Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
znModeratorznModeratorJohn Keim@john_keimAt the combine (I’m not there), JPFinlayNBCS asked Ron Rivera about what’s too much to give up for a QB. Rivera: “Does anybody care what the Rams traded for Matthew Stafford last year? No.” Point is, of course: If you get the right guy, the cost won’t matter.znModeratorHe got that ring 💍@AaronDonald97’s Top 10 plays from his 2021 Super Bowl run! 🏆 pic.twitter.com/ISEy7PzKUR
— NFL (@NFL) March 1, 2022
znModeratorThe Los Angeles Rams are expected to interview TCU’s Ra’Shaad Samples for its running backs coach job, sources tell @on3sports.
Samples, one of the nation’s top rising star coaches, is TCU’s RB coach, assistant head coach and run game coordinator.https://t.co/k5bN5NhJoE
— Matt Zenitz (@mzenitz) March 1, 2022
znModeratorLarry Fitzgerald's father calls Kyler Murray "spoiled." https://t.co/naBu5sDzv7
— ProFootballTalk (@ProFootballTalk) March 2, 2022
znModeratorJimmy Garoppolo is expected to have shoulder surgery that would sideline him until this summer, per @AdamSchefter pic.twitter.com/JeYKabQBMX
— B/R Gridiron (@brgridiron) March 1, 2022
znModeratorUkraine: the history behind Russia’s claim that Nato promised not to expand to the east======= Strange, because he also wrote this in 2014: https://gavinelhall.blogspot.com/2014/ ‘…Ukraine is dependant on Russia for its energy. It is dependant on the European Union for far less other than harder to quantify aspirations to a Western way of life. Therefore, it may well be the case that history reflects that the EU and NATO have been complicit in the present situation by tangling an unreachable carrot for Ukraine. Incidentally at numerous times during the 1990s Russia was given assurances that the EU and NATO would not impact Russia’s sphere of influence. The abandonment of this premise is a significant reason behind the current tensions…”
Yeah many of the reads of the Ukraine situation turn on views that really date from 2014.
I just take it the guy changed his view by 2022.
If you disagree with me, it’s because you were never a real Rams fan.
znModeratorYeah, I was wondering about the Littleton and Fowler thing. I had a feeling there was a ‘Donald Effect’ on all the other rams defensive starters. I would think Donald improves the play of every single player on defense (offense?) including Ramsay. w v
I was thinking the same thing. I was thinking about how good Robinson was this year. And Miller. And Floyd. And Joseph-Day. And I was thinking about how having Miller and Floyd probably makes Robinson better. And how having Robinson makes Miller and Floyd better. There is probably a Sum And Its Parts thing going on here. But I’ll bet only Donald would have the same stats on some other team.
There is evidence that Robinson upped his game on his own. We have a vid somewhere or the Rams DL coach (Henderson) talking about how he had challenged Robinson to lose weight in the off-season. He did, and was stronger and quicker as a result. I am not dismissing the idea that Miller helped, but it may be that more than one thing came through this year at the same time–adding Miller, Robinson upping his game.
znModeratorUkraine: the history behind Russia’s claim that Nato promised not to expand to the east
The main issue highlighted by the crisis on the Ukraine borders over the past few months has predominantly focused on the role of Nato and the friction over the eastward expansion of the alliance. This has been a constant message emerging from the Kremlin: that the Nato membership of many parts of the old Soviet Bloc, and the prospective membership of Ukraine to the alliance, poses a threat to Russian sovereignty.
But the decision to accept former members of the Warsaw Pact, the defensive alliance which included the USSR and several eastern European countries, is being subject to a revisionist history. This is perpetuating a myth that Nato promised not to expand eastwards after the Soviet Union dissolved.
In 2014, the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev marked the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall by noting in an interview that that Nato’s enlargement “was not discussed at all” at the time:
Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either.
There was, he said, no promise not to enlarge the alliance, though in the same interview Gorbachev also stated that he thinks that enlargement was a “big mistake” and “a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made” in 1990.
Indeed, the only formal agreement signed between Nato countries and the USSR, before its breakup in December 1991, was the Treaty of Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. The promises made specifically relate to Germany, and the territory of the former GDR, which were on the deployment of non-German Nato forces into eastern Germany and the deployment of nuclear weapons – and these promises have been kept.
