Politics

[Red Leg]

@Red Leg, what is your take on this article and Oliver Stone’s point of view? Thanks!

Director Oliver Stone declares he 'made a mistake' when he voted for Biden, says he may start 'World War 3' — Fox News

Documentary filmmaker Oliver Stone spoke to commentator Russell Brand about America's political leadership, warning it is dangerously close to starting World War 3.

apple.news

First of all, unless it has to do with proper lighting to film a scene or editing the result, I could care less what Oliver Stone thinks about anything.

I believe he is simply wrong with respect to the 2014 revolution (an opinion he seems to hold with new right). The revolution was a continuation of protests that began when President Yanukovych, wanting closer ties with the Kremlin, broke with the Ukrainian parliament which had overwhelmingly passed legislation to begin a process that would lead to eventual EU membership. While I am sure the US intelligence services were happy with such a popular revolt, to dismiss it as the product of CIA manipulation is to somehow ignore Ukrainian sacrifices to achieve self-determination rather than live under the Russian boot heel.

The conspiracy crowd, of which Stone is a charter member, always amuse me. On the one hand the Nation's intelligence services are bumbling incompetents and in the next moment they are creating and leading popular resistance movements. I give a Euro-centric Ukrainian population a bit more credit.

Just to add a bit of evidence to his political confusion, he cites Nuland, Sullivan and Blinken as members of the "neo-conservative movement" who "remain deep inside our government." That would come as some shock to Max Boot and Bill Kristol.

And speaking of being caught in a Cold War paradigm, Stone needs to find a mirror. I am sick beyond tears of the notion that modern Russia has the right to somehow demand a subservient buffer zone around its borders. The Soviet Union could because it had the military presence and power to enforce it. Russia does not. FINLAND, with a nearly a thousand miles of border with Russia, is now a member of NATO. Whatever, argument Russia was hoping to make is irrevocably ended by the new reality.

Is this conflict perilous? Of course. So was the pending German invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Then, the West blinked and the worst war in the history of humankind resulted a year later. Thus far, the West has risen to this challenge in spite of the rhetoric of Stone, Carlson, MTG, Trump and their ilk.

 

[Doug3006]

The notion that Russia needs and somehow deserves a security zone also baffles me. Says who? Since 1959 we‘ve had to live with a communist dictatorship just 90 miles from our border. Cuba has been a steadfast enemy of the US the entire, bloody, 60 years it has existed. It has hosted Soviet nuclear missiles (albeit only a few months.) Castro was an active exporter of communist insurgence through the world, but especially in Latin America. Using Russian logic, we should immediately invade Cuba and install a puppet regime. Don’t we deserve our own “safe space?”

 

[sestoppelman]

The notion that Russia needs and somehow deserves a security zone also baffles me. Says who? Since 1959 we‘ve had to live with a communist dictatorship just 90 miles from our border. Cuba has been a steadfast enemy of the US the entire, bloody, 60 years it has existed. It has hosted Soviet nuclear missiles (albeit only a few months.) Castro was an active exporter of communist insurgence through the world, but especially in Latin America. Using Russian logic, we should immediately invade Cuba and install a puppet regime. Don’t we deserve our own “safe space?”

We do have a security zone between Cuba and the US. Its called 90 miles of ocean.

 

[Ray B]

the Ukrainian parliament which had overwhelmingly passed legislation to begin a process that would lead to eventual EU membership.

Rather than seeking inclusion with NATO, a primarily military organization moving to become part of the EU, an economy based organization would have two effects. One, it would lead to cultural exchange and development of relationships between Ukraine and the other EU countries, separating Ukraine ethnically over time from Russia. Secondly, it wouldn't have the sinister undertones for Russia that Ukraine as a staging area for military action against Russia would have. So it seems to me the EU would have less downside and more upside for Ukraine than NATO. At least it would have if that road had been chosen prior to the military actions of the last few years.

 

[Red Leg]

Rather than seeking inclusion with NATO, a primarily military organization moving to become part of the EU, an economy based organization would have two effects. One, it would lead to cultural exchange and development of relationships between Ukraine and the other EU countries, separating Ukraine ethnically over time from Russia. Secondly, it wouldn't have the sinister undertones for Russia that Ukraine as a staging area for military action against Russia would have. So it seems to me the EU would have less downside and more upside for Ukraine than NATO. At least it would have if that road had been chosen prior to the military actions of the last few years.

