General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAbout 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 Russias 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 NATOs 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 isnt enough to make Putin a saint, it suggests that the diagnosis of Russian predation isnt entirely fair. Europes stability may depend just as much on the Wests willingness to reassure Russia about NATOs limits as on deterring Moscows adventurism.
"After the Berlin Wall fell, Europes 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 Germanys western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATOs 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.
dhol82
(9,351 posts)I was not aware of the concessions that Reagan gave to Gorbatchev.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)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)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)have no broken deals with him.
IndieRick
(53 posts)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
yardwork
(61,418 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(59,940 posts)Akamai
(1,779 posts)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)more complex and nuanced.
yardwork
(61,418 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)How could you?
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)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)
Post removed
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)If so, he's not your friend and you're being played.
Maraya1969
(22,441 posts)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)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 wasnt brought up in those years.
Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATOs military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Bakers 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)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)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)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)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.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)yardwork
(61,418 posts)Akamai
(1,779 posts)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)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.
bluepen
(620 posts)lapucelle
(18,040 posts)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)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)messing with other people's internal politics and elections is certainly something no democracy would ever do.
Obviously.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)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.
shanny
(6,709 posts)FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Gothmog
(144,005 posts)Russia hacked our elections and elected trump. There is no justification for such actions
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)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.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)SalviaBlue
(2,910 posts)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)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)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).
womanofthehills
(8,584 posts)He has total editorial control over his program.
yardwork
(61,418 posts)NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)You're gullible if you believe that.
stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)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 generals comments referred to NATO forces in eastern Germany, not a broader commitment not to enlarge the Alliance.
FORMER SOVIET PRESIDENT GORBACHEVS 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 Bakers promise that NATO would not expand into the Eastbe legally encoded? Gorbachev replied: The topic of NATO expansion was not discussed at all, and it wasnt brought up in those years. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATOs military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Bakers 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/
dhol82
(9,351 posts)Thank you.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)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)
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)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.
yardwork
(61,418 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)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.
yardwork
(61,418 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people?
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)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)It was a tactic to convince the Russian people, not the American people. It worked, its not established truth in Russia.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Don't get me wrong, Putin clearly is, but this needs to be handled sensitively and carefully.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Again, don't condescend to explain international relations to me.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Doesn't make it right.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)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.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)I don't intentionally misrepresent sources, but I feel absolutely no need to apologize to you personally for anything.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Maybe the host of a popular talk show on Russian television could help clear this up, rather than continuing to reinforce the fallacy?
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)snowybirdie
(5,191 posts)The fall of The USSR occurred during the Bush 1 administration. How did Reagan make any agreements on the fall of that country?
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Akamai
(1,779 posts)Got any proof they did?
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Igel
(35,197 posts)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)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.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)Opinion pieces are opinions not reporting.
Stop being so disingenuous. Thank you
yardwork
(61,418 posts)FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Gothmog
(144,005 posts)Facts are better than Russian excuses and propaganda
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Foamfollower
(1,097 posts)He's a puppet of Putin out to spread a dictator's venomous propaganda, nothing more.
Quanta
(195 posts)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)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)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.
Foamfollower
(1,097 posts)yardwork
(61,418 posts)emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)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)Where did I ever say I am a Putin expert?
Your post make no sense...
emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)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.
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)Have a nice nap!
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)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, Putins 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 Moscows 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. "
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)tavernier
(12,322 posts)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)Thom is paid by Putin.
Not surprising to me he might lean to a Russian version of events.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)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.
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)Oh, and provide some proof please...
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)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)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)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.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)even if the mouthpiece is Thom Hartmann?
Igel
(35,197 posts)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.)
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)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.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)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)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.
yardwork
(61,418 posts)Foamfollower
(1,097 posts)Russia is our FUCKING ENEMY!!
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)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.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Because we only want to focus on theirs? Ok then..
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)And those people shot at my father - so fuck them.
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)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.
oasis
(49,152 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Got away with last year? Are you trying to accuse me of something?
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)No matter who is trying to sell it.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Maven
(10,533 posts)OnDoutside
(19,908 posts)He wants....that will make Putin happy !!!
Tactical Peek
(1,204 posts)He was not President in 1990, which was the year the negotiations mentioned took place.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)Say it ain't so!
DFW
(54,056 posts)"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.
eShirl
(18,466 posts)It's kind of sad, really. Oh well.
nocalflea
(1,387 posts)It's nonsensical to believe that Reagan would have made such a promise to a country he utterly distrusted.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)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)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)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
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)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)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)Out of Ur ass
In college I took European history instead of us history.
There is soooooooo much we are not taught here
yardwork
(61,418 posts)dembotoz
(16,739 posts)yardwork
(61,418 posts)I'll just leave it at that.
dembotoz
(16,739 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)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)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.
brooklynite
(93,873 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)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.
get the red out
(13,459 posts)Or the viewpoint of their thieving, murdering oligarchs?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)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)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)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.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)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)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)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)Putin desperately wants those sanctions lifted. I expect to see a lot more "poor Russia" posts here.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)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)If only we understood we'd forgive him of his murderous thuggery.
Coventina
(26,874 posts)still_one
(91,965 posts)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 pronouncedalmost obsessiveantipathy 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 madea point now confirmed by someone who was definitely in a position to know: Mikhail Gorbachev, then president of the Soviet Union."
The Wests supposed violation of a pledge not to enlarge NATO has long figured as a key element in Putins 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 Russias 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 generals 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 Bakers promise that NATO would not expand into the Eastbe legally encoded? Gorbachev replied: The topic of NATO expansion was not discussed at all, and it wasnt 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
Hekate
(90,202 posts)Thanks, still_one.
still_one
(91,965 posts)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)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)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.
emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)Gothmog
(144,005 posts)R B Garr
(16,920 posts)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.
stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)malaise
(267,824 posts)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.