Kissinger's killing fields(theintercept.com)
theintercept.com
Kissinger's killing fields
https://theintercept.com/series/henry-kissinger-killing-fields/
14 comments
It's still not too late to bring the blood-money profiteering war criminals Kissinger and Cheney before The Hague. While the US isn't a signatory to the ICC, a cargo van and a private jet would solve that.
They should die in custody and disgrace while Snowden and Assange should be free.
They should die in custody and disgrace while Snowden and Assange should be free.
> While the US isn't a signatory to the ICC, a cargo van and a private jet would solve that.
Wouldn't that just result in the US invading the Netherlands to rescue them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
> This authorization led to the act being colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act", as the act allows the President to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of The Hague, where the ICC is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody
Wouldn't that just result in the US invading the Netherlands to rescue them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
> This authorization led to the act being colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act", as the act allows the President to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of The Hague, where the ICC is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody
Which would be a disaster, because it would be an intra-NATO military conflict, and while intra-NATO military alliances exist, they are untested and it's hard to imagine another NATO state backing US military action in the Netherlands. The Netherlands would invoke Article 5 and request military assistance from other NATO members against the US.
In the hypothetical situation and In the context of a thread discussing countries doing illegal:immoral things
Me thinks agreements will be broken
Me thinks agreements will be broken
Isn't there intra NATO conflict between Turkey and Greece?
Yes, and several NATO states have separate military alliances with Greece at this point, but luckily neither side has ever invoked Article 5...
It's never come to full blows though.
Right, so the other great military powers in NATO, like France and the UK will stand up to the US to protect the Netherlands? Sounds more like something that would happen in a game of Risk than in the real world, to be honest.
> It's still not too late to bring the blood-money profiteering war criminals Kissinger and Cheney before The Hague. While the US isn't a signatory to the ICC, a cargo van and a private jet would solve that.
There's also the substantial problem that the war crimes (and crimes of aggression) that each is most clearly responsible for are not within ICC jurisdiction for geographical and/or temporal reasons. (Becauae the UK is and was at the time a Rome Statute party, the ICC did have investigate British potential violations in Iraq.)
There's also the substantial problem that the war crimes (and crimes of aggression) that each is most clearly responsible for are not within ICC jurisdiction for geographical and/or temporal reasons. (Becauae the UK is and was at the time a Rome Statute party, the ICC did have investigate British potential violations in Iraq.)
> Becauae the UK is and was at the time a Rome Statute party, the ICC did have investigate British potential violations in Iraq.
Some of those possible violations were no doubt awful, but as usual the national leadership layer of the winning sides was untouched. I still have hopes that Tony Blair will one day face the punishment he deserves.
Some of those possible violations were no doubt awful, but as usual the national leadership layer of the winning sides was untouched. I still have hopes that Tony Blair will one day face the punishment he deserves.
relevent song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUtikPtdT-s
I'm still bent about Assange's complicity in the 2016 election interference. It's believed that both the DNC and RNC servers were hacked, but conveniently one side was omitted.
Yes, I do believe in transparency and have no love for the DNC, but that asymmetry had significant consequences. It's widely believed that the other dump was used for blackmail purposes.
Yes, I do believe in transparency and have no love for the DNC, but that asymmetry had significant consequences. It's widely believed that the other dump was used for blackmail purposes.
To be honest I'm not sure the megalomaniacs who pushed him aside are any better... in a way, better to deal with someone amoral who can be reasoned with than a true believer who thinks he's going to remake the Middle East in the image of America or whatever.
> better to deal with someone amoral who can be reasoned with
By whom/who?
By whom/who?
Someone who can convince him it's in his/his state's rational self interest to do something, I suppose.
Kissinger wasn't exactly unimpeachably rational; see e.g. G.J. Bass's The Blood Telegram.
I would appreciate the short version if you have the time to summarize it.
It was an aeroplane read that shouldn’t have been. The principal charges I recall against Kissinger were these:
- that he generally failed to inform himself on the history of the region and thought in generalities (‘peaceful Bengalis’, etc.) instead of reading reports from the region seriously and in depth;
- that he overestimated the importance of Pakistan as a bridge to China, and consequently (and irrationally) attempted to support Pakistan;
- that he did not seem to understand the nature of the geopolitical position that would emerge after the war, seemed to ignore the Anglophile and pro-US tendencies of the middle class intellectuals underpinning the Bengali nationalist movement and Awami League, ignored the risk of lasting resentment (which hasn’t, in fact happened in the Bangladeshi case but arguably is one reason for lasting Indian Russophilia) consequent on American actions in the crisis; and
- that he seemed to ignore the possibility that the Bengalis might win, and instead doubled down until it really was obvious.
Now, maybe Kissinger overall was still an excellent strategist (although I’d disagree.) But even if he was, Kissinger still had extremely strong preconceptions, which weren’t always obvious to those with whom he interacted. And those preconceptions were quite hard to change. So even if Kissinger was in some ideal sense more rational than others through his strategic understanding, for the purposes of actually interacting with other people, he wasn’t: you’d have to guess what his preconceptions were, and you’d have very great trouble changing them to align with his other objectives.
- that he generally failed to inform himself on the history of the region and thought in generalities (‘peaceful Bengalis’, etc.) instead of reading reports from the region seriously and in depth;
- that he overestimated the importance of Pakistan as a bridge to China, and consequently (and irrationally) attempted to support Pakistan;
- that he did not seem to understand the nature of the geopolitical position that would emerge after the war, seemed to ignore the Anglophile and pro-US tendencies of the middle class intellectuals underpinning the Bengali nationalist movement and Awami League, ignored the risk of lasting resentment (which hasn’t, in fact happened in the Bangladeshi case but arguably is one reason for lasting Indian Russophilia) consequent on American actions in the crisis; and
- that he seemed to ignore the possibility that the Bengalis might win, and instead doubled down until it really was obvious.