Looking for security
In seeking to develop a role in the international order after the end of the cold war, Nato realigned towards a crisis management and conflict prevention security function. The alliance agreed in July 1992 to offer to undertake peacekeeping duties on behalf of the United Nations and the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) had been established in 1991 with the USSR and former Warsaw Pact countries as members, to enable dialogue and enhance transparency between western and eastern Europe.
But many former Warsaw Pact countries wanted a greater level of assurance of their security after the collapse of the Soviet Union, especially Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. These countries duly signed the Visegrad Declaration in February 1991, with the objective of “full involvement in the European … system of security”.
The relative security of the eastern European states was challenged during the 1990s due to the attempted October coup in Moscow in 1993, the first Chechen war in 1994 and Russian assistance to the breakaway Republic of Abkhazia in the south Caucasus. The combination of these events increased the perception of vulnerability, particularly in the Baltic states, indicating that Moscow was prepared to act militarily to pursue its security objectives.
Alongside the increasing security concerns of former Warsaw Pact countries, there was significant debate in the early 1990s about the merits of enlargement. Rather than jump straight into enlarging Nato, the Partnership For Peace (PfP) was established in 1994 and included NACC members as well as former Soviet Asian countries, such as Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. The result was a greater formalisation of the security arrangements, initially developed by the NACC, into a structure that allowed for PfP members to engage in Nato peacekeeping operations in the former Yugoslavia.
Russia was a participant in these new security arrangements, and was keen to clarify that Nato enlargement was not a security threat to Russia. The then president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, wrote in a September 1993 letter to the then US president, Bill Clinton: “Any possible integration of east European countries into Nato will not automatically lead to the alliance somehow turning against Russia.” So it was being clearly signalled that Russia did not object to the direction Europe’s new security architecture was following.
The three Visegrad countries were duly invited to join Nato at the 1997 Madrid Summit, joining in 1999. Slovakia was forced to wait until 2004. The move was widely supported by the people of the countries which joined. Hungarians voted 85.3% in favour of Nato membership in a referendum, for example.
Enemies no longer
The bedrock of the Nato-Russia relationship, the Nato-Russia Founding Act, was also signed at the 1997 Madrid Summit alongside the enlargement invitations. As the second formal agreement of the post-Cold War era between Russia and Nato, the act confirms that “Nato and Russia do not consider each other as adversaries”, and that Nato transformation is “a process that will continue”. It is, therefore, clear that Nato enlargement, was not considered a primary security concern for Russia.
The Baltic States openly pursued Nato membership, following the signing of the Baltic Charter of Partnership with the US in 1998. Rather than oppose Baltic membership, Russia actually helped it to happen by resolving border disputes with Lithuania.
Russia also demonstrated its continued to desire to remain in a cooperative security relationship by developing the Nato-Russia Council in 2002. Despite Russia’s occupation of the Crimea and Donbass, both legally still part of Ukraine, the council has still met a number of times a year, most recently on January 12 2022, alongside the informal lines of communications that continually remain open.
Nato enlargement has been a controversial subject – within as well as outside of the alliance – since the 1990s. But, when the present situation is placed within an appropriate context, it can be argued that Nato is not an aggressive, expansionist alliance. It also appears that Russia gave at least tacit approval to the enlargement, including the former Soviet Baltic states, and was signalling its desire to be a partner in the European security architecture.
Of course this has changed over the past decade. But the reason for that changed relationship is not Nato – it’s Vladimir Putin.
znModeratorYes, NATO expanded before Putin ever came to power.
And again it’s irrelevant. NATO does nothing to Russia. It can’t do anything to Russia. All NATO does is put a brake on Russian efforts to expand and re-acquire USSR’s imperial borders. That’s all it does. NATO is only a threat to that, and not to Russia.
I mean honestly, what actual physical, material, or economic threat does NATO pose to Russia?
And there is no genuinely good reason Russia must have those old USSR borders, which means crushing eastern European nations, all of which experienced Stalin. They could just give those ambitions up.
In fact it is my understanding that pre-Putin Russia did not object to NATO expansion.
znModeratorWhich QBs have performed better/worse in the postseason relative to their regular season efficiency?
Guys who famously caught fire on top (Stafford, Flacco, Eli); playoff underperformers on the bottom (Gannon, Peyton, McNair, Luck, McNabb).#nflverse pic.twitter.com/Hf9yIZhKFF
— Tucker Boynton (@Tucker_TnL) February 28, 2022
znModeratorDeleted Tweets Reveal a Progressive Group’s Ukraine Meltdown
The Gravel Institute was supposed to be an antidote to right-wing propaganda. Instead, it spread misleading claims aligned with Kremlin narratives, experts say.
