Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Akamai

(1,779 posts)
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 09:31 PM Aug 2017

About Thom Hartmann--this is one of the points he makes about why we should understand the Russian perspective.

This is about the only point he makes about how Russia has in some ways been misunderstood in the American press.

Thom said that with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Reagan worked out an agreement with the Soviets that if the USSR dissolved itself without violence, etc., then we would never put active NATO forces on the Russia's borders.

However, when Clinton was in office, he started placing military forces on the borders of Russia, at least trying to do so, and that since then we have more and more military forces on countries that border Russia. This was in violation of the agreement that Reagan had with Gorbachev.

Now I think Putin is an evil man messing in things he shouldn't be messing in, but take a look at the following Los Angeles Times article to understand Russia's point of view on this:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html:

"Moscow solidified its hold on Crimea in April, outlawing the Tatar legislature that had opposed Russia’s annexation of the region since 2014. Together with Russian military provocations against NATO forces in and around the Baltic, this move seems to validate the observations of Western analysts who argue that under Vladimir Putin, an increasingly aggressive Russia is determined to dominate its neighbors and menace Europe.

"Leaders in Moscow, however, tell a different story. For them, Russia is the aggrieved party. They claim the United States has failed to uphold a promise that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe, a deal made during the 1990 negotiations between the West and the Soviet Union over German unification. In this view, Russia is being forced to forestall NATO’s eastward march as a matter of self-defense.

"The West has vigorously protested that no such deal was ever struck. However, hundreds of memos, meeting minutes and transcripts from U.S. archives indicate otherwise. Although what the documents reveal isn’t enough to make Putin a saint, it suggests that the diagnosis of Russian predation isn’t entirely fair. Europe’s stability may depend just as much on the West’s willingness to reassure Russia about NATO’s limits as on deterring Moscow’s adventurism.

"After the Berlin Wall fell, Europe’s regional order hinged on the question of whether a reunified Germany would be aligned with the United States (and NATO), the Soviet Union (and the Warsaw Pact) or neither. Policymakers in the George H.W. Bush administration decided in early 1990 that NATO should include the reconstituted German republic.

"In Syria, a slow-motion genocide while diplomats chatter

"In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion."

**************************************
"Not one inch eastward"? Turned out not to be the case.

This insight that Thom Hartmann gives on the issue of Russian expansion is important, especially given the agreement that Reagan had worked out earlier with Gorbachev.

I know of no pro-Russian suggestion made by Thom Hartmann, and certainly agree with his view that we should treat the Russians (with her enormous, enormous supply of nuclear weapons) with great care.

I listen to Thom Hartmann regularly, especially as I have paid for a podcast of his show and I can listen to it in the car, doing yard work, etc., but have heard him take no pro-Russia's stance, and have certainly heard him greatly criticize the Russians for their interference in the selection.

If people have not heard his show, I certainly invite them to do so. I know of no one else who was so knowledgeable about politics in the world, politics in the country, economics, monetary measures, etc. Also, he is a hell of a decent and empathetic guy.