Now, maybe Kissinger overall was still an excellent strategist (although I’d disagree.) But even if he was, Kissinger still had extremely strong preconceptions, which weren’t always obvious to those with whom he interacted. And those preconceptions were quite hard to change. So even if Kissinger was in some ideal sense more rational than others through his strategic understanding, for the purposes of actually interacting with other people, he wasn’t: you’d have to guess what his preconceptions were, and you’d have very great trouble changing them to align with his other objectives.
I haven't read it but the summary here seems useful: https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Telegram-Kissinger-Forgotten-Ge...
> Giving an astonishing inside view of how the White House really works in a crisis, The Blood Telegram is an unprecedented chronicle of a pivotal but little-known chapter of the Cold War. Gary J. Bass shows how Nixon and Kissinger supported Pakistan’s military dictatorship as it brutally quashed the results of a historic free election. The Pakistani army launched a crackdown on what was then East Pakistan (today an independent Bangladesh), killing hundreds of thousands of people and sending ten million refugees fleeing to India—one of the worst humanitarian crises of the twentieth century.
> Nixon and Kissinger, unswayed by detailed warnings of genocide from American diplomats witnessing the bloodshed, stood behind Pakistan’s military rulers. Driven not just by Cold War realpolitik but by a bitter personal dislike of India and its leader Indira Gandhi, Nixon and Kissinger actively helped the Pakistani government even as it careened toward a devastating war against India. They silenced American officials who dared to speak up, secretly encouraged China to mass troops on the Indian border, and illegally supplied weapons to the Pakistani military—an overlooked scandal that presages Watergate.
> Giving an astonishing inside view of how the White House really works in a crisis, The Blood Telegram is an unprecedented chronicle of a pivotal but little-known chapter of the Cold War. Gary J. Bass shows how Nixon and Kissinger supported Pakistan’s military dictatorship as it brutally quashed the results of a historic free election. The Pakistani army launched a crackdown on what was then East Pakistan (today an independent Bangladesh), killing hundreds of thousands of people and sending ten million refugees fleeing to India—one of the worst humanitarian crises of the twentieth century.
> Nixon and Kissinger, unswayed by detailed warnings of genocide from American diplomats witnessing the bloodshed, stood behind Pakistan’s military rulers. Driven not just by Cold War realpolitik but by a bitter personal dislike of India and its leader Indira Gandhi, Nixon and Kissinger actively helped the Pakistani government even as it careened toward a devastating war against India. They silenced American officials who dared to speak up, secretly encouraged China to mass troops on the Indian border, and illegally supplied weapons to the Pakistani military—an overlooked scandal that presages Watergate.
I am not sure that shows a level of obvious departure from realpolitik that the person claimed.
> Driven not just by Cold War realpolitik
The quote even says realpolitik was a major influence.
> Driven not just by Cold War realpolitik
The quote even says realpolitik was a major influence.
Right after the part you quoted it says he was also driven by a “bitter personal dislike.”
Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy, and we shall have... peace.
Words are indirect references to ideas. For some, particularly oppressors, peace references the idea of lack of physical violence. To other peace references the presence of justice.
If someone thinks peace is lack of violence, how do you even communicate with them when you think peace is the presence of justice. To the former war violates peace, to the latter war is required for peace.
If someone thinks peace is lack of violence, how do you even communicate with them when you think peace is the presence of justice. To the former war violates peace, to the latter war is required for peace.
> If someone thinks peace is lack of violence, how do you even communicate with them when you think peace is the presence of justice.
how about just say "justice" or "presence of justice" instead of trying to redefine the word peace? Then, for example, the catch phrase "no justice, no peace" will make sense, it means "if we don't get justice, we will not be peaceful"
how about just say "justice" or "presence of justice" instead of trying to redefine the word peace? Then, for example, the catch phrase "no justice, no peace" will make sense, it means "if we don't get justice, we will not be peaceful"
When you find Kissinger deplorable you basically deplore his honesty. There are plenty of people with that level of power who have done as bad, or worse, but covered it up with silence or PR spin. Don't shoot the messenger.
The quote is apocryphal. There is no evidence he said that. And if he did, it was in jest.
I don't think "He didn't say that, but if he did he didn't mean it" is a great argument, especially since there is proof that he did say it in the documents linked to these articles...
It's also clear that that he did tons of illegal/unconstitutional things in his career, so it's pretty clear that he did say it and meant it, because it was an accurate portrayal of his behavior.
It's also clear that that he did tons of illegal/unconstitutional things in his career, so it's pretty clear that he did say it and meant it, because it was an accurate portrayal of his behavior.
The Narcissist's Prayer comes to mind.
"That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it."
"That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it."
Kissinger him self claims to have said it.
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/P860114-1573_MC_b.html#ef...
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/P860114-1573_MC_b.html#ef...
“Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”
― Henry Kissinger
― Henry Kissinger
[deleted]
[deleted]
502 error
Works for me, here's the relevant segment:
Esenbel: The Europeans should find ways to meet quick needs; for example, the Air Force needs spare parts. For other items that they can't find in the stocks, maybe you could make a deal with the Dutch or others to send it here.
Macomber: That is illegal.
Kissinger: Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, "The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer." [laughter] But since the Freedom of Information Act, I'm afraid to say things like that.
Esenbel: The Europeans should find ways to meet quick needs; for example, the Air Force needs spare parts. For other items that they can't find in the stocks, maybe you could make a deal with the Dutch or others to send it here.
Macomber: That is illegal.