William Bredderman
A self-styled “institution of progressive popular education” founded by a former U.S. senator and backed by top left-of-center intellectuals and leaders spent the days and weeks ahead of the bloody Russian assault on Ukraine pumping out misinformation, experts say.
Now it is desperately attempting to backtrack, in part by deleting tweets.
The Gravel Institute was born out of the 2020 presidential bid of eccentric late Alaskan Sen. Mike Gravel, and explicitly styled itself as a counterweight to right-wing YouTube phenomenon PragerU. Its stylish videos have included left-wing luminaries such as Cornel West and Slavoj Zizek and celebrities like comedian David Cross and voice actor H. Jon Benjamin. It announced a new board of directors earlier this month featuring bold-faced names like ex-Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner and Jacobin magazine founder Bhaskar Sunkara, neither of whom replied on the record to requests for comment.
In recent days, the organization has issued multiple denunciations of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s attack on his western neighbor, along with statements of support for anti-invasion Russian demonstrators and for Ukrainian citizens. The group hit those same points in an extensive statement to The Daily Beast on Friday.
“We stand in solidarity with Ukrainians and with the many Russians protesting the war, denounce Putin’s act of naked, horrific, and unconscionable aggression, and hope diplomacy can end the violence soon,” the group wrote. “We stand with the Ukrainian and Russian peoples against the aggression and violence of the Putin regime.”
But just as it was debuting its new leadership earlier this month, the Institute was pushing what experts called false or misleading material on its YouTube and Twitter accounts—material that sometimes aligned with narratives Putin and his proxies were simultaneously advancing.
On Feb. 18, the group published a YouTube video entitled “How America Funded Ukraine’s Neo-Nazis,” which, following online criticism, was renamed “America, Russia, and Ukraine’s Far-Right Problem.” The video reiterated several of the Kremlin’s favorite narratives: namely that Ukrainian nationalism is a Nazi-linked phenomenon born in the 1940s, and that it has taken root in Kyiv and the rest of the country, in opposition to its pro-Russian east.
“Ukrainian nationalism, formed in opposition to the Soviet Union, tended to have a strong right-wing flavor,” the video asserts. “In western Ukraine, there was more stress on a specifically Ukrainian identity, closer to Europe. In eastern Ukraine, meanwhile, people were more likely to stress their historic ties to Russia and the Russian language.”
In fact, Ukrainian national identity predates the Soviet Union by hundreds of years, stretching back to Cossack leaders who ruled the region in the 17th and 18th centuries. And in most of eastern Ukraine, more than 80 percent of voters cast ballots in favor of severing the country from Moscow in 1991; in no area did preserving the bond receive majority support.
The video also focused intensely on the supposed power of far-right parties Svoboda and Right Sector, both objects of obsession in Russian state media—and which, respectively, hold one and zero seats in the Ukrainian parliament, a fact the Institute’s documentary omitted. While emphasizing the influence these parties held in the past, and arguing the country’s neo-Nazis had become “increasingly powerful,” the documentary made no mention of the fact that current Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is Jewish and a native Russian speaker.
In fact, for several months in 2019, Ukraine was the only nation on Earth besides Israel to have both a Jewish president and a Jewish prime minister, when Zelensky led the country along with Volodymyr Groysman.
But most galling to Professor Yoshiko Herrera of the University of Wisconsin at Madison’s Center for Russia, East Europe, and Central Asia, was the video’s failure to explore Moscow’s interventions into Ukrainian affairs since independence. She described the video as “naive” and an example of the kind of “whataboutism” Putin promotes: pointing out questionable parties and pieces of legislation in other countries, and thereby reducing scrutiny on far worse abuses on the part of Russian authorities.
“It is a strategic distraction,” she said of the tactic. “Why would you put out a video like that that ignores the Russian interference into Ukrainian politics, Ukrainian elections?”
The timing of the Gravel video, released just as Putin massed armaments and regiments on the Ukrainian border and the U.S. warned of an imminent invasion, was also highly disturbing to the academic. Earlier this week, Putin characterized his unprovoked attack as an effort to “denazify” Ukraine.
“This alternative history of Ukraine, I don’t understand why an organization in good faith thinks they’re going to put out a story that is consistent with Putin propaganda at this moment and think people are going to take this seriously,” she said.
In fact, the Gravel Institute does not even mention the deployment of Russian soldiers into Ukrainian territory in the aftermath of pro-Kremlin President Viktor Yanukovych’s ouster, instead asserting that “the far-right helped the country to fracture.”