177 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
About Thom Hartmann--this is one of the points he makes about why we should understand the Russian perspective. (Original Post) Akamai Aug 2017 OP
Interesting bit of information dhol82 Aug 2017 #1
Yep. Not to say that Putin is not a terrible, terrible, terrible person. But we made an agreement and we are violating it. Akamai Aug 2017 #3
Sadly, imho, this is just a lovely excuse for Putin to fuck over the world dhol82 Aug 2017 #11
Yes and Putin is also messing with plenty of other countries, most who Maraya1969 Aug 2017 #31
Facts speak loudly, opinions whisper insidiously IndieRick Aug 2017 #82
Nobody ever heard of it because it's not true. It's Russian propaganda. yardwork Aug 2017 #52
I've always had, and continue to have the highest level of respect for Thom. NRaleighLiberal Aug 2017 #2
Good for you! I think if everyone listened to Thom Hartmann, the Democrats would be further ahead by far! Akamai Aug 2017 #5
so many efforts to make everything starkly black and white issues, but things are much NRaleighLiberal Aug 2017 #29
Thom is pushing false information here. yardwork Aug 2017 #53
Even after this? BainsBane Aug 2017 #78
Does he still have a relationship with RT (Putin's propaganda tv station)? NightWatcher Aug 2017 #4
Post removed Post removed Aug 2017 #6
You didn't answer my question. Does he still work for Russian propaganda? NightWatcher Aug 2017 #8
He still works for RT eom Maraya1969 Aug 2017 #32
It's not a hoax, its quite a complicated situation. Kentonio Aug 2017 #43
THAT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL NATO PIECE. NATO REVIEW IS INDEPENDENT OPINION. FreepFryer Aug 2017 #51
Good for you. Kentonio Aug 2017 #61
That is obviously not what that poster did BainsBane Aug 2017 #157
"No one is completely sure what was said..." yardwork Aug 2017 #54
Err what? I didn't attack Bill Clinton. Are you responding to the wrong post? Kentonio Aug 2017 #62
Did you even read the OP you are defending? yardwork Aug 2017 #64
Sorry--I will respond further. You think everyone supporting Bernie is doing the bidding of the Russians? Akamai Aug 2017 #9
You still didn't answer. Is he working for RT? NightWatcher Aug 2017 #18
Not just gullible. Complicit. bluepen Aug 2017 #21
Yes, Thom Hartmann still works for RT lapucelle Aug 2017 #33
Of course. That's the whole point of this BainsBane Aug 2017 #76
Invading sovereign nations and shanny Aug 2017 #124
... leftstreet Aug 2017 #135
Autocracy BainsBane Aug 2017 #138
The democracy I was referring to was ours. shanny Aug 2017 #161
Whataboutism, then. (n/t) FreepFryer Aug 2017 #173
I really do not think that we should care about the Russian viewpoint Gothmog Aug 2017 #152
I think it's fine, even good, to learn about the BainsBane Aug 2017 #156
Exactly - and it sure does. (n/t) FreepFryer Aug 2017 #172
Thom is also on Free Speech TV saying exactly the same thing as on RT. SalviaBlue Aug 2017 #105
Good point, maybe we should start a campaign to get him removed from other outlets NightWatcher Aug 2017 #108
If I used your logic about what I "let in my head"... SalviaBlue Aug 2017 #127
Tom is not a Russian propagandist - womanofthehills Aug 2017 #110
How do you know? yardwork Aug 2017 #112
Why is RT paying him then? NightWatcher Aug 2017 #115
Yes he is a Russian propagandist . stonecutter357 Aug 2017 #164
Putinist fable, debunked by Brookings... (n/t) FreepFryer Aug 2017 #7
Even better information dhol82 Aug 2017 #14
My pleasure. When a man uses a Putinist lie to claim he's not a tool of Putin, ya gotta wonder. (nt) FreepFryer Aug 2017 #17
It's not quite as simple as that. Kentonio Aug 2017 #44
Even your blog link reinforces my (and Brookings and Gorbachev's) simple point. FreepFryer Aug 2017 #48
You're missing the point. Kentonio Aug 2017 #58
It doesn't matter if it's truth or lies.... For God's sake what nonsense. yardwork Aug 2017 #60
This isn't a pre-school morality lesson. Countries and leaders lie all the damn time. Kentonio Aug 2017 #63
Fuck that propaganda. yardwork Aug 2017 #65
Oh right, so we didn't lie about a flimsy reason for invading Iraq for instance? Kentonio Aug 2017 #69
With all due respect kentonio, you're way way off topic. Was the OP factual or no? (n/t) FreepFryer Aug 2017 #72
Wrong. You don't use a lie to communicate a truth. FULL STOP. FreepFryer Aug 2017 #67
Why do you think they give a damn about convincing Americans of anything? Kentonio Aug 2017 #73
Then don't perpetuate it by deflection and mischaracterization. (n/t) FreepFryer Aug 2017 #74
Better to go the 'with us or against us' route and just call them liars? Kentonio Aug 2017 #80
Sensitive and careful means not mischaracterizing sources or shifting topics - as you have done. FreepFryer Aug 2017 #84
Someone needs to. Kentonio Aug 2017 #85
Perhaps so, when the OP is based on a lie but you still want to perpetuate the idea. FreepFryer Aug 2017 #88
Look personally I think the premise of the op IS untrue. Kentonio Aug 2017 #93
The OP is too far gone, I'm waiting on YOUR apology for misrepresenting "NATO review" as NATO. (nt) FreepFryer Aug 2017 #95
If you have no interest in a conversation and just want to play stupid games, then im out. Kentonio Aug 2017 #97
I am having THIS post's conversation, not the conversation to which you keep trying to pivot. nt FreepFryer Aug 2017 #100
Perhaps disabusing them of the fantasy is better than perpetuating it. OilemFirchen Aug 2017 #113
+100. (n/t) FreepFryer Aug 2017 #129
I thought that snowybirdie Aug 2017 #131
He didn't make any agreement resembling the OP, that's for damn sure. (n/t) FreepFryer Aug 2017 #142
Did the Los Angeles Times retract its story? If so I would be very interested. Akamai Aug 2017 #16
Otherwise known as the "when did you stop beating your wife?" question (n/t) FreepFryer Aug 2017 #20
That question pops up on DU regularly. nt fleabiscuit Aug 2017 #166
It was op-ed. Igel Aug 2017 #35
It's not an article. It's an opinion piece. lapucelle Aug 2017 #38
+1. (n/t) FreepFryer Aug 2017 #50
Op-eds are not news stories emulatorloo Aug 2017 #141
Thank you. yardwork Aug 2017 #55
No worries - thanks to you! (n/t) FreepFryer Aug 2017 #71
Thank you posting some facts on this thread Gothmog Aug 2017 #153
My pleasure. Glad so many are not falling for the whataboutism, deflection and topic-changing. (n/t) FreepFryer Aug 2017 #154
Fuck Thom Hartmann and every last Putin puppet out there! Foamfollower Aug 2017 #10
+1 bluepen Aug 2017 #19
Fuck Russia and the Bear they rode in on. Quanta Aug 2017 #12
That was Sec. Baker, in GHWB's term. bluepen Aug 2017 #13
Issues are always deeper than they appear... Trial_By_Fire Aug 2017 #15
He's spewing lies and propaganda. Not a word of truth in what he says. Foamfollower Aug 2017 #22
I feel like vomiting. yardwork Aug 2017 #59
Can you explain Putin's murder of journalists and draconian anti-LGTB laws. emulatorloo Aug 2017 #139
Why on earth are you asking me to explain Putin? Trial_By_Fire Aug 2017 #140
"Issues are always deeper than they appear..." emulatorloo Aug 2017 #145
.... Trial_By_Fire Aug 2017 #148
Yr all out of apologies for Putin I guess emulatorloo Aug 2017 #149
It looks like Thom knows who is buttering his bread. CentralMass Aug 2017 #23
+1. Thank you. (n/t) FreepFryer Aug 2017 #24
Solid truth. tavernier Aug 2017 #57
Follow the money.... Adrahil Aug 2017 #25
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you... GulfCoast66 Aug 2017 #26
How much is Hartmann's considerable income... You seem to know... Trial_By_Fire Aug 2017 #27
You got me... GulfCoast66 Aug 2017 #30
"totally dependent on the good graces of the Russian government to continue his show" Trial_By_Fire Aug 2017 #128
His platform is provided by the Russian government GulfCoast66 Aug 2017 #171
I know, me too... shocked. And stunned. (n/t) FreepFryer Aug 2017 #28
Why should we take seriously any piece coming from the Russian propaganda network RT, pnwmom Aug 2017 #34
Because we have this view that opinions and perceptions are important. Igel Aug 2017 #36
The facts are Thom lied. nt Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #40
It's not as simple as truth or lie. Kentonio Aug 2017 #46
Better relations starts with discerning truth from lies, nuclear pearl clutching aside. (n/t) FreepFryer Aug 2017 #49
Really? We're going to give other countries lessons about not telling lies? Kentonio Aug 2017 #66
You should work as hard at being factual as you do at deflection. FreepFryer Aug 2017 #70
OMG! Listen to yourself! yardwork Aug 2017 #56
OFFS! Now you're saying objective truth doesn't mean shit!!!! Foamfollower Aug 2017 #79
In terms of geo-politics, no, objective truth doesn't always mean shit. Kentonio Aug 2017 #83
Whataboutism and shifting topics is classic Putinism too. (n/t) FreepFryer Aug 2017 #86
So other countries should be expected to just forget our sins Kentonio Aug 2017 #87
This post is about the (false) idea that Russia was guaranteed no eastern expansion of NATO. FreepFryer Aug 2017 #91
More whataboutism. And excuses for Putin's murderous behavior emulatorloo Aug 2017 #147
Nope, never excuses for his crimes. Kentonio Aug 2017 #159
"But whatabout Iran?" emulatorloo Aug 2017 #170
The point I was trying to make (probably not very well) Kentonio Aug 2017 #174
Bottom line to me is US voters in 2016 did nothing to "deserve" Putin's interference emulatorloo Aug 2017 #176
Well said. CanSocDem Aug 2017 #103
Fuck Russia. They are our enemy and they declared WAR on us. Foamfollower Aug 2017 #107
If I wanted to read flag waving RAR RAR RAR crap, I'd go to FreeRepublic Kentonio Aug 2017 #109
We ARE at war regardless of your denials. Foamfollower Aug 2017 #116
whataboutism,shoving words in other DU'ers mouths emulatorloo Aug 2017 #132
Look I don't want to put words in anyone's mouths Kentonio Aug 2017 #144
We were attacked by Russia. Don't be a sympathizer nt fleabiscuit Aug 2017 #168
I agree with you JustAnotherGen Aug 2017 #177
Fuck Russian propaganda. MrsCoffee Aug 2017 #94
Exactamundo! oasis Aug 2017 #99
Excuse me? Kentonio Aug 2017 #101
I'm saying that the crap people were buying last year ain't selling this year. MrsCoffee Aug 2017 #119
Debunked already and Hartman works for Russian propaganda leftofcool Aug 2017 #37
LOL. Thom loves cashing those Russian propaganda checks. nt Maven Aug 2017 #39
But but Thom has creative independence to discuss anything OnDoutside Aug 2017 #42
The linked op-ed does not mention Reagan at all. Tactical Peek Aug 2017 #41
You mean the Kremlin lies? BainsBane Aug 2017 #77
One part I don't get DFW Aug 2017 #45
he's either a willing or unknowing tool of Russian propaganda eShirl Aug 2017 #47
Bullshit, bullshit, and more Russian bullshit . nocalflea Aug 2017 #68
How Nice for a man paid by RT BainsBane Aug 2017 #75
Come on, Reagan wasn't even President by then Lee-Lee Aug 2017 #81
Wish folks would try to understand Russia's viewpoint dembotoz Aug 2017 #89
No thank you. MrsCoffee Aug 2017 #96
FFS dude.... Adrahil Aug 2017 #98
They gave us trump nini Aug 2017 #104
Not saying I support them just saying stop chanting USA USA for a moment and pull Ur head dembotoz Aug 2017 #117
Yeah, so did I. I was taught to recognize propaganda. yardwork Aug 2017 #118
Interesting... history is now propaganda dembotoz Aug 2017 #123
I am certain that I know more European history than you. yardwork Aug 2017 #125
And you do not find us ignorance toward Russia in ww2 curious? dembotoz Aug 2017 #126
One does not learn history through RT BainsBane Aug 2017 #155
Never said u did...just saying understanding why Russia is the way it is is useful dembotoz Aug 2017 #165
I believe there's a political party that shares Russia's concerns... brooklynite Aug 2017 #122
This is the most common knowledge BainsBane Aug 2017 #143
Russia's viewpoint? get the red out Aug 2017 #175
I stopped reading at the first sentence. DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2017 #90
That is a majorly significant point. Caliman73 Aug 2017 #150
Thank you. DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2017 #158
Oh good lord! GMAFB! NurseJackie Aug 2017 #92
EVERY bad guy thinks they're in the right. Dave Starsky Aug 2017 #102
Choo-choo, Here comes the excuse train! FSogol Aug 2017 #106
Hartmann sold his soul to the Devil far too cheaply. MineralMan Aug 2017 #111
He's a fool if he didn't get in on the billion dollar pipeline deal. yardwork Aug 2017 #114
Ugh. Why do some need to 'splain away Putin? Tommy_Carcetti Aug 2017 #120
Putin's flying monkeys just gotta tell us how misunderstood he is emulatorloo Aug 2017 #134
unrec. n/t. Coventina Aug 2017 #121
Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says No. Here are two articles for your purusal. One still_one Aug 2017 #130
Golly. Actual facts, sourced and researched. Hekate Aug 2017 #146
What I find interesting is how Putin's thoughts on NATO coincide with Trumps. Since we all know still_one Aug 2017 #162
It appears this asertion wasn't put into writing, however, one thing for certain is that Trump still_one Aug 2017 #133
It was never made Bad Thoughts Aug 2017 #136
"But what about something something America something?" emulatorloo Aug 2017 #137
I really do not care about Putin's views on anything Gothmog Aug 2017 #151
lol, Russian TV promotes Russian propaganda. R B Garr Aug 2017 #160
Putin's propaganda puppet ... stonecutter357 Aug 2017 #163
Excellent post malaise Aug 2017 #167
Non Sequitur. nt fleabiscuit Aug 2017 #169
 

