The above clip seems like a lot, but is much more reasonable sounding when you listen to the full podcast, and understand the history and where Stone gets his ideas from. Anyway i found the full episode very interesting. Worth the listen if you have the time.


2:54 - Nuclear power
15:52 - Russia and US relations
21:07 - JFK and the Cold War
26:24 - Interviewing Putin
50:02 - Invasion of Ukraine
59:20 - Why Putin invaded Ukraine
1:13:44 - Propaganda
1:21:02 - Interviewing Putin in 2022
1:28:17 - Nuclear war
1:34:28 - Advice on interviewing
1:38:09 - Interviewing Hitler
1:41:30 - Putin interview language barrier

I'm suffering from serious confirmation bias on this because it agrees with a lot of what I heard around the 2014 revolution and since.

I was in Russia when they invaded Georgia in 2008. Specifically, I was staying with family in Ossetia, which is a mountain state that was split between Russia (North Ossetia) and Georgia (South Ossetia). Russia invaded because Georgia was attacking a Georgian town in South Ossetia. On the day of the invasion I was working in the mountains collecting water samples, and got a very close view of what was happening, got local confirmation of what was being reported, got to talk to refugees, etc.

Without going into it too much, when I got back to Ireland and saw what was being said and how it was being framed it was absolutely laughable and so obviously wrong. Some were worse than others - Sky News in the UK and Fox News being the worst offenders - but no major news media that I saw was giving the side of the story that I saw.

Also, when the UN report on what happened came out several years later it completely matched with my take on what happened.

The point of all this is that when the invasion happened earlier this year I knew there was no way I'd have the time or expertise to find out what's going on, even though I have friends and family in Ireland, Russia, and Ukraine. All sides are pushing their narrative hard. All sides are lying to us and manipulating us to the best of their ability. Depending on where you live you'll hear one side louder than the other, and the people around you will tend towards that narrative.

Personally I believe both sides have committed atrocities. I don't know who's been worse. I've seen both sides, including journalists, manipulating footage to support their narrative.

My only take on this is that invading a sovereign country is absolutely wrong except in extreme circumstances where every practical diplomatic means has been exhausted.

To come back to this video, my instinct was to promote it because it does seem to be a well informed take on the context of what's happening, but I've been hesitant because of my confirmation bias and because it muddies the message of "war is very very very bad".

Feck it, though. *promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, May 19th, 2022 8:05am PDT - promote requested by noims.

If you haven't seen it , this doc may interest you.

"Ukraine on Fire"

Across its eastern border is Russia and to its west-Europe. For centuries, it has been at the center of a tug-of-war between powers seeking to control its rich lands and access to the Black Sea. 2014's Maidan Massacre triggered a bloody uprising that ousted president Viktor Yanukovych and painted Russia as the perpetrator by Western media. But was it? "Ukraine on Fire" by Igor Lopatonok provides a historical perspective for the deep divisions in the region which lead to the 2004 Orange Revolution, 2014 uprisings, and the violent overthrow of democratically elected Yanukovych. Covered by Western media as a people's revolution, it was in fact a coup d'état scripted and staged by nationalist groups and the U.S. State Department. Investigative journalist Robert Parry reveals how U.S.-funded political NGOs and media companies have emerged since the 80s replacing the CIA in promoting America's geopolitical agenda abroad.

Can watch here if interested https://youtu.be/fCWBRg6_VsM

I don't believe this was ever about taking Ukraine with the Russian military. I believe this is about destroying Ukraine and squeezing Europe's energy-dependent balls until the EU cracks under the economic pressure caused by the sanctions. This is already happening with Germany whimpering to Daddy Vladdy for all that precious, precious oil and gas. "Oh, we gave Zelensky a billion euros!"; yeah, and you gave Putin 25x that in oil/gas purchases.

The mealy-mouthing and dissembling has already begun, most shamefully from the New York Times, who is calling for Ukraine to make "hard choices". "This isn't capitulation" -- fuck you NYT, yes it is.

I had honest hopes that the western powers would show some spine and resolve, but as soon at their economies started to feel a little pain, the number of fucks given for Ukrainian lives went to zero. Russian is going to rape and murder its way from Odessa to the Belarus border until the western powers figure out some way to make it all Zelensky's fault or force him to cede massive amounts of Ukrainian territory before any real economic pain felt.

The worst part is that Finland and Sweden are going to be granted NATO membership, but Ukraine still is denied. Why are these two the hills NATO is willing to die on and Ukraine not? If NATO isn't willing to risk nuclear war over Ukraine, what happens when the tip of a single Russian boot touches Finnish soil? What happens when Finland then calls for Article 5 and the rest of NATO suddenly realizes shit just got real? What happens when it's time to shit or get off the pot; put up or shut up? Either NATO charges into the teeth of a potential nuclear war, or NATO is shown to be a paper tiger. If someone sees a middle ground, I'm interested in hearing it.

(Incidentally, NATO's Article 5 is pretty porous. A-5 doesn't say every NATO nation commits whatever forces are deemed necessary by the whole to defend against an aggressor. Instead, it says that in the event of A-5 coming into play, each member will take "such action as [the member state] deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

Notice the whole 'each member' and 'deems necessary'? Yeah, to quote a popular movie 'I don't think this mutual defense pact means what you think it does'.)