Kissinger: Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, "The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer." [laughter] But since the Freedom of Information Act, I'm afraid to say things like that.
If it counts for anything, at least a journalist saw the relevant quote in the same link: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/about-that-kissing...
I got a 502 in Firefox but it worked in Safari.
I got a 502 in Firefox but it worked in Safari.
host wikileaks.org
wikileaks.org has address 80.81.248.21
wikileaks.org has address 51.159.197.136
wikileaks.org mail is handled by 10 reykjavik.spp.is.
I think you're supposed to wait until after someone proves that they said it to claim that it was a joke. I'd add that Kissinger had a decent sense of humor that he did not mind using glibly.
Plenty of evidence he did it, however.
… and if it wasn’t in jest: “sticks and stones”.
Not just Cambodia. What Kissinger and Nixon did in Chile in 1973 was a crime that brought untold suffering to the people of Chile.
"...[What are we to make of] President Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger who, having been emboldened by various multinational corporations such as IT&T and PEPSICO, pursued another attempt to bring down Allende, an attempt which was operated through the White House and even kept secret from the 40 Committee? According to Kissinger, this plan involved a group that was unknown to others ‘and charged with the responsibility of working with the Chilean military in bringing about a coup against Allende.”? They suc- ceeded."[0]
[0] "Democracy Versus The National Security State", Marcus Raskin, 1976:
https://archive.org/details/democracy-versus-the-national-se...
"...[What are we to make of] President Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger who, having been emboldened by various multinational corporations such as IT&T and PEPSICO, pursued another attempt to bring down Allende, an attempt which was operated through the White House and even kept secret from the 40 Committee? According to Kissinger, this plan involved a group that was unknown to others ‘and charged with the responsibility of working with the Chilean military in bringing about a coup against Allende.”? They suc- ceeded."[0]
[0] "Democracy Versus The National Security State", Marcus Raskin, 1976:
https://archive.org/details/democracy-versus-the-national-se...
We're still doing the same antics. The OAS and State Dept supported the failed (literal) fascist coup in Bolivia, and also the recent one in Peru that has lead to quite a few deaths so far due to police/military brutality. Both were claimed to somehow be about upholding democracy despite strong popular opposition.
Like the old joke goes-
Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?
A: Because there’s no American embassy there.
Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?
A: Because there’s no American embassy there.
The coup attempt in Perú was by a leftist politician, it wasn't some right-wing power grab. Castillo was overwhelmingly voted to be removed from power by democratic means. He flailed and tried to get the military on his side and it didn't work. The current president of Perú is not some installed puppet, it's Castillo's vice president.
Saying it was US anti-leftist meddling is baseless conspiracy theory.
(I'm Peruvian and live in Perú.)
Saying it was US anti-leftist meddling is baseless conspiracy theory.
(I'm Peruvian and live in Perú.)
Also the invasion of East Timor, the Bangladesh War (see Blood Telegram)..
Imperial wars and the people who waged them in the past are horrible, but the current wars are just and worthy of our support.
This type of reporting perpetuates war by putting us in a loop of kill, repent and repeat. This is generally the type of reporting I find from this and other billionaire owned outlets. If you disagree, please reference an article where they are not in support of the current war in Ukraine.
This type of reporting perpetuates war by putting us in a loop of kill, repent and repeat. This is generally the type of reporting I find from this and other billionaire owned outlets. If you disagree, please reference an article where they are not in support of the current war in Ukraine.
> support of the current war in Ukraine
The Intercept has mostly echoed current left-liberal talking points ever since Greenwald left, so you won't find many articles critical of the current war there. Anyway, since the OP is about Kissinger, it's interesting to note what he had to say about the current war [1]
> "After saying that Western countries should remember Russia’s importance to Europe and not get swept up “in the mood of the moment,” Kissinger also pushed for the West to force Ukraine into accepting negotiations with a “status quo ante,” which means the previous state of affairs.
> “Negotiations need to begin in the next two months before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome. Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante,” said Kissinger, 98, according to the Daily Telegraph. “Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself.”
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/24/henry-kissin...
The Intercept has mostly echoed current left-liberal talking points ever since Greenwald left, so you won't find many articles critical of the current war there. Anyway, since the OP is about Kissinger, it's interesting to note what he had to say about the current war [1]
> "After saying that Western countries should remember Russia’s importance to Europe and not get swept up “in the mood of the moment,” Kissinger also pushed for the West to force Ukraine into accepting negotiations with a “status quo ante,” which means the previous state of affairs.
> “Negotiations need to begin in the next two months before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome. Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante,” said Kissinger, 98, according to the Daily Telegraph. “Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself.”
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/24/henry-kissin...
[deleted]
The war in Ukraine is an imperial war, instigated by another empire. So if you consider imperial wars to be horrible, supporting their victims is a good way to make amends, no?
It's an imperial war instigated by multiple parties. Not one party. And the Ukrainian people are paying for it in blood.
> It's an imperial war instigated by multiple parties.
No, its not.
Exactly one party launched an unprovoked war of aggression to seize territory from another sovereign state.
EDIT: After, I should add, successfully convincing NATO not to let them in in the interests of regional stability and avoiding provocation (and did the same thing with Georgia, first.)
Turning around 8 years into the war and blaming NATO for provoking the war based on the relation between NATO and Ukraine that developed after the war started, demonstrating the bad faith of the stability argument, is a particularly brazen propaganda move,
No, its not.
Exactly one party launched an unprovoked war of aggression to seize territory from another sovereign state.
EDIT: After, I should add, successfully convincing NATO not to let them in in the interests of regional stability and avoiding provocation (and did the same thing with Georgia, first.)