Akamai

(1,779 posts)
3. Yep. Not to say that Putin is not a terrible, terrible, terrible person. But we made an agreement and we are violating it.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 09:39 PM
Aug 2017

Thom asks also from time to time, how would we like countries on our border to have missiles aimed at us? And the answer is, we would not.

I write this only to point out some of the reasons for the friction between Russia and NATO countries on its border.

dhol82

(9,351 posts)
11. Sadly, imho, this is just a lovely excuse for Putin to fuck over the world
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 09:45 PM
Aug 2017

Thom is a nice person. I agree the Russians have some grievance here. That said, I don't trust good old Vlad as far as I can spit.
You can never take the KGB out of the boy.

Maraya1969

(22,441 posts)
31. Yes and Putin is also messing with plenty of other countries, most who
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 10:54 PM
Aug 2017

have no broken deals with him.

 

IndieRick

(53 posts)
82. Facts speak loudly, opinions whisper insidiously
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 08:21 AM
Aug 2017

The growth of NATO bases near the borders of Russia do not come miraculously but are the result of the host nations asking NATO to place those bases there. This essential fact is never noted in these attempts to whitewash Russia as a victim.

I do not seek to defend NATO here , only to bring a bit of realism and fact to a seemingly endless attempt to portray Russia and Putin as they are not, blameless. Reading these defenses, and some are simply honest efforts to speak against the escalation of tension and further militarism certainly, I see no attempt to see that NATO does not, cannot in fact, act arbitrarily in placing its bases where it will.
NATO must be invited by the host nation, which is responding to increasing threats, economic and military bullying by Russia.

Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine have all been threatened with withholding of heating oil in the dead of winter when they made advances to NATO, and, in fact, Ukraine deliveries were stopped once. Nations bordering on Russia must be affected by the outright theft of Crimea, and please do not think an election presided over by 25,000 Russian troops can be seen as a free election. Coupled with the arming of Russian dissidents in Eastern Ukraine, including direct support by Russian military with insignia stripped from their uniforms must certainly make other nations uneasy, to say the least..

The fact is that there are no heroes in any of this, not the US, not Western Europe, not Russia, only the victims in an economic battle for superiority between the players. The attempts to make Russia out as a hero, or to paint Putin as standing alone defending his nation from the rapacious advance of the West is simply a false meme. Putin is a murderer, and ,while our own nation suffers under the
"leadership" of a quite possibly mentally unbalanced president, this is not by any means a black and white issue. It is, instead, the result of unbridled ,unchecked capitalism in action in which all parties are villains

 

Akamai

(1,779 posts)
5. Good for you! I think if everyone listened to Thom Hartmann, the Democrats would be further ahead by far!
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 09:41 PM
Aug 2017

He also teaches people the way to argue with right wing wackos, points out the fallacies of the right wing nuts/the top 1% billionaires, etc.

His guests are oftentimes truly amazing, such as Jimmy Carter who four years ago said that our country is not a democracy anymore but is an oligopoly.

NRaleighLiberal

(59,940 posts)
29. so many efforts to make everything starkly black and white issues, but things are much
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 10:51 PM
Aug 2017

more complex and nuanced.

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)
4. Does he still have a relationship with RT (Putin's propaganda tv station)?
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 09:41 PM
Aug 2017

Last I heard he was carried on RT and accepting payment from them.

I have ZERO interest in listening to a Russian propagandist masquerading as a "Progressive". Russia is our enemy. Accepting money from their state run media is a no-no in my book.

I wonder if his payments from Russian state media played any role in his advancement of Bernie.

Response to NightWatcher (Reply #4)

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)
8. You didn't answer my question. Does he still work for Russian propaganda?
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 09:44 PM
Aug 2017

If so, he's not your friend and you're being played.

Maraya1969

(22,441 posts)
32. He still works for RT eom
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 10:58 PM
Aug 2017

Oh, and the broken NATO promise seems to be a hoax. Sorry I don't have the link, I just came upon it looking up the other information

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
43. It's not a hoax, its quite a complicated situation.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 04:35 AM
Aug 2017

Here's a NATO article about it.

http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2014/Russia-Ukraine-Nato-crisis/Nato-enlargement-Russia/EN/index.htm

Basically there was no written agreement, but no-one is completely sure exactly what was said between the Russians and the west during the countless conversations leading up to the Soviet dissolution. Promises may have been made in the context of German re-unification that were misunderstood, or the west may have chosen to disregard some promises by painting them as only made in that context.

Gorbachev later said:

"The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled."

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

Which would seem to support NATOs position. The Russians have been pushing the narrative about broken promises for many years though, and it's widely accepted by the Russian people which leaves us in a situation where even if we're technically in the right, it doesn't necessarily help us much. Especially when the Russians can build a convincing case that having a potentially hostile organization right on their doorstep is a major threat to their national security. When they were still recovering from the Soviet breakup it didn't matter that much what they thought, but now they're strengthening and its becoming a serious issue again. Superpowers generally need bufferzones to avoid conflict, which is one reason the Russians and Chinese fought some fairly significant border wars during the Cold War.

Putin being so aggressive and expansionist is making it hard to have any sympathy for the Russian position, but I think in time we will probably have to start considering again how Russia perceived the situation. If we don't then it will probably be impossible to avoid conflict. The trouble of course is how to guarantee the independance of those border states like Ukraine if they're not under the NATO umbrella. We also can't make the Baltic states leave NATO (nor should we).

FreepFryer

(7,077 posts)
51. THAT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL NATO PIECE. NATO REVIEW IS INDEPENDENT OPINION.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 07:16 AM
Aug 2017

Your post above glossing over of important facts and positing two opinion pieces as comparable to a Brookings piece that quotes Gorbachev himself definitively on the matter strikes me as deceptive and intellectuallly dishonest.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
61. Good for you.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 07:29 AM
Aug 2017

Personally I find people trying to drill down a hugely complex relationship between two countries into a simple 'they told a lie!' position to be vacuous and naive, but hey we all have our opinions.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
157. That is obviously not what that poster did
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 12:31 PM
Aug 2017

No you obviously have no interest in understanding any complexities or even the basic facts. Your response here demonstrates that clearly.


yardwork

(61,418 posts)
54. "No one is completely sure what was said..."
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 07:19 AM
Aug 2017

This is bullshit, made up to make us feel sympathy for Russia.

And a ridiculous attack on Bill Clinton too.

I can't believe anybody falls for this. THIS is why we have Trump.