In its statement to The Daily Beast, the Gravel Institute defended the accuracy of its video and asserted multiple experts reviewed its work before it went live on YouTube. It further maintained its video was never meant to be a comprehensive account of the situation in Ukraine, but instead a window into an under-examined aspect of the crisis. It made a similar claim in a pinned comment visible below the short film.
“The video covers a very small slice of a much broader conflict,” the group said. “The video does not claim to explain the entirety of the conflict, a point we highlighted in the video’s pinned comment, but merely to show how the American government ended up supporting and arming neo-Nazi groups that most Americans would despise.”
Twitter via WayBackMachine
But this is at odds with how the group presented the video in one of its many since-deleted tweets, where it seemed to hold the production out as the real version of events precipitating the crisis.
“Everyone is talking about Ukraine. But what do we really know about it, and how it broke apart? This is the little-known story of Ukraine’s civil war, and how America ended up in bed with some of its worst offenders—Ukraine’s neo-Nazis,” the memory-holed message to the nonprofit’s 375,000 followers read.
Similarly, the video’s description on YouTube characterizes the presentation as “the surprising, under-told [sic] of how Ukraine split apart, and the background to the civil war that has roiled the country since 2014.”
The video focuses heavily on the Azov Battalion, a roughly 1,000-man Ukrainian unit whose far-right roots The Daily Beast has explored in-depth. But the video makes no mention of the far-larger Wagner Group, a Russian mercenary outfit with neo-Nazi links and ties to Putin’s inner circle. The Daily Beast reported in January that one of Wagner’s most effusively neofascist units, which publicly shared grisly images of atrocities it committed during its 2014-2015 incursion into Ukraine, had announced plans to return to the battle-ravaged nation.
The Gravel production highlights the under-regulated flow of American resources to the Azov Battalion before Congress banned aid to the group in 2018. But it ignores Moscow’s eager and ongoing support for far-right organizations in Ukraine and across Europe.
In fact, when engaging with commenters who complained about the video’s bias, the Gravel Institute insisted, “Wagner is evil ofc but not known to express a neo-Nazi ideology,” a comment they would subsequently apologize for and retract.
That was one of just many claims Gravel stripped from its social media in the past week, claims that all seemed to echo Russian insistence that it had no intention to invade its neighbor. For days, the group repeatedly attacked intelligence reports that Putin would send the vast military force he had assembled on the edges of Ukraine into the country.
“It is exceptionally clear that the American media wants a war between Ukraine and Russia. It is even clearer that the American media doesn’t know the first thing about either country,” a vanished Feb. 14 post read.
The next day, in another since-disappeared tweet, it wrote: “A few days ago, the U.S. government and media said that Russia would invade Ukraine on Wednesday. Wednesday is tomorrow. Please remember that prediction when it does not come to pass.”
“Remember a few days ago, when the media said that Russia was going to invade Ukraine today? Whatever happened to that?” the group tweeted on Feb. 16.
The Institute expanded on this in a response tweet that went undeleted until The Daily Beast reached out for comment.
“They’re just printing whatever intelligence agencies tell them, and the intelligence agencies are basically making it up,” it tweeted.
Twitter via WayBack Machine
The group continued to mock U.S. officials for their predictions, and blame Ukraine’s problems on “American diplomacy” right up until Putin announced his intention to unleash his forces.
Then, the erasure of the group’s statements began.
“It’s tweet-and-delete, tweet-and-delete with them,” said Sophie Fullerton, a human rights researcher at Columbia University. “It seems like they’re just spewing misinformation to see if they get a positive reaction or not. And if they get a positive reaction, they keep it up, and if they get a negative reaction, they’ll try to go back and clean it up.”
Fullerton began tracking the Gravel Institute’s activities since last October, when it posted and then removed a tweet lauding late Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, infamous for persecuting dissenters and massacring prisoners before rebels brutally assassinated him in 2011.
“Under Gaddafi, Libya had free healthcare, free education for both men and women, free housing, and ultra-cheap electricity. Libya under Gaddafi had some of the highest rates of life expectancy, literacy, and per capita GDP in all Africa. Then, 10 years ago, the U.S. killed him,” the tweet read.
Fullerton pointed to Putin’s efforts to hijack legitimate criticism of U.S. foreign and domestic policy, which she suggested had deeply influenced left-wing discourse. She also noted that, despite the esteemed names that have associated themselves with the Institute, the rank-and-file of the organization consists of Sen. Gravel’s very young 2020 campaign staff, themselves Columbia undergraduates.