Unlike Switzerland, Cyprus, Malta, Ireland, and Austria (the only EU states not now members of NATO), Ukraine does not have the military luxury of a wall of NATO member states between them and Russia.

 

[WAB]

Rather than seeking inclusion with NATO, a primarily military organization moving to become part of the EU, an economy based organization would have two effects. One, it would lead to cultural exchange and development of relationships between Ukraine and the other EU countries, separating Ukraine ethnically over time from Russia. Secondly, it wouldn't have the sinister undertones for Russia that Ukraine as a staging area for military action against Russia would have. So it seems to me the EU would have less downside and more upside for Ukraine than NATO. At least it would have if that road had been chosen prior to the military actions of the last few years.

Personally, I don’t think the EU has much of a future. With the exit of the UK, you have only a few viable economies propping up a number of totally dependent states who refuse to address their fiscal irresponsibility. When you couple that with the rise in nationalism among certain states, the bureaucrats in Brussels have their work cut out for them to hold it together. However, failing to recognize the failed
Policies that drove the UK out, they continue to double down on social policies that will continue to fuel nationalistic fires.

I saw the formation of the EU, and I am beginning to believe that I will live to see the end of it.

 

[Ray B]

Just as a Gedanken Experiment I wonder what the result would be regarding the present Ukraine situation with the following changes:
1. The Biden family had no financial ties to Ukraine companies
2. Vice President Biden had not extorted Ukraine
3. President Biden had not made comments that encouraged Russian aggression
4. President Biden had kept in-place oil production policies that kept the price of oil "low"

in basic terms, removal of the numerous entanglements that prevent the uncluttered perspective of the situation from being seen.

 

[Zambezi]

Culture matters. There are many nice things to say about Africa, but there a few cultural deficits that are foreign to the West.

1.) The notion it is better to have all the wealth to strut upon a dung heap, rather than being wealthy by playing a value-added role in a thriving system.

2.) Nepotism is everything. Giving jobs to your cronies/tribe/family is customary, even if it destroys your business, government, or farm.

3.) Integrity and fidelity. In most of the native languages of southern Africa, they don't even have a native word for promise. When they say promise, it literally means in most languages to give it a shot.

4.) Taxation of the means of production. Whereas any greedy capitalist wants to be wealthier and instinctively knows to tax the end product (so there are many end products), Africa taxes production inputs discouraging the building of anything.

5.) Selling out your own. With racial and in-group bias being a native, natural human trait that is suppressed via reason in Western culture, Africa will destroy the next door tribe "just cuz". Going further, the strongmen will sell out their own tribe in favor of their family, and then ultimately just themselves.

It all makes for perennially terrible countries where a person cannot get ahead using cultural tactics that were naturalized into the West over the past 2000 years.

The underlying dynamic is family loyalty and tribalism. When you hire a man at a fair wage he feels obligated to provide support to his extended family, and they feel they have the right to expect it. As you increase the man’s wages, his personal situation does not improve significantly as the distributions increase. I had a close friend who is a Burundian refugee explain to me as follows: westerners invest in the stock market, Africans invest in family and friends. I watched him spend his entire life’s savings on surgery for the uncle that rescued him out of the Burundi/Rwanda genocide.

The other dynamic is tribalism. It just never goes away, even in Christian organizations. I was in Kenya complaining to friends about Obama when he was in office. Their response? ‘What do you expect, he’s Luo, they do nothing and tell everyone else what to do!’

I think what one has to grasp is that pre 1652 (the date the Dutch landed in the Cape) in the black tribes/communities the king owned every single thing. The land, the cattle, the water... everything. The common man owned his spear. his shield and his mud hut which was on the king's land and he lived his life "by the king's leave"... the concept of ownership or personal rights were non-existent. If you were an Induna (chieftain / leader) you may have had a gift or grant of cattle or land but this could have been revoked on any given day by the king. Not only that but your life and the life of your family was at the will of the king. A whisper in the king's ear could lead to you and your family's skulls crushed with knobkirrie without trial or explanation.