Turning around 8 years into the war and blaming NATO for provoking the war based on the relation between NATO and Ukraine that developed after the war started, demonstrating the bad faith of the stability argument, is a particularly brazen propaganda move,
One party instigated by undertaking an illegal invasion of a sovereign state.
And one party instigated by allowing victims of imperial subjugation to seek protection against further imperial subjugation by joining a military alliance... or something like that?
These things are all quite different, it is strange to use the same word to describe them.
And one party instigated by allowing victims of imperial subjugation to seek protection against further imperial subjugation by joining a military alliance... or something like that?
These things are all quite different, it is strange to use the same word to describe them.
> And one party instigated by allowing victims of imperial subjugation to seek protection against further imperial subjugation by joining a military alliance... or something like that?
As silly as that sounds as provocation, its not even true. Directly reacting to Putin's requests, NATO denied Ukraine and Georgia MAPs in 2008, leading almost immediately to Russia invading Georgia, and 6 years later—immediately after Ukraine tossed out a Russia-friendly government for one that sought closer ties with the West but explicitly disclaimed any intention of seeking NATO membership (in large part because NATO caved to Russia in 2008), Russia invaded Ukraine.
As silly as that sounds as provocation, its not even true. Directly reacting to Putin's requests, NATO denied Ukraine and Georgia MAPs in 2008, leading almost immediately to Russia invading Georgia, and 6 years later—immediately after Ukraine tossed out a Russia-friendly government for one that sought closer ties with the West but explicitly disclaimed any intention of seeking NATO membership (in large part because NATO caved to Russia in 2008), Russia invaded Ukraine.
You might want to brush up on what the word "instigated" means.
I know what the word means. I also know history and have been following events there closely for over a decade. I am old. I watched the fall of the Soviet Union. I watched Serbia. I watched Georgia.
And what I say is true. There are multiple imperial instigators in this war. Russia is certainly one of them.
And what I say is true. There are multiple imperial instigators in this war. Russia is certainly one of them.
> And what I say is true. There are multiple imperial instigators in this war. Russia is certainly one of them.
What you said is patently false there is only one imperial instigator in this war, that’s Russia what remains after that is the imagined fever dreams of people trying to justify and support a war of imperialism by Russia that is systematically doing what it can to wipe out the existence of the country it seems to subjugate.
What you said is patently false there is only one imperial instigator in this war, that’s Russia what remains after that is the imagined fever dreams of people trying to justify and support a war of imperialism by Russia that is systematically doing what it can to wipe out the existence of the country it seems to subjugate.
Instigated is maybe too strong a word, but certainly at least provoked.
It's a testament to the awesome power of US propaganda that you can't throw a stone in Texas without hitting a house flying the Ukrainian flag, but almost no one actually knows the history and circumstances leading up to the war.
I think these two pieces provide some good background:
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/the-war-in-ukraine-was-...
https://archive.is/uvm3W
It's a testament to the awesome power of US propaganda that you can't throw a stone in Texas without hitting a house flying the Ukrainian flag, but almost no one actually knows the history and circumstances leading up to the war.
I think these two pieces provide some good background:
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/the-war-in-ukraine-was-...
https://archive.is/uvm3W
All the supposed "provocations" boil down to Ukraine doing whatever it can to avoid becoming a Russian colony again - which in Russian agitprop parlance is euphemistically termed "infringing on Russian geopolitical interests" or similar. There's no equivalence between the sides in Ukraine at all, even if US is also an empire and pursues its own imperial goals elsewhere.
Yanukovych was removed by the Ukrainian parliament on a vote of 328–0 out of 450 members. Russia doesn't have a right to be upset that Ukraine kicked out a corrupt puppet.
As for NATO expanding east, Russia has something of a grievance there but the U.S. and NATO should never have relegated some of the former Soviet states to the status of "buffer regions" in perpetuity in the first place. Those countries have the right to self-determination and security just like anyone else.
As for NATO expanding east, Russia has something of a grievance there but the U.S. and NATO should never have relegated some of the former Soviet states to the status of "buffer regions" in perpetuity in the first place. Those countries have the right to self-determination and security just like anyone else.
Yanukovych was removed by the Ukrainian parliament on a vote of 328–0 out of 450 members.
Well there was a bit more going on than that (for example, as to why the other members were not present, and how that came to pass).
But either way - the "coup" allegation is bogus, and not taken seriously by anyone in Ukraine.
Well there was a bit more going on than that (for example, as to why the other members were not present, and how that came to pass).
But either way - the "coup" allegation is bogus, and not taken seriously by anyone in Ukraine.
Not even Putin is dumb enough to think that NATO presents a threat to Russia, and even he could have seen the obvious effect that an invasion would have of galvanizing the alliance.
The threat to his regime and its legitimacy is to have a democratic neighbor with russian speakers who live better lives, in what is a former colonial subject of the glorious russian empires.
NATO does make a great bogeyman though for internal audiences, to shift attention away from the futures they are deprived of by dictatorship.
The threat to his regime and its legitimacy is to have a democratic neighbor with russian speakers who live better lives, in what is a former colonial subject of the glorious russian empires.
NATO does make a great bogeyman though for internal audiences, to shift attention away from the futures they are deprived of by dictatorship.
Your understanding supports this claim. If you go outside the mainstream media and this outlet, you might hear that the US is the only real empire with ~800 military bases around the world and their NATO that has expanded right up to Russia's borders. The best way to support the victims of Ukraine is to help them not die and suffer further by supporting peace talks, cease fires, and détente instead of sending them weapons that Russia will destroy along with them. It may be too late for Ukraine now. MSM has done its job already. We can only hope this does not go nuclear.
> NATO that has expanded right up to Russia's borders.
NATO was formed on Russia's borders, it didn’t need to expand to reach them.