“People are attracted to the Gravel Institute because they assume these are legitimate people, a legitimate organization, that’s going to give them information,” Fullerton argued. “But it doesn’t delve into the complexities and nuances of these very serious issues. It’s this really simplistic view of how the world works.”
The Gravel Institute acknowledged errors, but insisted it was simply working off of Ukrainian intelligence reports and the views of some Russia experts.
“Where circumstances have proven us incorrect (i.e. on the invasion), we have removed our prior statements and publicly owned up to the mistake. That is and always has been our policy,” the group said.
But it argued that its skepticism was justified based on the U.S. government’s own history of falsehoods and misconduct, particularly since the 9/11 attacks.
“Our instinct to distrust American intelligence agencies, especially when they speak directly to public opinion, is grounded in their history of grotesque lies to justify horrific acts,” the organization wrote. “Every one of these lies has been covered extensively by your own outlet, and contributed to a very justified climate of skepticism and distrust.”
Professor Herrera, of the University of Wisconsin, agreed that suspicion and objections toward U.S. foreign and domestic policies are legitimate and warranted. Upholding a healthy democratic culture of debate while dealing with adversaries like Putin who promote division and diversion is extremely difficult. But acknowledging American and Ukrainian failures doesn’t have to mean excusing, ignoring, or downplaying Russian misdeeds.
Instead, she recommended “focusing on solving problems rather than on critique.”
“We need a movement toward addressing and solving real problems in America,” she said. “Let’s not substitute a discussion of America’s problems for calling out serious threats to us.”
znModeratorStop Pretending the Left Is on Putin’s Side
Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is based on obviously reactionary pretexts. The Left has nothing to do with his agenda — and should make no apologies for opposing a US military response.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is sickening. Vladimir Putin had this Monday claimed that the “Kiev regime” refused any resolution of the conflict in the Donbas except through “military means.” The Russian president now claims to resolve it with far more bloodshed, already spreading beyond the Donbas region and risking a wider conflagration.
Putin’s open disregard for Ukrainian independence expresses a reactionary civilizational politics, as expressed in his article scouring medieval myths for reasons to kill and maim in the present. True, he famously once claimed that the fall of the USSR was the last century’s “greatest geopolitical disaster.” Yet it was no accident that this week he cast Lenin as the “architect” of Ukraine, who had subverted an older and thus somehow more authentic tsarist imperial order.
Putin’s rule surely has drawn legitimacy from Russia’s post-Soviet malaise. His government’s credo of militarized stability built its support in an atmosphere of real popular despair following the destruction of the pre-1991 social order; a series of border conflicts have in turn radicalized its nationalist revanchism. But his insistence this week that he would “really decommunize” Ukraine, by dismantling it, showed his hatred even for the most formal Soviet rhetoric of “fraternity among peoples.”
Putin was not driven to invade by Western threat or by a small but militant far-right minority in Ukraine. Yet it should clearly be recognized that Western actions have helped prepare the way. This is not only because NATO’s post-1991 expansion has encircled Russia or empowered its militarists to claim that lands devastated during World War II are again under threat. More than that, Putin’s claim to stand up for minorities in the Donbas draws on a now well-worn playbook of “humanitarian” intervention.
To observe that those who destroyed Iraq, Libya, and Yugoslavia have no standing to condemn him is not an exercise in “both-sidesism.” The likes of Blair, Clinton, Trump, and Putin have often been on one same side, through material collaboration in the War on Terror and in their common undermining of the international law which they all claim to uphold. Time and again, Washington has allied with despots, come to see them as unreliable, then launched military offensives against them that succeeded only in spreading chaos. The Left has every duty to remember these disasters — and prevent them from being repeated in the present.
This war also has wider consequences on domestic politics, including in Russia, where a small organized antiwar left faces a mighty security state apparatus. It is far from clear that most Russians are really mobilized in support of the war: pollsters like the Levada Center suggest that there is much less unanimous support for recognition of the Donbas separatist republics (never mind a full-scale invasion of Ukraine) than was true with the 2014 annexation of Crimea. But open civil resistance will face a sharp clampdown.
If the conflict does remain limited to its current scope, its main victims will be civilians in Ukraine, on either side of the now-contested border in the Donbas. It is hard to predict how Volodymyr Zelensky’s government might respond, given the pressure from hardline nationalist forces domestically, the vast imbalance of forces, and his reliance on Western aid. His appeal to the Russian population, in the language which they share with so many in his home region, was surely admirable.