Fast forward 350 years and the mentality remains. That is why the despot can rule with an iron fist. The fatalistic mindset remains. The king (president or prime minister) is the king. "we are just subjects".

Don't get me wrong I'm as African as can be (I've mentioned before the Cloete family, my direct family tree, was some of the first registered in the Dutch Cape Colony) but facts are facts. The notion of democracy is lost in Africa. It is the law of "the strong rule over the weak". In my opinion African kingdoms can be equated to Europe in the Dark Ages/ Medieval Ages. Conquer and destroy.

Training and equipping one favoured side or another only makes one side momentarily stronger than the other. No progress.

 

[Zambezi]

Personally, I don’t think the EU has much of a future. With the exit of the UK, you have only a few viable economies propping up a number of totally dependent states who refuse to address their fiscal irresponsibility. When you couple that with the rise in nationalism among certain states, the bureaucrats in Brussels have their work cut out for them to hold it together. However, failing to recognize the failed
Policies that drove the UK out, they continue to double down on social policies that will continue to fuel nationalistic fires.

I saw the formation of the EU, and I am beginning to believe that I will live to see the end of it.

I'm in partial agreement with you regarding the EU and the UK. The only difference is that the UK was a nett contributor to the EU fiscus and had the economic might to withdraw. The other countries that wish to withdraw are in debt and for the most part beholden to the EU. The UK had the financial "autonomy" to say thanks for the party but I'm out. Greece, as an example, is so heavily indebted that they can't just take their ball and go home.

Furthermore, the EU made it so very difficult for the UK to leave that it cost the UK a hell of a lot. The UK should have just said bugger off we are leaving! Other member nations can't afford that process.

 

[rookhawk]

I think what one has to grasp is that pre 1652 (the date the Dutch landed in the Cape) in the black tribes/communities the king owned every single thing. The land, the cattle, the water... everything. The common man owned his spear. his shield and his mud hut which was on the king's land and he lived his life "by the king's leave"... the concept of ownership or personal rights were non-existent. If you were an Induna (chieftain / leader) you may have had a gift or grant of cattle or land but this could have been revoked on any given day by the king. Not only that but your life and the life of your family was at the will of the king. A whisper in the king's ear could lead to you and your family's skulls crushed with knobkirrie without trial or explanation.

Fast forward 350 years and the mentality remains. That is why the despot can rule with an iron fist. The fatalistic mindset remains. The king (president or prime minister) is the king. "we are just subjects".

Don't get me wrong I'm as African as can be (I've mentioned before the Cloete family, my direct family tree, was some of the first registered in the Dutch Cape Colony) but facts are facts. The notion of democracy is lost in Africa. It is the law of "the strong rule over the weak". In my opinion African kingdoms can be equated to Europe in the Dark Ages/ Medieval Ages. Conquer and destroy.

Training and equipping one favoured side or another only makes one side momentarily stronger than the other. No progress.

I have no intent in my nature to be racist or think I am genetically superior, but I think your appraisal of Africa is actually a few thousand years further back than you suggest.

The Middle Ages of Europe was a bunch of nobility trying to cling to elite control via rule by the elite. Even by the time of the Magna Carta, they were limiting the power of might and assigning natural laws to everyone.

So from a perspective of gathering and social structures, at best the African continent majority is operating by bronze age systems of reasoning.

Then we go to anthropology and explore that angle. I was dumbfounded and incredulous when I asked the locals where are all the recovered tools. Recovered tools? I said yes, you have had Homo sapiens and our relatives on your ground for the past 200,000 years, whereas I live in a country that has happened Homo sapiens and NO relatives for the past 8000-13000 years. You cannot plow a field in my country without finding a spear point, arrowhead, or other evidence of the ingenuity of our species Ancestors. Their answer: “no, we don‘t find anything like that here“. Exactly. They literally went from wooden tools and couldn’t consistently fashion stone implements, to being given Iron Age tools from Arab traders in exchange for their scavenged ivory.