And countries near you joining a regional security arrangement isn’t a casus belli, most especially not against completely different countries that you have already succeeded in getting the alliance not to admit, thereby also quelling the country’s interest in joining the alliance.
I know Russian propagandists like to point to the renewed interest in NATO membership Ukraine developed in 2014 for the war, the problem with that is that that interest (aside from not justifying the war in any case) was a direct result of Russia launching the war of aggression.
NATO was formed on Russia's borders, it didn’t need to expand to reach them.
And countries near you joining a regional security arrangement isn’t a casus belli, most especially not against completely different countries that you have already succeeded in getting the alliance not to admit, thereby also quelling the country’s interest in joining the alliance.
I know Russian propagandists like to point to the renewed interest in NATO membership Ukraine developed in 2014 for the war, the problem with that is that that interest (aside from not justifying the war in any case) was a direct result of Russia launching the war of aggression.
Do not confuse Russia with the Soviet Union. When NATO formed, it's border was the partition of Germany and below. Now it includes many countries that were formally part of the Soviet Union. The US made assurances that NATO would not expand eastward. Ask Jeffrey Sachs who was there when those agreements were made. https://www.commondreams.org/author/jeffrey-d-sachs
Do not confuse Russia with the Soviet Union. When NATO formed, it's border was the partition of Germany and below.
Holy jeepers, this whole line of discussion you're pushing is ridiculous beyond words.
But point in fact: Norway, which borders you-know-which-country, was one of the founding signatories of NATO at the time of its formation.
Holy jeepers, this whole line of discussion you're pushing is ridiculous beyond words.
But point in fact: Norway, which borders you-know-which-country, was one of the founding signatories of NATO at the time of its formation.
> Do not confuse Russia with the Soviet Union
Russia was a constituent Republic of the Soviet Union and NATO was on the border of Russia, as well as the Soviet Union, when it was formed.
> The US made assurances that NATO would not expand eastward
Informal assurances of current intent given to the Soviet Union around the time of German reunification and never reduced to a treaty or even a formal executive agreement are not binding commitments with unlimited time horizons inheritable by successor states. (And, anyhow, Russia's active pursuit of NATO membership, including under Putin until he got upset that he couldn't bypass the readiness requirements and be directly admitted ahead of others, would have been a clear repudiation of it if it did still have some applicability.)
Russia was a constituent Republic of the Soviet Union and NATO was on the border of Russia, as well as the Soviet Union, when it was formed.
> The US made assurances that NATO would not expand eastward
Informal assurances of current intent given to the Soviet Union around the time of German reunification and never reduced to a treaty or even a formal executive agreement are not binding commitments with unlimited time horizons inheritable by successor states. (And, anyhow, Russia's active pursuit of NATO membership, including under Putin until he got upset that he couldn't bypass the readiness requirements and be directly admitted ahead of others, would have been a clear repudiation of it if it did still have some applicability.)
Not that it makes a big difference, but for accuracy's sake: the only NATO country that had a land border with USSR proper was Turkey, which joined in 1952, three years after NATO was formed.
> Not that it makes a big difference, but for accuracy's sake: the only NATO country that had a land border with USSR proper was Turkey, which joined in 1952, three years after NATO was formed.
Norway is a founding member with a land border, and borders don't just happen on land; the US also is territorially adjacent to Russia.
Norway is a founding member with a land border, and borders don't just happen on land; the US also is territorially adjacent to Russia.
You're right; I didn't even think of Norway because of how insignificant and remote that stretch of border is, but yeah, it's still technically land border.
Either way I don't think it matters. The point ultimately is that NATO expansion is not some kind of Western imperialist creep - neighbors of Russia rushed to join NATO as soon as they could because they wanted security based on their own past experience. It was never a threat to Russia.
Either way I don't think it matters. The point ultimately is that NATO expansion is not some kind of Western imperialist creep - neighbors of Russia rushed to join NATO as soon as they could because they wanted security based on their own past experience. It was never a threat to Russia.
Personally I think it's up to the Ukrainians to decide whether they want to die fighting Russians, and I'm happy for my taxes to go to them if they want to keep going. The notion that the US is the only empire in the morally salient sense of the word is so laughably US-centric that only Western contrarians unironically believe it.
The best way to support the victims of Ukraine is to help them not die and suffer further
In other words - your view is that the Ukrainians are incapable of deciding on their own whether to keep fighting their perfectly well-meaning Russian liberators, or not.
In other words - your view is that the Ukrainians are incapable of deciding on their own whether to keep fighting their perfectly well-meaning Russian liberators, or not.
> NATO that has expanded right up to Russia's borders.
Does that make slaughtering up to 100,000 young men, and many civilians who get in the way, justified?
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is in every way just as bad as USA's invasion of Iraq.
Both are horrific crimes, which should see the executives of the Russia, and the USA, hang. If anybody should hang, Bush (and Blair?) up there with Putin.
Unsure what to do with Obama. His use of remote control killing robots should put him up there on the gallows.
Actually I would put the three of them (and Blair) in goal for life - I do not approve of killing for any reason.
Unlike the rulers of the USA and Russia
Does that make slaughtering up to 100,000 young men, and many civilians who get in the way, justified?
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is in every way just as bad as USA's invasion of Iraq.
Both are horrific crimes, which should see the executives of the Russia, and the USA, hang. If anybody should hang, Bush (and Blair?) up there with Putin.
Unsure what to do with Obama. His use of remote control killing robots should put him up there on the gallows.
Actually I would put the three of them (and Blair) in goal for life - I do not approve of killing for any reason.
Unlike the rulers of the USA and Russia
Every major outlet is against the war in Ukraine, which is why they want to help the Ukrainians drive the aggressors out.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> This is generally the type of reporting I find from this and other billionaire owned outlet
Is The Intercept billionare-owned?
