insisting that Putin didn't kill Nalvany. To reach that conclusion already is incredible. We all know Putin did it.

---

I certainly suspect Putin is responsible, but we all don't know for a fact at this point.

---

We will never know it as a fact. Nalvany's body is most likely gone. Only his mother is reported to have seen his bruised body, and she states she is being blackmailed by Russian authorities, who have advised her she can have his body only if she agrees to a secret funeral, and to not perform an autopsy (hmm, wonder why?). So we will never know for certain.

But the circumstantial evidence lays out a very strong case to any reasonable, non-rube. First, you have the Nalvany poisoning from a few years ago - something that seems to happen frequently to expats who don't toe the party line. Then when he returns to Russia, he is arrested on trumped-up charges. Next, he's convicted in secret, on a trial not open to the public of even more trumped up charges, including Nazism (despite the absence of evidence regarding same). Then he is transferred to a remote prison, where the videos recording the prisoners somehow malfunctioned (convenient, isn't it?). And then of course, a 40-something man in good health somehow dies in said Russian prison of natural causes. Of course, we can't verify that for sure because the Russians are hiding the body and won't release it (again, convenient isn't it).

Anyone with half a brain realizes what's going on here, just like they realize planes aren't magically falling to the ground, and oligarchs aren't magically dropping from tall buildings. Only the Russian shills like Sam dispute the plainly obvious.

I've found a good rule of thumb on these boards over the years is that if Sam believes something or argues for a certain position, the opposite is usually the truth or morally correct. His positions are more often than not morally bankrupt, unfortunately.

---

Accurate.

Mothra

I agree it is highly likely Putin is responsible. However at this point the world has become accustomed to and somewhat uncaring to his string of killings.

If anything this latest killing only bolsters Putin's Stalinist image throughout Europe.

In regards to Sam; have come to the conclusion he is an excellent contributor who simply enjoys stirring the pot.

After all, rarely does anyone change the opinions of anyone else on this forum. It's all just time killing entertainment.

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra

I agree it is highly likely Putin is responsible. However at this point the world has become accustomed to and somewhat uncaring to his string of killings.

If anything this latest killing only bolsters Putin's Stalinist image throughout Europe.

In regards to Sam; have come to the conclusion he is an excellent contributor who simply enjoys stirring the pot.

After all, rarely does anyone change the opinions of anyone else on this forum. It's all just time killing entertainment.

---

I agree with your first couple of paragraphs. But it doesn't mean we, as Americans, who supposedly are the land of the free and home of the brave, and value individual freedom, should check our brains at the door when it comes to dealing with the little despot. Or as in Sam's case, actually defend him. That's the point you miss.

I like Sam. He's a pretty smart guy. But he's been wrong on just about everything over the course of many years from COVID, to mandates, to Russia. As I said above, if you think the opposite of what he does, you are usually on the correct side of things.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots.

---

I expected this reaction from a lot of people, but not so much from you. Sounds like you watched the first 20 minutes and tuned out, am I right?

---

Tucker is a Putin stooge.

---

Hardly

Tucker is merely the most successful 'talking head' of all time.

Has become extremely wealthy playing to his ever increasing audience world wide.

The dork has more influence than any politician outside of the president.

---

Perhaps, but...

...he's still kind of a Putin stooge. Saw him on TV a couple of days ago actually insisting that Putin didn't kill Nalvany. To reach that conclusion already is incredible. We all know Putin did it.

---

I certainly suspect Putin is responsible, but we all don't know for a fact at this point.

---

We will never know it as a fact. Nalvany's body is most likely gone. Only his mother is reported to have seen his bruised body, and she states she is being blackmailed by Russian authorities, who have advised her she can have his body only if she agrees to a secret funeral, and to not perform an autopsy (hmm, wonder why?). So we will never know for certain.

But the circumstantial evidence lays out a very strong case to any reasonable, non-rube. First, you have the Nalvany poisoning from a few years ago - something that seems to happen frequently to expats who don't toe the party line. Then when he returns to Russia, he is arrested on trumped-up charges. Next, he's convicted in secret, on a trial not open to the public of even more trumped up charges, including Nazism (despite the absence of evidence regarding same). Then he is transferred to a remote prison, where the videos recording the prisoners somehow malfunctioned (convenient, isn't it?). And then of course, a 40-something man in good health somehow dies in said Russian prison of natural causes. Of course, we can't verify that for sure because the Russians are hiding the body and won't release it (again, convenient isn't it).

Anyone with half a brain realizes what's going on here, just like they realize planes aren't magically falling to the ground, and oligarchs aren't magically dropping from tall buildings. Only the Russian shills like Sam dispute the plainly obvious.

I've found a good rule of thumb on these boards over the years is that if Sam believes something or argues for a certain position, the opposite is usually the truth or morally correct. His positions are more often than not morally bankrupt, unfortunately.