Then we go to social structures that have an unfortunate basis in geology. Of all 6 habitable continents, Africa drew the unlucky straw of having virtually no natural seaports. (Sub-Saharan) So while all the other continents and their ethnicities tried to F-around and find out, we evolved and survived by appreciating trade and mutually beneficial cooperation since literally pre-historic times. By 2500-3000 years ago (some arguing pre-11600 years ago) we learned if you slaughter traders, you suffer, but if you host them everyone wins. Africa didn’t have the geology that would create seaports that would in turn teach them to explore, trade, and host large traders. (Excluding the long-route of Arab traders in small crafts and Bantu trading from village to village that took decades to move a good)

So now we fast forward to today in the modern era. They built seaports in only a few decades, but the corruption of those at the top which were greedy strongmen took $10m bribes on debt servicing for seaports the nation couldnt’ support, and in turn they defaulted and now foreign powers like China own the means of transport for entire nations such as Tanzania and others. Same for rail.


This is what happens when we apply western values to non-westerners. They have to evolve their own societies without our judgments or domestic interference. You cannot move a nation forward 6000 years in a generation. The best way to deal with Africa is to trade with them for sustainable products.

 

[Jfet]

In my opinion African kingdoms can be equated to Europe in the Dark Ages/ Medieval Ages. Conquer and destroy.

Great point.

 

[Doug3006]

We do have a security zone between Cuba and the US. Its called 90 miles of ocean.

90 whole miles! How far is it from the Kuril Islands to Peal Harbor?

 

[WAB]

I'm in partial agreement with you regarding the EU and the UK. The only difference is that the UK was a nett contributor to the EU fiscus and had the economic might to withdraw. The other countries that wish to withdraw are in debt and for the most part beholden to the EU. The UK had the financial "autonomy" to say thanks for the party but I'm out. Greece, as an example, is so heavily indebted that they can't just take their ball and go home.

Furthermore, the EU made it so very difficult for the UK to leave that it cost the UK a hell of a lot. The UK should have just said bugger off we are leaving! Other member nations can't afford that process.

The three strongest economies in the EU were Germany, the UK and France. Lose one and you can muddle on. Lose two and the experiment is over IMO. The UK is out so they absolutely cannot lose France or Germany. Germany won’t leave, but France can. There are strong factions in France growing weary of the weight of Brussels. If Brussels continues to try to drive radical social programs down the throats of member states the next few years could get interesting.

Of the smaller states, Hungary and Austria have the potential to make a successful exit.

 

[sestoppelman]

90 whole miles! How far is it from the Kuril Islands to Peal Harbor?

A bit further, however I am pretty sure that Cuba doesnt have pre WWII military capability.

If they did, they might have already invaded, but somehow that hasnt happened.

 

[Dragan N.]

The notion that Russia needs and somehow deserves a security zone also baffles me. Says who? Since 1959 we‘ve had to live with a communist dictatorship just 90 miles from our border. Cuba has been a steadfast enemy of the US the entire, bloody, 60 years it has existed. It has hosted Soviet nuclear missiles (albeit only a few months.) Castro was an active exporter of communist insurgence through the world, but especially in Latin America. Using Russian logic, we should immediately invade Cuba and install a puppet regime. Don’t we deserve our own “safe space?”

The United States does have one, its called the Monroe Doctrine. Its been in place for over a century. The main difference is that the US, at present, has the military might to enforce it. Russia, at present, lacks the military strength to build itself a security zone in Europe.

The US did try to invade Cuba and enact a regime change with the Bay of Pigs. I also believe the CIA tried to assassinate Castro over 200 times. the US also maintains an embargo on Cuba precisely because it is a communist country in the new world (which is America's zone of influence).

I find it laughable that an American could possibly feel threatened by Cuba. A country that has a population of 330 million and has the world's strongest military feels threatened by a country with less than 10 million people ?

 

[mdwest]

When the Monroe Doctrine was written the US didn’t have the military capability to enforce it, and multiple European colonial powers violated it numerous times.

The Monroe Doctrine is no more a buffer zone than any other piece of paper. The only “buffer” is simple military might and others lack of willingness to test it…

In our modern asymmetric warfare world our military might has indeed been tested on our own soil and within the boundaries of the Monroe Doctrine… further proving no buffer actually exists…

Regarding Cuba… the US isn’t threatened by the Cuban military any more than its threatened by the Angolan or Malaysian military… the concern about Cuba isn’t Cuba.. it’s other state actors (Russia, China, etc) that would use Cuba to its advantage against the US…

The Russians aren’t concerned about a buffer because countries like Kazakhstan or Georgia are a threat..they want a buffer zone for fear that the US/NATO would use border countries to its advantage..