Is The Intercept billionare-owned?
war is a racket after all.
https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket
https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket
Many articles are not in support of the current war in Ukraine. A lot of ink has been spilled on what Russia is doing is wrong and should immediately end their war.
People of the US must support their leader to make war. Similarly people of Russia must support their leader for war. An American journal like the Intercept has near zero influence on people in Russia just as Komsomolskaya Pravda has near zero influence on us. If an outlet is promoting hate against another country rather than paths of diplomacy, it is promoting war.
On the day Russia invaded, Defense contractor stocks rose significantly.
Until we can break the profit motive away from war production, you won't see these kinds of wars stopping.
Not to say there aren't other motivations for war, but policy makers, defense companies, and governmental orgs are fairly entwined.
One fun thing I used to find, if you followed an article about Xiajiang, and followed the citations far enough, the source citation was almost always a thinktank funded by these groups in abstract ways. It'd take a while to find again, but one example was a study by some pacific named thinktank, who's funding was from an Australian defense policy group. That group was in turn partially funded by the American DoD.
The corruption is circular. Soft power manipulates studies, which manipulates reporting, which manipulates public opinion, which then sways policy, which then supports the original orgs. It was so easy to turn "predicted cultural genocide(by including a group in a policy they were previously exempt from)" into "active genocide" when you're 8 citations deep.
Until we can break the profit motive away from war production, you won't see these kinds of wars stopping.
Not to say there aren't other motivations for war, but policy makers, defense companies, and governmental orgs are fairly entwined.
One fun thing I used to find, if you followed an article about Xiajiang, and followed the citations far enough, the source citation was almost always a thinktank funded by these groups in abstract ways. It'd take a while to find again, but one example was a study by some pacific named thinktank, who's funding was from an Australian defense policy group. That group was in turn partially funded by the American DoD.
The corruption is circular. Soft power manipulates studies, which manipulates reporting, which manipulates public opinion, which then sways policy, which then supports the original orgs. It was so easy to turn "predicted cultural genocide(by including a group in a policy they were previously exempt from)" into "active genocide" when you're 8 citations deep.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a war of colonialism and imperialism.
[deleted]
Kissinger's turning 100 this Saturday. The final horcrux of 20th century imperialism.
There is a saying in Turkish that roughly translates: "Nothing bad happens to bad people, God has to protect the good people".
Here is Kissinger being asked directly: https://youtu.be/p9vj2IkpBEw?t=7
Here is Kissinger being asked directly: https://youtu.be/p9vj2IkpBEw?t=7
Watching what’s become of Ukraine and China must be keeping him going. Probably doesn’t even need a Viagra prescription anymore.
The Ukraine war is a negative for him. He wanted to use Russia against China. Like how he previously used China against the Soviet Union. He was the one advising Trump towards detente with Russia during the 2016 campaign. Unfortunately for him, others within the deep state made that policy impossible.
That’s an interesting take. Only a year or two ahead of the Ukrainian election Trump was threatening withholding agreed to and paid for arms shipments to Ukraine unless they announce investigations into Biden’s son. His people also blatantly lied claiming meetings with Russians ahead of elections were just about adoption policy whereas really it was about lifting the Magnitsky act which was the reason Russia banned US adoptions.
The contact with Russia prior to inauguration was for lobbying on behalf of Israel.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/01/michael-flyn...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/01/michael-flyn...
Nope. Totally different meeting: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/06/us/politics/t...
The Trump team had lots of contact with Russia about all sorts of topics. By the way as far as I know, lobbying the Russians against the interests of the current government is extremely rare and rises to the level of what Reagan did to Carter with the Iran hostage crisis. There’s even laws on the books iirc that this isn’t allowed although no one seems to want to try enforcing it.
The Trump team had lots of contact with Russia about all sorts of topics. By the way as far as I know, lobbying the Russians against the interests of the current government is extremely rare and rises to the level of what Reagan did to Carter with the Iran hostage crisis. There’s even laws on the books iirc that this isn’t allowed although no one seems to want to try enforcing it.
You mean he'll let himself be killed to finally take down his mortal enemy but will be resurrected moments later by his loyal friends? That metaphor holds further than one would like.
Kissinger's friendship with Putin must be a thorn in the side of his many defenders in DC.
"Putin and Kissinger, indeed, met regularly – at least fifteen times. Once Putin was even invited for dinner at Kissinger’s home in New York. A “close and trusting collaboration” seemed in particular be established between the Kremlin and Kissinger Associates, Kissinger’s consulting firm." [0]
[0] "The Strange Putin-Kissinger Friendship", Marcel H. Van Herpen, 2016:
https://www.cicerofoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Marcel_H...
"Putin and Kissinger, indeed, met regularly – at least fifteen times. Once Putin was even invited for dinner at Kissinger’s home in New York. A “close and trusting collaboration” seemed in particular be established between the Kremlin and Kissinger Associates, Kissinger’s consulting firm." [0]
[0] "The Strange Putin-Kissinger Friendship", Marcel H. Van Herpen, 2016:
https://www.cicerofoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Marcel_H...
Trump himself openly talks about admiring Putin and preferring the way Putin leads to anything here in America, and high ranking members of the American Republican party spent at least one recent July 4th in Moscow meeting with Putin.
Connections with the Russian Oligarchy haven't harmed them at all, especially since all their followers are convinced it was a hoax.
Connections with the Russian Oligarchy haven't harmed them at all, especially since all their followers are convinced it was a hoax.
I'm speaking more of these types of photo ops: "Secretary Blinken stands with former Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice, Henry Kissinger, and James Baker at Stanford Memorial Church on Thursday." [0]
Hillary Clinton also spent decades brown nosing Henry Kissinger. I'm curious to see if she releases a public birthday greeting when he turns 100.