---

Again, a good rule of thumb is to follow the evidence, not react hysterically to other posters and wed yourself to all kinds of assumptions. If that's morally bankrupt, I don't know what to tell you.

---

It sounds good in principle. But of course, we know you don't really hold to it. I mean, you were pushing vaccine mandates, shutting down businesses, vaccinating kids, and now defending Putin's invasion when there is little if any evidence to support your positions on the subject. I realize that's what you'd like everyone to believe of course - that you're some smart, logical guy who is merely following the evidence. But the evidence actually proves you simply like to try and fit the evidence to your position, and not the other way around.

As I said, you're positions over the years have been for the most part wrong, and morally bankrupt. It remains as true today as it was 20 years ago. You are typically on the wrong side of issues.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps, but...
...he's still kind of a Putin stooge. Saw him on TV a couple of days ago actually insisting that Putin didn't kill Nalvany. To reach that conclusion already is incredible. We all know Putin did it.

---

What evidence (besides "Russia! Russia! Russia!" and "Putin! Putin! Putin!" do you have that Putin ordered Navalny's assassination?

Probably vaccinated guy dies suddenly. There's a lot of that going on these days.

---

Hmm, I don't know. Perhaps its that he already tried to kill him once by poisoning him?

I know, I know. Probably just a coincidence.

---

We're taking the German government's word that Navalny was poisoned. When Russia requested the evidence, it was refused.

---

Well, I'd take the word of Nalvany himself and a Western democracy over the Russian govt.'s word any day of the week, but that's the difference between us. You prefer the word of despots and dictators.

And of course, young people without serious health issues die all the time in Russian prisons, right? It's perfectly natural, as is hiding their bodies. Kind of like planes carrying Putin's political opponents fall from the sky and his opponents fall from windows. I am sure he had absolutely nothing to do with it.

---

The difference between us is that I prefer evidence. I don't think Putin has even said anything one way or another.

---

Again, sounds good in principle. But I suppose we are to ignore the circumstantial evidence then? Are we to ignore the numerous political prisoners and the deaths among those who have fallen out of favor with Putin? Is it really normal for that many people to fall from tall buildings? Is it normal for planes carrying Putin's enemies to fall out of the sky? Is it normal for Navalny to be exposed to a nerve agent, and then die a few short years later at the ripe old age of 40-something in a Russian prison where the camera stopped working? Is it normal for the Russians to hide his body, and insist on no autopsies?

I guess we could just check our brains at the door until we get direct evidence linking Putin to the crime. Is that what you would prefer? Has Putin earned your trust, Sam?

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Tucker is a douce and I'd like to punch him right, square in the puss!

---

Didn't see the interview as I rarely watch any talking heads.

What did he say while with Putin that pissed you off ?

---

Nothing in particular. What hell is he doing interview our second biggest adversary ? but he is a Trump boot licker

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Tucker is a douce and I'd like to punch him right, square in the puss!

---

Didn't see the interview as I rarely watch any talking heads.

What did he say while with Putin that pissed you off ?

---

Nothing in particular. What hell is he doing interview our second biggest adversary ? but he is a Trump boot licker

---

Obviously tens of millions of people throughout the world thought the interview was worthwhile.

When Tucker was a regular on Fox; my wife insisted on watching him. Although I agreed with most of his views ; Tuckers smugness and obvious fake laughter made me go into another room.

You seem to judge everyone and everything through a prism of anti Trump vitriol.

Might be a bit excessive.

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Tucker is a douce and I'd like to punch him right, square in the puss!

---

Didn't see the interview as I rarely watch any talking heads.

What did he say while with Putin that pissed you off ?

---

Nothing in particular. What hell is he doing interview our second biggest adversary ? but he is a Trump boot licker

---

Obviously tens of millions of people throughout the world thought the interview was worthwhile.

When Tucker was a regular on Fox; my wife insisted on watching him. Although I agreed with most of his views ; Tuckers smugness and obvious fake laughter made me go into another room.

You seem to judge everyone and everything through a prism of anti Trump vitriol.

Might be a bit excessive.

---

If you and momma watch Fox, that tells me all I need to know. I don't judge anyone through Trump lens. I view them for actions not, works. They are NO different than CNBC. Chasing the money playing to there stupid sheep bases. Tucker is a mercenary , pimping $. Fox Business isn't much better. Maria dun lost her mind. Barney is terrible and biased. Now, the good Neil Cavuto is great.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots.

---

I expected this reaction from a lot of people, but not so much from you. Sounds like you watched the first 20 minutes and tuned out, am I right?

---

Tucker is a Putin stooge.

---

Hardly

Tucker is merely the most successful 'talking head' of all time.

Has become extremely wealthy playing to his ever increasing audience world wide.

The dork has more influence than any politician outside of the president.

---

Perhaps, but...