 

Akamai

(1,779 posts)
9. Sorry--I will respond further. You think everyone supporting Bernie is doing the bidding of the Russians?
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 09:44 PM
Aug 2017

You think everyone supporting Bernie in the first place doesn't want what's best for America?

But, as I said, I think you're full of night soil. (As you may know, this is excrement that farmers scattered on the feels to feed their crops.)

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)
18. You still didn't answer. Is he working for RT?
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 09:49 PM
Aug 2017

Now go ahead and refuse to answer while you repeat your lame poop joke.

Russia is our enemy and has attacked our Democracy. Falling for propaganda makes you gullible.

Now go repeat your poop joke and refuse to answer.

lapucelle

(18,040 posts)
33. Yes, Thom Hartmann still works for RT
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 11:00 PM
Aug 2017

His show is called The Big Picture. It's the "hottest political show" that you've never heard of. From the RT website:

The hottest political show in the US finds new home with RT. The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann tackles the latest in political news, debates, commentary and more. From local, to national and international nothing will escape Thom Hartmann view. Thom Hartmann is a NY Times bestselling and 4-times project Censored winning author of over twenty books and America's #1 progressive radio host. His program is heard daily on hundreds of stations; including SiriusXM, DirectTV, Dish Network, Dial-Global, Pacifica, and Free Speech TV, broadcast live from the US and on five continents. Watch The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann on RT America weeknights at 7:00pm and 10:00pm Eastern Time.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
76. Of course. That's the whole point of this
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 07:44 AM
Aug 2017

Thank goodness we have the Kremlin's propaganda network to tell us how misunderstood they are and justify the invasion of a sovereign nation because they felt so threatened by not controlling Black Sea oil.


https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/world/europe/in-taking-crimea-putin-gains-a-sea-of-fuel-reserves.html

You know what else threatens Putin? Democracy, freedom of speech, and the concern that Americans might not be persuaded to put Russia's interests before their own. Enter RT.

 

shanny

(6,709 posts)
124. Invading sovereign nations and
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 10:29 AM
Aug 2017

messing with other people's internal politics and elections is certainly something no democracy would ever do.

Obviously.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
138. Autocracy
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 11:42 AM
Aug 2017

That you refer to a despot that systematically murders political opponents as presiding over a democracy says a great deal.

No where did I say the US or other democracies had not invaded sovereign nations. Nor would I justify it. But the game of using one atrocity to give cover for many the world over ensures mass murders operate with impunity. But now that Putin and his wannabe despot in the White House have set about to destroy the post-WWII alliances, wars will almost certainly increase, acording to plan.

Clearly the idea that one might oppose invasions regardless of nation perpetrating them is lost on you.

Interesting some who claim to be anti-war manage to go to great lengths to justify Russia's wars. Apparently they think killing a positive good as long as it's not done by the he US. So much so they devote themselves to ensuring Russia be able to kill without repercussion. Their pretense of moral opposition to war evaporates when killings are perpetrated by despots, especially RW, genocidal despots. The lives of civilians simple don't matter if their killers are not American.
That same hatred for humanity, and the poor and vulnerable particular, is why they so eagerly worked to install a fascist in the White House. A democracy that invades countries is abhorrent, but mass murder by a fascist autocracy, that must be promoted at all costs.

Whereas peace activists denounce war regardless of the nation committing it, the champions of the mass mustering and genocidal despots of the world--Putin, Assad, Kim Jong Ill, etc. . --object only to war only at the hand of the US, under democracy that is. I have no doubts they will eagerly justify the wars that their fearless Fuhrer Trump executes. The genocides of world history, past and ongoing, would not be possible without their active support.


Gothmog

(144,005 posts)
152. I really do not think that we should care about the Russian viewpoint
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 12:13 PM
Aug 2017

Russia hacked our elections and elected trump. There is no justification for such actions

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
156. I think it's fine, even good, to learn about the
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 12:22 PM
Aug 2017

Motives of adversaries. But to accept blatant propaganda efforts promoted in order to justify their attack on our democracy is repugnant. If people want to learn, let them read some foreign relations publications. They don't have to accept propaganda from an entertainer on the Kremlin payroll.

And using a Clinton avatar to spread this stuff reeks.

SalviaBlue

(2,910 posts)
105. Thom is also on Free Speech TV saying exactly the same thing as on RT.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 09:16 AM
Aug 2017

Does that make FSTV a Russian propaganda tool? Amy Goodman - Democracy Now?

He is also in Progress on SiriusXM are they Russian propaganda?

You may have no interest in listening to Hartmann but if you did you might reassess your accusations.

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)
108. Good point, maybe we should start a campaign to get him removed from other outlets
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 09:26 AM
Aug 2017

Since he's a paid propagandist.

Does Amy Goodman cash Putin's checks?

I don't listen to Sirius, so their lefties cash Putin's checks too?

I don't need to listen to him any more. I was a daily listener for years and even communicated back and forth with him years ago about a story he covered that I had knowledge of.

Russia is our enemy and anyone who receives money to put out stories on their behalf is an enemy as well. If you want to listen, that's fine but watch out, as you let it into your head it will change your opinions, especially if you are unaware that you are being played.

SalviaBlue

(2,910 posts)
127. If I used your logic about what I "let in my head"...
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 10:56 AM
Aug 2017

I wouldn't be able to hear anything.

I trust my critical thinking skills to guide me through the maze of information coming at me.

If you need to limit the information you receive, do it.

This vilification of Thom Hartmann because his show, which is on many progressive formats, is also on RT is ridiculous. If he is guilty by association then so are we all (well maybe not you since you apparently don't allow anything in your head that might change your opinion).

FreepFryer

(7,077 posts)
7. Putinist fable, debunked by Brookings... (n/t)
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 09:43 PM
Aug 2017
Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No”

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

Western leaders never pledged not to enlarge NATO, a point that several analysts have demonstrated. Mark Kramer explored the question in detail in a 2009 article in The Washington Quarterly. He drew on declassified American, German and Soviet records to make his case and noted that, in discussions on German reunification in the two-plus-four format (the two Germanys plus the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France), the Soviets never raised the question of NATO enlargement other than how it might apply in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR).

When one reads the full text of the Woerner speech cited by Putin, it is clear that the secretary general’s comments referred to NATO forces in eastern Germany, not a broader commitment not to enlarge the Alliance.

FORMER SOVIET PRESIDENT GORBACHEV’S VIEW

We now have a very authoritative voice from Moscow confirming this understanding. Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev, who was Soviet president during the discussions and treaty negotiations concerning German reunification. The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”



https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

FreepFryer

(7,077 posts)
17. My pleasure. When a man uses a Putinist lie to claim he's not a tool of Putin, ya gotta wonder. (nt)
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 09:49 PM
Aug 2017

FreepFryer

(7,077 posts)
48. Even your blog link reinforces my (and Brookings and Gorbachev's) simple point.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 06:49 AM
Aug 2017
From the OP:
Thom said that with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Reagan worked out an agreement with the Soviets that if the USSR dissolved itself without violence, etc., then we would never put active NATO forces on the Russia's borders. (THIS IS FALSE)


From your link:
Yet even these additional sources do not change the fundamental conclusion: there have never been political or legally binding commitments of the West not to extend NATO beyond the borders of a reunified Germany.


That is the salient point that the OP and Hartmann both have dead wrong. With this story, Hartmann is perpetuating a Putinist lie.
 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
58. You're missing the point.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 07:27 AM
Aug 2017

It doesn't matter if there was a legally binding agreement made. Up to a point it doesn't even matter whether the promise was made. What matters is that in the midst of a hugely chaotic time a misunderstanding took place (or was manipulated later to give that impression) and now it's basically accepted truth to the Russian people. That matters because it will shape all future interactions.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
63. This isn't a pre-school morality lesson. Countries and leaders lie all the damn time.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 07:31 AM
Aug 2017

All that matters is the situation we now find ourselves in, and finding an outcome that is least likely to result in hundreds of millions of incinerated and irradiated corpses.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
69. Oh right, so we didn't lie about a flimsy reason for invading Iraq for instance?
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 07:34 AM
Aug 2017

Leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

FreepFryer

(7,077 posts)
67. Wrong. You don't use a lie to communicate a truth. FULL STOP.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 07:33 AM
Aug 2017

Don't lie, condescend, shifti arguments, nor mischaracterize sources, if you want to convince Americans of a point.