[0] https://www.state.gov/dipnote-u-s-department-of-state-offici...
Hillary Clinton also spent decades brown nosing Henry Kissinger. I'm curious to see if she releases a public birthday greeting when he turns 100.
[0] https://www.state.gov/dipnote-u-s-department-of-state-offici...
I'm personally waiting for the fawning obituaries.
This article is an excellent riposte to the nauseatingly worshipful interview with Kissinger that the Economist published this week.
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/05/17/henry-kissinge...
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/05/17/henry-kissinge...
As a journalist, I am disgusted by what the Economist has become. Or maybe was it always this low level boot-licking rag?
It was literally founded as a boot-licking rag! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#History
> An exclusive archive of formerly classified U.S. military documents — assembled from the files of a secret Pentagon task force that investigated war crimes during the 1970s, inspector generals’ inquiries buried amid thousands of pages of unrelated documents, and other materials discovered during hundreds of hours of research at the U.S. National Archives — offers previously unpublished, unreported, and underappreciated evidence of civilian deaths that were kept secret during the war and remain almost entirely unknown to the American people.
E.O. 11652 N/A
TAGS: PFOR, XC, US
SUBJECT: AUGUST 8 EA PRESS SUMMARY
INDOCHINA
1. CASUALTY FIGURES FOR WORST BOMBING ACCIDENT OF INDOCHINA WAR AT NEAK LUONG GIVEN BY AMEMBASSY PP AS 137 (INCLUDING 56 FANK) KILLED AND 268 (INCLUDING 137 FANK) WOUNDED, BUT KHMER OFFICIALS SAY 189 KILLED AND 315 WOUNDED. SOURCE OF BOMBING ERROR NOT YET PINPOINTED, BUT DOD BELIEVES DUE MECHANICAL OR HUMAN TECHNICAL ERROR (AP CHITRIB, NYDN, WP; BINDER, NYT; SEIDEN, SUN; CSM; MARKS, UPI, PHINQ). KIRK (CHITRIB) FINDS REACTION AT PP ONE OF RESIGNATION. CHARGE ENDERS APOLOGIZES TO GKR AND EXPRESSES PROFOUND CONDOLENCES FOR NEAK LUONG ERROR (MARKS). SUN (AP) BELIEVES DANGER OF MISTAKEN BOMBING OF FRIENDLY AREAS DUE TO US PILOTS' DEPENDENCE ON CAMBODIAN OBSERVERS FOR TARGET INFORMATION AND DANGER IS HEIGHTENING AS INSURGENTS TIGHTEN NOOSE. PHOTOGRAPHER WHO VISITED NEAK LUONG (AP WP, NYT) SAYS HALF OF TOWN DESTROYED OR HEAVILY DAMAGED AND MAIN STREET LINED WITH RUBBLE; CONTRADICTS US AIR ATTACHE WHO STATED DAMAGE NOT EXTENSIVEIs there one of the four articles you'd recommend reading first / consider most significant?
'Blood on his hands,' the other 3 flesh out specific claims.
He's the Wembanyama of the afterlife draft- devil is salivating.
Although I despise Kissinger, I'm not sure it's fair to put it all responsibility on him. There is more blame to go around.
Author is Nick Turse. I can recommend his 'Kill Anything That Moves' as a good book on the Vietnam War.
Author is Nick Turse. I can recommend his 'Kill Anything That Moves' as a good book on the Vietnam War.
It's mind-boggling how often there are military disasters because of someone skipping a single obvious step like "fail[ing] to flip an offset switch" or "mak[ing] no attempt to warn any of the other Allied ships" after being hit by a torpedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Savo_Island#Action_s...
So many people were wrong about Cambodia:
https://globalist.yale.edu/in-the-magazine/glimpses/ghosts-o...
> At the time, American scholars Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman argued that media claims of the Cambodian genocide were propaganda, designed to make the US look favorable in the ongoing Vietnam War. Swedish diplomat Gunnar Bergstrom dined with Pol Pot in Phnom Penh while the dictator’s cadres continued their genocide. Global powers like the United States and China promoted pro-Khmer-Rouge resolutions in the United Nations after their removal from Cambodia. Ironically, academics, politicians, and foreigners were key Khmer Rouge targets for extermination.
PDF:
https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
> Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman’s 1977 article, “Distortions at Fourth Hand,” published in the left-leaning publication The Nation, exemplifies the perspective of the left in regards to Cambodia during the 1970s. Although Chomsky and Herman acknowledge that Cambodia was facing a time of extreme suffering, they criticize less ideologically driven publications like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Time for reporting Khmer Rouge crimes for which “there is no independent confirmatory evidence.”12 Citing other liberal publications like The Economist, Chomsky and Herman declare that the evidence suggests, “Executions have numbered at most in the thousands.” They even go so far as to claim, “The ‘slaughter’ by the Khmer Rouge is a...New York Times creation.”
https://globalist.yale.edu/in-the-magazine/glimpses/ghosts-o...
> At the time, American scholars Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman argued that media claims of the Cambodian genocide were propaganda, designed to make the US look favorable in the ongoing Vietnam War. Swedish diplomat Gunnar Bergstrom dined with Pol Pot in Phnom Penh while the dictator’s cadres continued their genocide. Global powers like the United States and China promoted pro-Khmer-Rouge resolutions in the United Nations after their removal from Cambodia. Ironically, academics, politicians, and foreigners were key Khmer Rouge targets for extermination.