As for the United States and UK, even if they do not send troops to Eastern Europe, we can expect a warlike atmosphere perhaps echoing that which followed 9/11, with smears against supposed “stooges of Putin,” and clampdowns on media really or simply alleged to be Moscow-linked. A key focus of left-wing politics will be resistance against the already encroaching policing of public discourse by social media giants and state McCarthyism. Another will be to defend the right of refugees from the war — and its likely fallout on the global food supply — to settle in Europe.
In recent weeks, media-political rhetoric in Western countries has been heavily directed at delegitimizing the Left and antiwar forces domestically. This also points to its unreality and impotence with regard to events in Ukraine. Liberal pundits often speak of Putin’s hirelings on the European far left and far right; yet no socialist parties are funded by Russian bankers and oligarchs in the manner of British Tories, Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National, or Italy’s Lega. Putin’s erratic conduct has surely embarrassed them; socialists never admired him to begin with.
Even compared to the Cold War era, the Left in most countries is far less politically and organizationally prepared to deal with the present crisis, never mind act effectively to stop it. But we can at least rely on certain core principles: an unrelenting rejection of the use of military force; a refusal to justify one set of generals by citing the crimes of another; and, above all, a defense of our own right to speak without fear or accusation of disloyalty.
znModeratorIt’s actually in Russia’s interests to not feel threatened by NATO. When Russia de-escalates in relation to Europe, Europe de-escalates in relation to them. Again the only thing they lose is westward re-expansion.
Except that’s not true. The deal when the USSR collapsed was no NATO expansion in exchange for a unified Germany. Germany unified. But NATO went ahead and added the Baltic states and Poland and Hungary and Czech and whatever anyway. And there was talk about Ukraine being added. True or not.
NATO exists only to defend western Europe against an imperial and expansionist Russian right-wing autocrat who assassinates his critics.
The deal Russia make with Ukraine when the latter dismantled the nukes wasn’t upheld either.
NATO is nothing but a defensive arrangement against an aggressive Putinized Russia. Eliminate Putin and a more benign Russia could easily de-escalate the entire NATO situation since under those conditions NATO would have no reason to exist.
I can’t believe there are people on the left who take Putin seriously, let alone basically defend him. He is the inverse nightmare of genuine left-ward thinking. No imperial ambitions to restore the USSR, no issue.
NATO doesn’t threaten Russia. It threatens Putin’s dream of restoring the old borders of the USSR.
Really, what I hear is yes Putin’s bad but what was NATO wearing to cause him to respond that way.
What actual THREAT does a NATO alliance offer to Russia? None. Well, no real threat. What it threatens is imperial re-expansion and the return of the USSR borders. If a Putinized Russia didn’t have that ambition, then, there would be no threat at all.
znModerator“…the West is principally responsible for this mess…” At the 10:29 mark.
Nah. I don’t buy that stuff for one minute. I never thought I would see a day when an autocratic right-wing uber-oligarch with imperial ambitions who throttles dissent and home has a policy of assissination gets exonerated by the tired rear guard of the left.
Back many years ago, I thought when I was outraged at Pinochet and was condemning what the USA did in Chile, those principles held for everyone.
znModeratorPutin’s key Ukraine ally charged with treason<.From May 2021..Ukraine’s leading pro-Kremlin politician, Viktor Medvedchuk, has been charged with treason and placed under house arrest as the Zelenskyy administration escalates its efforts to counter Russian influence in the country.Medvedchuk faces up to fifteen years in prison if convicted. This week’s treason charge is the latest step in an ongoing campaign and comes following the February decision to block three Kremlin-tied Ukrainian TV channels believed to be controlled by Medvedchuk. Weeks after the channel closures, personal sanctions were imposed against the opposition politician and his wife.
Throughout the past seven years of undeclared war between Russia and Ukraine, Medvedchuk has made no secret of his Russian sympathies. On the contrary, he has frequently flaunted his close personal ties to Vladimir Putin, who is godfather to Medvedchuk’s daughter, and has held numerous face-to-face meetings with the Russian leader in Moscow.
Medvedchuk’s continued prominence in Ukrainian politics had previously led many to assume that he was somehow untouchable as an important intermediary between Kyiv and the Kremlin. However, President Zelenskyy appears to have decided this status no longer applies.