...he's still kind of a Putin stooge. Saw him on TV a couple of days ago actually insisting that Putin didn't kill Nalvany. To reach that conclusion already is incredible. We all know Putin did it.

---

I certainly suspect Putin is responsible, but we all don't know for a fact at this point.

---

We will never know it as a fact. Nalvany's body is most likely gone. Only his mother is reported to have seen his bruised body, and she states she is being blackmailed by Russian authorities, who have advised her she can have his body only if she agrees to a secret funeral, and to not perform an autopsy (hmm, wonder why?). So we will never know for certain.

But the circumstantial evidence lays out a very strong case to any reasonable, non-rube. First, you have the Nalvany poisoning from a few years ago - something that seems to happen frequently to expats who don't toe the party line. Then when he returns to Russia, he is arrested on trumped-up charges. Next, he's convicted in secret, on a trial not open to the public of even more trumped up charges, including Nazism (despite the absence of evidence regarding same). Then he is transferred to a remote prison, where the videos recording the prisoners somehow malfunctioned (convenient, isn't it?). And then of course, a 40-something man in good health somehow dies in said Russian prison of natural causes. Of course, we can't verify that for sure because the Russians are hiding the body and won't release it (again, convenient isn't it).

Anyone with half a brain realizes what's going on here, just like they realize planes aren't magically falling to the ground, and oligarchs aren't magically dropping from tall buildings. Only the Russian shills like Sam dispute the plainly obvious.

I've found a good rule of thumb on these boards over the years is that if Sam believes something or argues for a certain position, the opposite is usually the truth or morally correct. His positions are more often than not morally bankrupt, unfortunately.

---

Again, a good rule of thumb is to follow the evidence, not react hysterically to other posters and wed yourself to all kinds of assumptions. If that's morally bankrupt, I don't know what to tell you.

---

It sounds good in principle. But of course, we know you don't really hold to it. I mean, you were pushing vaccine mandates, shutting down businesses, vaccinating kids, and now defending Putin's invasion when there is little if any evidence to support your positions on the subject. I realize that's what you'd like everyone to believe of course - that you're some smart, logical guy who is merely following the evidence. But the evidence actually proves you simply like to try and fit the evidence to your position, and not the other way around.

As I said, your positions over the years have been for the most part wrong, and morally bankrupt. It remains as true today as it was 20 years ago. You are typically on the wrong side of issues.

---

You missed the point.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps, but...
...he's still kind of a Putin stooge. Saw him on TV a couple of days ago actually insisting that Putin didn't kill Nalvany. To reach that conclusion already is incredible. We all know Putin did it.

---

What evidence (besides "Russia! Russia! Russia!" and "Putin! Putin! Putin!" do you have that Putin ordered Navalny's assassination?

Probably vaccinated guy dies suddenly. There's a lot of that going on these days.

---

Hmm, I don't know. Perhaps its that he already tried to kill him once by poisoning him?

I know, I know. Probably just a coincidence.

---

We're taking the German government's word that Navalny was poisoned. When Russia requested the evidence, it was refused.

---

Well, I'd take the word of Nalvany himself and a Western democracy over the Russian govt.'s word any day of the week, but that's the difference between us. You prefer the word of despots and dictators.

And of course, young people without serious health issues die all the time in Russian prisons, right? It's perfectly natural, as is hiding their bodies. Kind of like planes carrying Putin's political opponents fall from the sky and his opponents fall from windows. I am sure he had absolutely nothing to do with it.

---

The difference between us is that I prefer evidence. I don't think Putin has even said anything one way or another.

---

Again, sounds good in principle. But I suppose we are to ignore the circumstantial evidence then? Are we to ignore the numerous political prisoners and the deaths among those who have fallen out of favor with Putin? Is it really normal for that many people to fall from tall buildings? Is it normal for planes carrying Putin's enemies to fall out of the sky? Is it normal for Navalny to be exposed to a nerve agent, and then die a few short years later at the ripe old age of 40-something in a Russian prison where the camera stopped working? Is it normal for the Russians to hide his body, and insist on no autopsies?

I guess we could just check our brains at the door until we get direct evidence linking Putin to the crime. Is that what you would prefer? Has Putin earned your trust, Sam?

---

I predicted Prigozhin's death, so that was no surprise to me. Putin's responsibility for the others is questionable. See for example the biography by Philip Short. Even Litvinenko made different accusations before changing his story. I don't really have a preference as to what you believe. I'm just pointing out that it is a belief, not a fact.

Well, this is awkward. Not for me, but for those who jumped the the conclusion that he was assassinated by Putin without evidence or logic.

Ukraine Intelligence Chief Backs Russia and Contradicts Zelensky Claiming Alexei Navalny Died of 'Natural' Causes

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/02/26/ukraine-intelligence-chief-backs-russia-and-contradicts-zelensky-claiming-alexei-navalny-died-of-natural-causes/