PDF:
https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
> Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman’s 1977 article, “Distortions at Fourth Hand,” published in the left-leaning publication The Nation, exemplifies the perspective of the left in regards to Cambodia during the 1970s. Although Chomsky and Herman acknowledge that Cambodia was facing a time of extreme suffering, they criticize less ideologically driven publications like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Time for reporting Khmer Rouge crimes for which “there is no independent confirmatory evidence.”12 Citing other liberal publications like The Economist, Chomsky and Herman declare that the evidence suggests, “Executions have numbered at most in the thousands.” They even go so far as to claim, “The ‘slaughter’ by the Khmer Rouge is a...New York Times creation.”
So, let me understand: the mistake of a non-military intellectual who was not in a position of power at the time, and was proven wrong about his ideologically loaded perspective, is presented as an equivalent to the position of a high ranking official that physically commanded actions that killed thousands of innocent civilians?
You don't think Chomsky has power? Using your influence to cause others to disregard or advocate for actions can lead to as much death as direct influence. He was activity dismissing reports as "misinformation" for ideological reasons at the time and people took his advice. If it caused people to not act, then yes, he's partially responsible.
No, I don't think he's equivalent, but let's not give him a pass here. His ideology lead to excusing and lauding a group of people who wanted to slaughter anyone with education and reduce anyone else to starving farmers. And he didn't do himself any favors afterwards either, sulking and attacking people who pointed out that moral failing, even circa 2000's.
We tend to trash people for that sorta thing, like we do for Kissinger, but since it's Marxism/Communism it's given a pass by media/left groups. Their are still a lot of puff articles for Chomsky/and his similars every year. The imbalance in how we talk about that era in certain circles is a bit nauseating.
Anyway, the Intercept is trying to obscure their favored ideologies excesses, and reassign blame to their ideological opponents. That's why the intercept is specifically titling it "killing fields" to usurp the other known quantity of the Khmer Rouge's massacres, and focusing exclusively on Kissinger. I've heard way too many people blame solely Kissinger as responsible, as if pol pot did not exist, to give the intercept the benefit of the doubt.
No, I don't think he's equivalent, but let's not give him a pass here. His ideology lead to excusing and lauding a group of people who wanted to slaughter anyone with education and reduce anyone else to starving farmers. And he didn't do himself any favors afterwards either, sulking and attacking people who pointed out that moral failing, even circa 2000's.
We tend to trash people for that sorta thing, like we do for Kissinger, but since it's Marxism/Communism it's given a pass by media/left groups. Their are still a lot of puff articles for Chomsky/and his similars every year. The imbalance in how we talk about that era in certain circles is a bit nauseating.
Anyway, the Intercept is trying to obscure their favored ideologies excesses, and reassign blame to their ideological opponents. That's why the intercept is specifically titling it "killing fields" to usurp the other known quantity of the Khmer Rouge's massacres, and focusing exclusively on Kissinger. I've heard way too many people blame solely Kissinger as responsible, as if pol pot did not exist, to give the intercept the benefit of the doubt.
Your position is giving very much a free pass to the atrocities the U.S. government was responsible for at the time.
Chomsky was one of the few voices that saw it, and denounced it accordingly.
His position on Pol Pot has never been fully absolutory, instead he just focused more on the injustices coming from his own camp, where he certainly had more weight to excert.
Also, Marxism is a perfectly fine philosophy, and extremely interesting lens through which we can read and understand capitalism and our present.
Conflating Marxism/Communism as one thing to reinforce a negative bias against them unfortunately shows a profound misunderstanding of both
> Chomsky was one of the few voices that saw it, and denounced it accordingly.
Even if you mean domestic voices, there weren’t exactly few of them. (He may have been one of the more elitely-positioned voices, but that’s a different story.)
Even if you mean domestic voices, there weren’t exactly few of them. (He may have been one of the more elitely-positioned voices, but that’s a different story.)
I thought about some interesting quips but you kinda just fell on you own sword.
I gave Chomsky benefit of the doubt several years ago about influence and his position on pol pot, but after more dives on the subject, no, he's unrepentant and petulant. Also you're hero worshipping him by assuming he's one of the "few". He's one of the few you know. And Marxism is heavily intertwined with Communism historically. The distinction is academic only and revolutionaries of the 20th century interchanged them so heavily so as to make it nearly indistinguishable. To ignore it's "implementations" is the "no true Scotsman" at it's finest.
I gave Chomsky benefit of the doubt several years ago about influence and his position on pol pot, but after more dives on the subject, no, he's unrepentant and petulant. Also you're hero worshipping him by assuming he's one of the "few". He's one of the few you know. And Marxism is heavily intertwined with Communism historically. The distinction is academic only and revolutionaries of the 20th century interchanged them so heavily so as to make it nearly indistinguishable. To ignore it's "implementations" is the "no true Scotsman" at it's finest.
What do you think of Chomsky now that he supports Russia in its invasion of Ukraine?
> Conflating Marxism/Communism as one thing
Modern Communism is explicitly Marxist in theoretical line.
> Conflating Marxism/Communism as one thing
Modern Communism is explicitly Marxist in theoretical line.
> Modern Communism is explicitly Marxist in theoretical line.
Some of it is, much of it isn’t (even some of what claims to be isn’t; despite the Marxist-Leninist branding, Leninism and everything descended from it, including Maoism, starts by rejecting foundational elements of Marxism to derive a short-cut approach in order to bypass capitalist development.)
Some of it is, much of it isn’t (even some of what claims to be isn’t; despite the Marxist-Leninist branding, Leninism and everything descended from it, including Maoism, starts by rejecting foundational elements of Marxism to derive a short-cut approach in order to bypass capitalist development.)
No, of course not. I'm just providing context.
Friendly fire.
jgalt212(4)
It's sad this deplorable human being was given the Nobel Peace Prize.