The Russians played a dangerous game… and frankly lost.. pushing more countries into NATO and losing a vast amount of that desired buffer

 

[Red Leg]

The United States does have one, its called the Monroe Doctrine. Its been in place for over a century. The main difference is that the US, at present, has the military might to enforce it. Russia, at present, lacks the military strength to build itself a security zone in Europe.

The US did try to invade Cuba and enact a regime change with the Bay of Pigs. I also believe the CIA tried to assassinate Castro over 200 times. the US also maintains an embargo on Cuba precisely because it is a communist country in the new world (which is America's zone of influence).

I find it laughable that an American could possibly feel threatened by Cuba. A country that has a population of 330 million and has the world's strongest military feels threatened by a country with less than 10 million people ?

I think you and I are essentially in agreement. The US did implement the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, and if we set aside the War of 1812 (particularly the long term effects of the defeat of the British Army at New Orleans following a fairly humiliating peace agreement), the nation had the demonstrated power to enforce it by the 1898 with the conclusion of the Spanish American War.

With respect to Cuba, you are correct. It only represented a real threat when the Soviet Union attempted to put medium range nuclear weapons on the island. Fortunately, an accommodation was reached with respect to Turkey before Russia was tested if Cuba was worth all out war (I have always suspected the had concluded it was not). Cuba wasn't even a very good launching pad for regional revolution. Che Guevara can provide long mute testimony.

Like the US at the close of the 19th century, the Soviet Union following WWII was in a regionally powerful position. The Red Army occupied most of Eastern Europe, and those political relationships were dictated by Moscow. But that Army and that geographic political reach represented the Apex of Russian imperial power.

One only gets to demand buffer zones and vassal states if the empire is powerful enough to enforce those demands. The Russian Federation clearly is not. Though the time frame is different, their demands are about as meaningful as the UK demanding the return of Calais or perhaps Aquitaine.

And as I noted above, with the entry of Finland into NATO, Putin's strategic genius has resolved the issue of buffer zones for a very long time to come.

 

[steve white]

The notion that Russia needs and somehow deserves a security zone also baffles me. Says who? Since 1959 we‘ve had to live with a communist dictatorship just 90 miles from our border. Cuba has been a steadfast enemy of the US the entire, bloody, 60 years it has existed. It has hosted Soviet nuclear missiles (albeit only a few months.) Castro was an active exporter of communist insurgence through the world, but especially in Latin America. Using Russian logic, we should immediately invade Cuba and install a puppet regime. Don’t we deserve our own “safe space?”

Don't forget the Cubans in Angola!

 

[Doubleplay]

Just as a Gedanken Experiment I wonder what the result would be regarding the present Ukraine situation with the following changes:
1. The Biden family had no financial ties to Ukraine companies
2. Vice President Biden had not extorted Ukraine
3. President Biden had not made comments that encouraged Russian aggression
4. President Biden had kept in-place oil production policies that kept the price of oil "low"

in basic terms, removal of the numerous entanglements that prevent the uncluttered perspective of the situation from being seen.

Don't know about the first three but I know that we're producing the most oil ever produced under any president. Problem is oil is a global commodity and none of the US companies will sell their production cheaper here when they can export for a higher price. It's called capitalism and free market. Bottom line Presidents has nothing to do with the oil price.

 

[Red Leg]

Don't know about the first three but I know that we're producing the most oil ever produced under any president. Problem is oil is a global commodity and none of the US companies will sell their production cheaper here when they can export for a higher price. It's called capitalism and free market. Bottom line Presidents has nothing to do with the oil price.

We are producing a lot under this president - but not the most.

But your point with respect to market determination is exactly correct. For instance, prices have to be high enough to make the US shale fields economically viable.

U.S. Crude Oil Production - Historical Chart

Interactive historical chart showing the monthly level of U.S. crude oil production back to 1983 from the US Energy Information Adminstration (EIA). Values shown are in thousands of barrels produced per day.

www.macrotrends.net