The targeting of Medvedchuk is a bold move that places the Ukrainian president in direct confrontation with Medvedchuk’s patron, Vladimir Putin. It is likely to play well with patriotic Ukrainians and among the country’s Western partners, but could lead to serious complications in the search for peace with Russia. What does the decision to charge Medvedchuk with treason mean for Ukraine?
Anders Åslund, Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council: On March 17, 2014, the United States sanctioned Viktor Medvedchuk for his role in Russia’s occupation of Crimea. Despite this, he continued pursuing big business in Ukraine. He allegedly purchased three television channels through a middleman, is a prominent member of the Ukrainian parliament, and even represented Ukraine in negotiations with Russia.
It was therefore reassuring that the Ukrainian National Defense and Security Council sanctioned him and his three television channels in February 2021. The legally correct procedure, of course, is that the prosecutor general charges him with high treason and illegal economic activities on territory occupied by Russia. Let us just hope that the Ukrainian judiciary possesses sufficient integrity to sentence him.
President Zelenskyy’s sanctioning of Medvedchuk has coincided with a rise in Zelenskyy’s popularity. The Ukrainian public appears to appreciate his firmer stand against Russian aggression, which has also brought him closer to the US administration. Putin, by contrast, now refuses to talk to Zelenskyy even on the phone. The Russian leader appears to have now adopted the same attitude towards Zelenskyy that he displayed with previous Ukrainian presidents Petro Poroshenko and Viktor Yushchenko.
Adrian Karatnycky, Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council: Viktor Medvedchuk, perhaps Ukraine’s most odious politician, has long been at the apex of Russia’s fifth column in Ukraine. Recent allegations and documentation concerning his vast business interests in Russia, and now, according to the Ukrainian government, in Russian-occupied Crimea, have revealed the mechanisms by which his extensive political, propaganda, and media activities in Ukraine were funded in collusion with the Russian government.Russia is at war with Ukraine and occupies Ukrainian territory in Crimea and the Donbas. From this perspective, Medvedchuk’s businesses in Crimea, if the allegations are convincingly documented, represent not only a violation of the law, but an act of treason.
Medvedchuk’s legal woes will have an immediate impact on the Opposition Platform-For Life party he leads. Sanctions on and the freezing of his Ukraine accounts and businesses have already impacted the party’s funding. These measures are also forcing Opposition Platform politicians to decide whether they want to be part of Medvedchuk’s legally and politically toxic universe. By taking decisive actions to bring Medvedchuk down, Ukraine is significantly reducing the presence and impact of Russian propaganda and disinformation inside Ukraine.
Olena Halushka, Board Member, Anti-Corruption Action Center: As has often been said, the Kremlin and Ukraine’s own oligarch class are the main opponents of the country’s democratic transformation. Viktor Medvedchuk embodies both these threats. He was placed under US sanctions in 2014. It is shameful, although not particularly surprising, that Ukraine itself took seven more years before taking its own steps to counter Medvedchuk’s malign activities.
This treason case is yet another reminder of the need to reform Ukraine’s State Security Service (SBU). The relevant draft law is currently being considered in parliament. The proposed reforms require further amendments prior to a second reading. Proposals submitted by NATO, the US Embassy, and the EU Advisory Mission should be taken on board. The reformed SBU must have fewer law enforcement functions and a strengthened focus on the core tasks of counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism.
Looking ahead, the implications of Medvedchuk’s treason charges will depend on whether the eventual court ruling is fair. Ukrainian society is also expecting to see unbiased investigations into the country’s other oligarchs. This is the only way to convince a skeptical public that genuine de-oligarchization is finally underway in Ukraine.
Volodymyr Dubovyk, Associate Professor, Odesa Mechnikov National University: The decision to charge Medvedchuk with high treason has significant domestic and international implications. Domestically, it increases the pressure on Medvedchuk, who has been one of the most influential figures in Ukrainian politics for decades.
The treason charge raises the stakes following an earlier ban on three TV channels tied to Medvedchuk. Forcing these TV channels off the air weakened Medvedchuk’s political party by denying it a major media platform, while also boosting President Zelenskyy’s credentials among the patriotic segment of the Ukrainian electorate.
On the international stage, the treason charge leveled against Medvedchuk sends a strong message to Putin that his man in Ukraine is being stifled. Kyiv may want to demonstrate that it has some cards of its own to play in the ongoing confrontation with the Kremlin. This is likely to anger Moscow and could easily fuel calls to teach “disobedient” Ukraine a lesson.