You, the OP and Hartmann have falsely represented the argument, evidence and sources.

Whatever point you want to make it starts with apologizing and stopping such dishonesty.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
73. Why do you think they give a damn about convincing Americans of anything?
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 07:38 AM
Aug 2017

It was a tactic to convince the Russian people, not the American people. It worked, its not established truth in Russia.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
80. Better to go the 'with us or against us' route and just call them liars?
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 08:19 AM
Aug 2017

Don't get me wrong, Putin clearly is, but this needs to be handled sensitively and carefully.

FreepFryer

(7,077 posts)
84. Sensitive and careful means not mischaracterizing sources or shifting topics - as you have done.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 08:28 AM
Aug 2017

Again, don't condescend to explain international relations to me.

FreepFryer

(7,077 posts)
88. Perhaps so, when the OP is based on a lie but you still want to perpetuate the idea.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 08:32 AM
Aug 2017

Doesn't make it right.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
93. Look personally I think the premise of the op IS untrue.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 08:38 AM
Aug 2017

I think Putin took advantage of the chaos to manipulate it to his own advantage. I can't however say 100% that it is definitely untrue. At the time Gorbachev was under a huge amount of pressure, and we don't know what he told the other Russian leaders about conversations he'd had in order to convince them. There's a gap there where I'd usually need to hear the accounts of the other relevant Russian Politburo members in order to try and work it out.

The likelihood though is that yes, it probably was. My interest is not in perpetuating it however, but getting people to understand that we're way past the point where it actually matters. The Russians believe it, and they believe they're a nation under seige by a belligerent west. I also think that's total fantasy on their part, but unless we accept that they believe it, we're not going to be able to find a way past it. If we can't understand their perspective then we're basically doomed to conflict.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
97. If you have no interest in a conversation and just want to play stupid games, then im out.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 08:46 AM
Aug 2017

I don't intentionally misrepresent sources, but I feel absolutely no need to apologize to you personally for anything.

OilemFirchen

(7,143 posts)
113. Perhaps disabusing them of the fantasy is better than perpetuating it.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 09:37 AM
Aug 2017

Maybe the host of a popular talk show on Russian television could help clear this up, rather than continuing to reinforce the fallacy?

snowybirdie

(5,191 posts)
131. I thought that
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 11:18 AM
Aug 2017

The fall of The USSR occurred during the Bush 1 administration. How did Reagan make any agreements on the fall of that country?

 

Akamai

(1,779 posts)
16. Did the Los Angeles Times retract its story? If so I would be very interested.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 09:48 PM
Aug 2017

Got any proof they did?

Igel

(35,197 posts)
35. It was op-ed.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 11:09 PM
Aug 2017

No retraction. At best there might be a correction, "In so-and-so's opinion piece he had this fact wrong."

A lot of people have cited op-ed pieces as objective fact. They're not fact checked the same way and the paper doesn't stand behind the opinions, unless (perhaps) it's the editorial board.

lapucelle

(18,040 posts)
38. It's not an article. It's an opinion piece.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 11:46 PM
Aug 2017

The LA Times did not "report" this as a story. It published it as an editorial back in May 2016. It's one man's opinion, he is neither an independent journalist nor on the staff of the newspaper, and it predates this year's troubling revelations.

"Op-Ed: Russia's got a point: The U.S. broke a NATO promise"

Newspapers do not correct or retract outside opinion pieces. You should be clearer about your sources. You wouldn't want to mislead people.

Caveat lector.

emulatorloo

(43,982 posts)
141. Op-eds are not news stories
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 11:57 AM
Aug 2017

Opinion pieces are opinions not reporting.

Stop being so disingenuous. Thank you

FreepFryer

(7,077 posts)
154. My pleasure. Glad so many are not falling for the whataboutism, deflection and topic-changing. (n/t)
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 12:16 PM
Aug 2017
 

Foamfollower

(1,097 posts)
10. Fuck Thom Hartmann and every last Putin puppet out there!
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 09:45 PM
Aug 2017

He's a puppet of Putin out to spread a dictator's venomous propaganda, nothing more.

Quanta

(195 posts)
12. Fuck Russia and the Bear they rode in on.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 09:45 PM
Aug 2017

Seriously. My own personal website is under constant hack attempts from .ru and my spam folder is full of "winks" and "glances" from Anya or Katya or who the fuck every damn day. They put that Anus faced Tangerine into office. I don't really give a fuck about their point of view. Assholes.

bluepen

(620 posts)
13. That was Sec. Baker, in GHWB's term.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 09:47 PM
Aug 2017

And there was violence. Soviet tanks rolled into Lithuania and Latvia in 1991 to put down democratic uprisings.

Good historical overview here: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1989-1992/collapse-soviet-union

Sounds like Thom needs a history lesson. Not that any of this should play into our handling of Putin's Russia today. The hell with Putin and Russia.

 

Trial_By_Fire

(624 posts)
15. Issues are always deeper than they appear...
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 09:47 PM
Aug 2017

Thom Hartmann points out the facts and history of past and current events that matter
greatly today.... And speaks of solutions.

He is on the side of America, society, Earth, and the people of Earth.

emulatorloo

(43,982 posts)
139. Can you explain Putin's murder of journalists and draconian anti-LGTB laws.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 11:44 AM
Aug 2017

I know that must be very 'complicated' as well, and since you are apparently a Putin expert I look forward to your thoughts

 

Trial_By_Fire

(624 posts)
140. Why on earth are you asking me to explain Putin?
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 11:52 AM
Aug 2017

Where did I ever say I am a Putin expert?

Your post make no sense...

emulatorloo

(43,982 posts)
145. "Issues are always deeper than they appear..."
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 12:03 PM
Aug 2017

You've explained other deep issues about Putin, so I wanted to get your take on Putin's murder of journalists and his draconian anti-LGBT laws.

CentralMass

(15,265 posts)
23. It looks like Thom knows who is buttering his bread.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 09:57 PM
Aug 2017

As someone of Polish heritage I would argue that last thing that we need to do is to weaken NATO and enable Russia's bullying of and incursions into the Baltic States.


Letting Russia take what it wants so the ogliarchs and the crooked government that they've bought can make a killing on oil profits while they rape the environment and people is unacceptable.

Here is a decent article on "NATO Balitic Problem"

http://hir.harvard.edu/article/?a=14502
"Even with the Baltic states shielded by Article V, Putin’s Russia still has the will and the means to attack one or more of them. While all three Baltic states are threatened, the likely first target of Russian aggression is Latvia, as Moscow already started to destabilize it along ethnic lines. Similar to the case of Ukraine, Putin has pointed to the disenfranchisement of many ethnic Russians in eastern Latvia and the 38 percent of Latvians who claim Russian as their mother tongue as justifications for Moscow’s influence in Latvian affairs. While one cannot predict for certain what a Russian incursion would entail, Russia may attempt to exert influence over part or all of Latvia, either through covert support of a kind of coup (a Latvian member of the European Parliament was accused of operating for Russia in 2014) or a more complete military invasion. "

tavernier

(12,322 posts)
57. Solid truth.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 07:23 AM
Aug 2017

It's a daily thing the Latvians have lived with since Putin. The Russians who reside there even started to pick fights with me when I visited, knowing I was Latvian-American.

They desecrate Latvian monuments and the graves of war heroes riddling the tombstones with bullet holes. I saw plenty of that and observed all sorts of mischief that no doubt was organized by the Putinists.

Russia has always desired Riga. Location is everything, but when they occupied Latvia after the war, they pillaged and plundered and turned it into a pig sty.

Thom can sing for his supper all day long but I'm not listening to any of his tunes.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
25. Follow the money....
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 10:02 PM
Aug 2017

Thom is paid by Putin.

Not surprising to me he might lean to a Russian version of events.

GulfCoast66

(11,949 posts)
26. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you...
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 10:19 PM
Aug 2017

That someone who earns their considerable income on RT would spread lies to generate support for Putin.

It would be wise to view with suspicion anything that this clown supports.

GulfCoast66

(11,949 posts)
30. You got me...
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 10:53 PM
Aug 2017

This is a fact based community and I have no idea how much or little the man makes. My mistake. How about I try again.

I am shocked, shocked I tell you,

That someone who is totally dependent on the good graces of the Russian government to continue his show would lie to defend Putin's Russia.

Everything Hartmann espouses should be view with suspicion since it has the buy-off of the Russian Government.

Is that better? Would you care to comment on the main point of my post or would you rather deflect to something else? After all, you do believe that Putin, who pretty much controls everything in Russia not only can control RT but also interfered in our elections to aid Trump, correct?

Have a nice evening.



 

Trial_By_Fire

(624 posts)
128. "totally dependent on the good graces of the Russian government to continue his show"
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 10:57 AM
Aug 2017

Again, how do you know that? Do you have access to his finances? Please provide a link.

But, to your 'main point': Tell me what Hartmann has ever said on his shows that have a 'I am indebted to
Russia/Putin so I have to lie for them" slant. Come on, tell me.

I have been listening to Thom Hartmann for 13 years - he is only pro-Democrat and pro-America.

What does Hartmann say that gives you so much problems...?

Hard to believe someone when they make up stories about someone's financial status as you have with Hartmann.

GulfCoast66

(11,949 posts)
171. His platform is provided by the Russian government
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 11:29 PM
Aug 2017

I cannot imagine why the Russian government would look favorably on hosting a left wing show that spends as much time attacking the Democratic Party as it does the republicans, can you? Hope I do not need the sarcasm thingy.

In my opinion if any negative feelings you have towards the Democratic Party or their candidates have been stirred up or in any way supported by the Useful Idiots broadcasting there you have been played by Putin.

Any Americans appearing on that show are there with the approval of the Russian government. If you still defend them then we will just have to agree to disagree

Certainly you agree Russia interfered with our election, correct? Why would RT not be part of that?

Have a nice evening.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
34. Why should we take seriously any piece coming from the Russian propaganda network RT,
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 11:01 PM
Aug 2017

even if the mouthpiece is Thom Hartmann?

Igel

(35,197 posts)
36. Because we have this view that opinions and perceptions are important.
Mon Aug 7, 2017, 11:16 PM
Aug 2017

They govern how a person acts, even if their perceptions are incorrect. It's the first thing you have to square away before you can have a conversation on a topic--what are the facts?

In this case, what he says accurately reflects, from what I can tell, the Russian side. That's the starting place, along with a few other tidbits--like the widespread belief that the US was responsible for the USSR's collapse (specifically the CIA or other intelligence services undermining the "legitimate" government). Just look at the fake news about what Albright *didn't* say about Russia having too many resources and that it should be broken up.

There's always a reason to read propaganda, at least when it's not too repetitive. It may not tell the truth. Sometimes it tells the other side's "truth", i.e., their perceptions or goals. Sometimes it merely tells you what the other side wants you to think. Often in so doing, they tell you something they didn't think they were saying.

And sometimes even when it's repetitive, small changes mean something. (Every time Brezhnev did something remotely reportable there was this long string of titles and functions listed in Izvestiya. Grand Marshall of the Soviet Union, president, blah-blah-blah-blah. But if something happened and that list changed--added something or lost something--it was meaningful. Sometimes a lot, sometimes it just meant an editor was about to be fired.)

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
46. It's not as simple as truth or lie.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 04:46 AM
Aug 2017

It's a really complex situation where we're not sure exactly who said what, and whether promises were made in the context of German re-unification that were misunderstood by some in Russia. Gorbachev denies it, but we also don't know what Gorbachev told people back in Russia to help support the argument for the Soviet dissolution. It's also possible of course that it was simply twisted by Putin to suit his goals. Either way most Russians now believe it, and thats a situation we have to consider very carefully.

We can't deal with Russia as a simple black or white, right and wrong, good vs evil situation. They're not back to being the power they were as the Soviet Union, but they're growing in strength and unless we find a way to live with them we could end up in another World War.

The Russian people have spent years having this narrative of dangerous NATO creeping up on them, and constant propaganda preparing them for the possibility of war against the west. Although it seems like the most difficult time to do it in the midst of them meddling in our elections, we need to find a route towards de-escalation. If we don't, then hundreds of millions of people could die.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
66. Really? We're going to give other countries lessons about not telling lies?
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 07:32 AM
Aug 2017

As for pearl clutching, in the last century we came within seconds of nuclear obliteration on multiple occasions. Sorry if the potential deaths of hundreds of millions of people is not important enough to hold your attention.

FreepFryer

(7,077 posts)
70. You should work as hard at being factual as you do at deflection.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 07:35 AM
Aug 2017

Again, you condescend and deflect. The OP isn't about the overall nuclear threat, its about whether the US agreed not to expand NATO, and both you and the OP provided false information to back up your claim.

Just stop. You are making Russia look worse, not better.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
83. In terms of geo-politics, no, objective truth doesn't always mean shit.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 08:28 AM
Aug 2017

How about the objective truth of us overthrowing democratically elected regimes in S.America to help protect the profits of US food corporations? How about us overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran so we could continue to control the oil? How about us invading Iraq on a bullshit made up pretext to funnel billions to arms manufacturers and contractors? You think we have some kind of fucking moral highground to stand on? Most of what we've done for the last century or more has been based on lies.

More importantly, why do you think Russia is our enemy? What exactly makes a country of eastern Europeans/Asians this huge enemy? Do you know many Russians? They're absolutely lovely warm, welcoming people. What they are though (and often with good reason) is a nation with deep paranoia. They feel threatened as a country easily and can be a terrible enemy if you push them against the wall.

If you need a quick reminder, the first aggression between the US and the Soviets was by us not them. We invaded them at the end of WW1 to try and help the Tzars. We don't hear about it much because it was a complete failure. There have been faults on both sides, and now we end up in a situation where we either shout 'ENEMY!!' and increase the chances of a huge and costly war, or we de-escalate and look for ways to try and bridge the gaps that divide us. I know which I'd prefer.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
87. So other countries should be expected to just forget our sins
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 08:32 AM
Aug 2017

Because we only want to focus on theirs? Ok then..

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
159. Nope, never excuses for his crimes.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 12:48 PM
Aug 2017

I don't accept whataboutism when it comes to the relations between two countries though. Take Iran for a perfect example of why that is true.

emulatorloo

(43,982 posts)
170. "But whatabout Iran?"
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 08:11 PM
Aug 2017

Changing the subject again.

I think very highly of you and really love your posts, but it seems like maybe you're not conscious of the whataboutisms you're doing.

------

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Whataboutism is a propaganda technique formerly used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world, and subsequently used as a form of propaganda in post-Soviet Russia. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.

------
The Trump Team uses Whataboutism a lot; when asked about Trump statements or Policy the first words out of their mouths are "But whatabout Hillary?" Or "But what about Obama?" It is a way to deflect and not answer the question.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
174. The point I was trying to make (probably not very well)
Wed Aug 9, 2017, 04:51 AM
Aug 2017

Is that sometimes prior actions are actually relevant, rather than an attempt to deflect responsibility. The reason I mentioned Iran was because its a good example of this in action. Most of the American hatred/fear of the Iranians comes from the hostage crisis. What's not usually considered/known however is that the hostage crisis was a direct consequence of the US/British overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian leader and the installation of a puppet ruler who kept Iran in a state of oppression and terror for 25 years with the use of a vicious state police.

Now if the topic was the hostage crisis and someone brings up the coup, is that whataboutism? Of course not, how could it be? Bringing up the coup doesn't justify the hostage crisis (or the autocratic theocratic regime or the years of terrorism sponsoring by that regime) but it does provide the context in which those events took place.

When we look at Russia, we have to look at our relations with Russia going back many decades because otherwise we won't understand how we came to be where we are, and more importantly we might miss the opportunity to find solutions. It's not an attempt to deflect blame or let them off the hook, but without the full picture and an understanding of the various motivations involved, we aren't going to reach any kind of understanding.

Anyway, I'm probably waffling on too much, so I'll leave it here.

emulatorloo

(43,982 posts)
176. Bottom line to me is US voters in 2016 did nothing to "deserve" Putin's interference
Wed Aug 9, 2017, 12:09 PM
Aug 2017

Thanks for the long reply and I get now that you aren't saying that. It was a great post.

However I do see people here and Reddit claim that the US "deserves" it and so Putin's manipulation of the election is just deserts. People get trapped in binary thinking I'm afraid. The west did bad things, therefore poor poor Russia.


I certainly agree that we need to know history/context. We'll just keep doing dumb stuff if we don't.

 

CanSocDem

(3,286 posts)
103. Well said.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 09:14 AM
Aug 2017


From a Canadian perspective, there is certainly NO DIFFERENCE between the lies of the Kremlin and the lies of the White House. And we are always 'on guard' for American expansionism on the economic front, that is fueled by the lies and propaganda of the American oligarchy.

Thom Hartmann is on our side. We roll our eyes and sigh when the so-called American "left" takes up the fight of the oligarchs and throws another progressive voice under the bus.


"You think we have some kind of fucking moral high ground to stand on? Most of what we've done for the last century or more has been based on lies." Indeed!


.
 

Foamfollower

(1,097 posts)
107. Fuck Russia. They are our enemy and they declared WAR on us.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 09:21 AM
Aug 2017

And yes, objective truth is all that matters in EVERYTHING!

They implemented an act of war by hacking our election.

WE ARE AT WAR WITH RUSSIA! THEY ARE OUR MORTAL ENEMIES!!!!!

Those who give aid and comfort to that enemy are TRAITORS!

That is the objective truth and all that matters where Russia is concerned.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
109. If I wanted to read flag waving RAR RAR RAR crap, I'd go to FreeRepublic
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 09:27 AM
Aug 2017

We're not at war, and to hear Democrats banging war drums like this is deeply disappointing, we're supposed to be better than that.

 

Foamfollower

(1,097 posts)
116. We ARE at war regardless of your denials.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 09:40 AM
Aug 2017

If I wanted to read Russian propaganda, I'd go to RT or Pravda.

Either that, or I'd read anything Thom Hartmann writes.

A cyber war is still a war and it is a hot war because computers can be used as weapons, and the Russians started this war.

So to hell with traitors like Hartmann, they deserve the fate of ALL traitors.

emulatorloo

(43,982 posts)
132. whataboutism,shoving words in other DU'ers mouths
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 11:24 AM
Aug 2017

does not become you, Kentonio. Your a great guy. Too good of a guy to become a knee-jerk Putin apologist.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
144. Look I don't want to put words in anyone's mouths
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 12:00 PM
Aug 2017

Or end up insulting people. I do though become really uncomfortable when I hear people talking away enemies and war like that. How many times have we been here before, and each time its ended horribly with lots of innocent people suffering. I just want people to take a deep breath and look at the bigger picture. That doesn't mean letting the Russian regime off the hook for their crimes by any means, but shouting about war doesn't help anyone.

MrsCoffee

(5,801 posts)
94. Fuck Russian propaganda.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 08:43 AM
Aug 2017

Fuck RT and their lackeys. Fuck Russia. Fuck Putin. Fuck Hartmann. Fuck Stein. Fuck Flynn. Fuck Cenk. Fuck Trump.

Fuck all that propagandic bullshit.

You might have gotten away with this shit last year, but people here will not fall for it again.

Please stop.





MrsCoffee

(5,801 posts)
119. I'm saying that the crap people were buying last year ain't selling this year.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 09:56 AM
Aug 2017

No matter who is trying to sell it.

OnDoutside

(19,908 posts)
42. But but Thom has creative independence to discuss anything
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 04:05 AM
Aug 2017

He wants....that will make Putin happy !!!

Tactical Peek

(1,204 posts)
41. The linked op-ed does not mention Reagan at all.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 02:57 AM
Aug 2017

He was not President in 1990, which was the year the negotiations mentioned took place.

DFW

(54,056 posts)
45. One part I don't get
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 04:44 AM
Aug 2017

"Thom said that with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Reagan worked out an agreement with the Soviets that if the USSR dissolved itself without violence, etc., then we would never put active NATO forces on the Russia's borders."

Reagan left office in January 1989. The Soviet Union broke apart in 1991, and certainly didn't plan on it as far back as three years before.

nocalflea

(1,387 posts)
68. Bullshit, bullshit, and more Russian bullshit .
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 07:33 AM
Aug 2017

It's nonsensical to believe that Reagan would have made such a promise to a country he utterly distrusted.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
75. How Nice for a man paid by RT
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 07:41 AM
Aug 2017

To encourage sympathy for Russia and its interference in our democracy.

That Russia is angered by the expansion of NATO is hardly new. Henry Kissinger has talked about. Everyone familiar with Russia has talked about it. The only remarkable thing is that you pretend it is a revelation because a radio host paid by a propaganda organ of the Kremlin feels it necessary to convince his listeners (why they include anyone escapes me) to fell sympathy for Russia.

I don't know that Reagan promised Russia any such thing but I sure as hell am not taking the Kremlin's word for it. Any number of foreign policy experts can address it.
ETA: a poster about e points out the talks in question were in 1990, which means they could not have included Reagan. File that one under disinformation.

This puts to rest the claim that Hartman's being paid by a propaganda arm of the Kremlin doesn't influence his show. You have proven beyond any doubt that he is willing to do the Kremlin's bidding. The question is why you are so eager to further their reach by posting this here, under the absurd pretense that what is literally the one thing any marginally-informed person (such as myself) knows about the motivations for Russia's posture toward the West.

Interesting choice for an avatar.


 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
81. Come on, Reagan wasn't even President by then
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 08:19 AM
Aug 2017

When your propaganda is crafted so badly that you can't even get basic facts like who is president right it speaks volumes.

It's just plain sad that anyone is ignorant of such recent history to the point they believe or repeat such obviously false propaganda coming from the Russians.

dembotoz

(16,739 posts)
89. Wish folks would try to understand Russia's viewpoint
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 08:32 AM
Aug 2017

Not right not wrong but there are reasons they are the way they are.

Looks like they learned the hard way not to trust anything a republican says...hell half this damn country still trusts them and they fucking live here

Take a moment to learn about the rest of the world

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
98. FFS dude....
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 08:52 AM
Aug 2017

I DO understand their point of view. Putin and his ilk want to restore Soviet glory. They want to reimpose hegemony over Eastern Europe, which, surprise, surprise, mostly doesn't WANT to be Russian subject states.

Russia would be irrelevant, except for its nuclear weapons. It has an economy smaller that Italy. Let that sink in a minute.

It is not the world power the way it wants to be seen. The only way it gets taken seriously is as a security threat.

nini

(16,670 posts)
104. They gave us trump
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 09:16 AM
Aug 2017

Fuck them and anyone who wants to promote their propaganda. Hartmann was always a bit too pure for me to the point he was tin foil to me way too much. Now this?? Pfft. No thanks

dembotoz

(16,739 posts)
117. Not saying I support them just saying stop chanting USA USA for a moment and pull Ur head
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 09:53 AM
Aug 2017

Out of Ur ass

In college I took European history instead of us history.
There is soooooooo much we are not taught here

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
155. One does not learn history through RT
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 12:18 PM
Aug 2017

or any propaganda organ or entertainment media/news outlet. One learns history through the historic method. Academic historians teach how to understand and analyze history. They teach how to evaluate sources and evidence. Uncritical acceptance of random posts on the web is not history. Being able to evaluate the reliability of sources and interpretations is indispensable to understanding history.

This is how democracy dies, a public that lacks the ability or even desire to distinguish fact from fiction or propaganda from evidence. That it is disseminated in order to justify Russia's interference in elections, installing Trump and trying to install other white nationalists in office throughout the West, is particularly pernicious. That such intent doesn't concern you is troubling.

Some of what is posted--Russia's resentment toward NATO--is very basic international relations, something that arises in virtually every discussion of US-Russian relations, whether by Henry Kissinger, a neo-con, liberal globalist, or random college student. The "history" part of it is fabricated. Reagan could not have promised to expand NATO in 1990 because he was not in office. It's amateur propaganda.

dembotoz

(16,739 posts)
165. Never said u did...just saying understanding why Russia is the way it is is useful
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 04:10 PM
Aug 2017

I will not agree with what they say or do often but to Know why and how is useful.
We need to study them as much as they study us.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
143. This is the most common knowledge
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 12:00 PM
Aug 2017

There is nothing new or interesting about this, other than that the fabrication that Reagan promised not to expand NATO.

Kissinger has talked about Russia's aversion to NATO expansion for decades. Christ. What's to learn? The point of this post is to justify interference in our election. It comes from a Kremlin propaganda outfit.

That you think there is anything to learn here boggles the mind. People can walk past the door of an international relations lecture and pick this up. Or catch an odd episode of Charlie Rose. They don't need to consume Kremlin propaganda.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,705 posts)
90. I stopped reading at the first sentence.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 08:33 AM
Aug 2017

Those nations asked to become part of NATO of their own volition. Russia doesn't get a cordon sanitaire.

And with all due respect Hartmann's perspective is far from novel. The Russians have been braying about capitalist encirclement as an excuse for their expansionism since the 1918 Revolution.

Caliman73

(11,694 posts)
150. That is a majorly significant point.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 12:09 PM
Aug 2017

There would be no reason to make a binding agreement with Russia about not expanding NATO, especially if countries like Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, etc... were to ask for NATO membership.

"Nope sorry guys, we can't accept you as members because we promised Russia we'd let them control you" That mentality on its face sound ridiculous.

I am not even saying that the US and NATO are great, or correct, or that they have not done shady things. I am not saying that Russia has not right to be concerned. What I am saying is that Russia is concerned only about their power and standing in the world and maintaining a sphere of influence that was negotiated during WWII, which was then almost immediately contested and has been since then. Russia did not have the political strength or economic strength to maintain their grasp on many of their former satellites and those countries approached NATO for assistance in maintaining their independence from Russia.

I think that the reverse is also true. There were many popular uprisings in Central and South America in the 70's and 80's and the US was wrong to train right wing death squads to subvert those movements.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,705 posts)
158. Thank you.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 12:44 PM
Aug 2017

And here's another significant point. Why is Russia meddling in European elections and why did they clandestinely support the reactionary forces behind Brexit?



Hartmann has many of the same bogus arguments as Stephen Cohen: Russia as perpetual victim.

Dave Starsky

(5,914 posts)
102. EVERY bad guy thinks they're in the right.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 09:08 AM
Aug 2017

That's how stage actors get into the heads of the villains they play. They consider how their characters have been wronged or are just getting what they deserve.

In the meantime, for breaking the seventh seal and unleashing this perverted shit demon and his wretched goblins on our country, FUCK Putin and the Russian oligarchy. And if he sympathizes with them, FUCK Thom Hartmann.

FSogol

(45,360 posts)
106. Choo-choo, Here comes the excuse train!
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 09:19 AM
Aug 2017

A Russian fairy tale starring Reagan!



Guess there is no sense in listening to Thom Hartman anymore. Those Russian $$$s seem to be having an effect.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
111. Hartmann sold his soul to the Devil far too cheaply.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 09:34 AM
Aug 2017

He made a poor bargain. Now, the Devil want's his part of the deal, and Thom is complying. Too bad. That's what happens...

yardwork

(61,418 posts)
114. He's a fool if he didn't get in on the billion dollar pipeline deal.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 09:38 AM
Aug 2017

Putin desperately wants those sanctions lifted. I expect to see a lot more "poor Russia" posts here.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,085 posts)
120. Ugh. Why do some need to 'splain away Putin?
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 10:03 AM
Aug 2017

He violated the sovereign borders of a neighboring country that he doesn't even like to admit exists apart from Russia.

Sorry, that's completely inexcusable, regardless of the NATO issue.

emulatorloo

(43,982 posts)
134. Putin's flying monkeys just gotta tell us how misunderstood he is
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 11:28 AM
Aug 2017

If only we understood we'd forgive him of his murderous thuggery.

still_one

(91,965 posts)
130. Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says No. Here are two articles for your purusal. One
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 11:01 AM
Aug 2017

from the Brookings' Institute, and the other from der Spiegel, If you read both articles, the Brookings' Institute one takes the position that there was no agreement that NATO would not expand, while der Spiegel makes it more ambiguous, it does not appear that what Putin is asserting, was put in writing:

"t is abundantly evident that Russian President Vladimir Putin is no fan of NATO. Indeed, he displays a pronounced—almost obsessive—antipathy toward the Alliance. He claims that NATO took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union to enlarge to its east, in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. But no such promises were made—a point now confirmed by someone who was definitely in a position to know: Mikhail Gorbachev, then president of the Soviet Union."
The West’s supposed violation of a pledge not to enlarge NATO has long figured as a key element in Putin’s narrative about (and against) the Alliance. In his bombastic February 2007 speech to the Munich Security Conference,

The Russian president returned to the subject in his March 18, 2014, Kremlin speech justifying Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea: “

........................

"Western leaders never pledged not to enlarge NATO, a point that several analysts have demonstrated. Mark Kramer explored the question in detail in a 2009 article in The Washington Quarterly. He drew on declassified American, German and Soviet records to make his case and noted that, in discussions on German reunification in the two-plus-four format (the two Germanys plus the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France), the Soviets never raised the question of NATO enlargement other than how it might apply in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR)."

"What the Germans, Americans, British and French did agree to in 1990 was that there would be no deployment of non-German NATO forces on the territory of the former GDR."

........

"When one reads the full text of the Woerner speech cited by Putin, it is clear that the secretary general’s comments referred to NATO forces in eastern Germany, not a broader commitment not to enlarge the Alliance"

".......We now have a very authoritative voice from Moscow confirming this understanding. Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev, who was Soviet president during the discussions and treaty negotiations concerning German reunification. The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years."

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

and here is the der Spiegel analysis:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html

One thing is clear, it is not as black and white as either side would have you believe



still_one

(91,965 posts)
162. What I find interesting is how Putin's thoughts on NATO coincide with Trumps. Since we all know
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 01:51 PM
Aug 2017

there was not any collusion with Russia or Trump, I am sure Trump's view on NATO are simply a coincidence




still_one

(91,965 posts)
133. It appears this asertion wasn't put into writing, however, one thing for certain is that Trump
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 11:27 AM
Aug 2017

campaigned that the U.S. should get out of NATO, and that lines up perfectly with Putin's view toward NATO


Bad Thoughts

(2,514 posts)
136. It was never made
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 11:34 AM
Aug 2017

According to Gorbachev,NATO expansion was never an issue that was discussed: new memberships for European nations can go forward. What was agreed to was preventing peacetime deployments into those nations that were once under the Soviet umbrella. Given Russian threats to those nations,it is Russia that is imperiling the agreement.

R B Garr

(16,920 posts)
160. lol, Russian TV promotes Russian propaganda.
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 12:49 PM
Aug 2017

Who couldn't figure that out. What Thom is doing is the definition of propaganda. Russia hacked our election. Thom and Russia have no credibility. That's not "progressive", it's just propaganda.

malaise

(267,824 posts)
167. Excellent post
Tue Aug 8, 2017, 06:43 PM
Aug 2017

The West does not keep promises. Check history.
The truth is Western powers interfere in elections across the planet. I try to be consistent - I condemn interference in all sovereign countries and do not seek excuses for one side or the other.
There are several DUers who have severe problems with Russian interference in US elections but still support American imperialism and the worst of American foreign policy.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»About Thom Hartmann--this...