It is also entirely possible that Kyiv has been encouraged to do something about Medvedchuk by Washington. The US sanctioned Medvedchuk back in 2014 following the Russian seizure of Crimea, making his continued high-profile role in Ukrainian politics something of an eyesore.
Taras Kuzio, Professor, National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy: Viktor Medvedchuk’s political force and his pro-Putin media outlets would never be allowed to operate in a democratic country at war. Both his party and his media empire promote Kremlin narratives, such as the need to accept Russian sovereignty over Crimea in return for “peace” and the characterization of the Russo-Ukrainian War as an “internal conflict.”
At the same time, I continue to doubt whether Medvedchuk or any of his colleagues will ever actually be convicted by a Ukrainian court. During the past thirty years of independence, members of the Ukrainian elite have only ever gone to jail in Germany and the US. The Ukrainian Prosecution Service should have been disbanded long ago based on its abysmal performance.
The treason charges against Medvedchuk also highlight the somewhat uncoordinated nature of President Zelenskyy’s national security policy. On one hand, Zelenskyy has recently been calling for a one-on-one meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, even though this sends a signal of weakness and will not solve anything. At the same time, he supports criminal charges against Medvedchuk, who is Putin’s personal agent in Ukraine. This prompted Holos MP Serhiy Rakhmanin to quip: “In 2019, Zelenskyy was a child in terms of his political understanding. After two years, he has now become a teenager. But he is not yet an adult.”
Volodymyr Yermolenko, Chief Editor, UkraineWorld.org: Medvedchuk is the leader of Ukraine’s pro-Kremlin forces whose close personal ties to Putin are well known. He has moved in Ukraine’s elite circles since the 1990s, and has consistently aligned himself with the most pro-Soviet, anti-European wing of Ukrainian politics.
During the early 2010s, Medvedchuk organized the “Ukrainian Choice” movement with the sole aim of discrediting Ukraine’s European integration. Critics said it would have been more honest to call his movement “Russian Choice.”
Following the Euromaidan Revolution and the outbreak of hostilities with Russia in 2014, Medvedchuk began work on creating a media empire and used it to attack Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic trajectory. The current criminal charges he is facing indicate that the Kremlin has played a central role in enabling his activities in Ukraine.
Much will now depend on whether the charges of high treason lead to Medvedchuk’s conviction. If not, he will use his victim status to promote his political agenda. Even at this early stage in the case, Medvedchuk and his allies are portraying themselves as “dissidents” and victims of “fascism.” They are effectively presenting efforts to defend democracy as an attack on democracy. Similar tactics are also often employed by the Kremlin.
Brian Whitmore, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council: Ukraine’s decision to charge pro-Kremlin oligarch and politician Viktor Medvedchuk with high treason appears to be an attempt to neutralize what has long been one of Russia’s main vectors of malign influence in that country.
Since 2014, Russia has been waging a two-pronged war against Ukraine: the armed intervention in the Donbas and a stealthy non-kinetic campaign to destabilize the country through political proxies, disinformation, and oligarchic structures. Medvedchuk’s pro-Kremlin political party, the Opposition Platform-For Life, and the three television stations he is believed to control, have been key components of this effort.
Given that Medvedchuk is personally close to Vladimir Putin, this move by the Ukrainian authorities is not without risk. But allowing him and other pro-Kremlin proxies to continue operating unhindered in their efforts to destabilize Ukraine likely carries even greater risks.
znModeratorYou and BT blame Putin, and not Nato, for this invasion. I believe that is accurate, yes? w v
For the invasion of Ukraine? Speaking just for myself. That’s Putin. NATO wouldn’t even exist if Russia were capabl;e of accepting the collapse of the USSR empire, which was ill-gotten in the first place, and being stabile in the region. To me you sound like you’re saying well yes Putin is bad but then why did NATO dress that way if they weren’t trying to provoke him?
No one on the left was saying that Hussein was equally to blame for getting Iraq invaded. And we all knew Hussein was a monster. A minor league one, but still.
znModeratorI see NATO as a terrorist organization seeking hegemony, in service of a capitalist system that has condemned all life on Earth to doom
So it’s ironic that Russia would be opposed to that when they’re more of the same.
NATO does not mean “western europe.” NATO is and only is a military alliance meant to contain soviet power in Europe. And then later, Putin power now that he’s the right-wing USSR.
The critique of western europe and north america (and China) combined in terms of world colonial, economic, and technological effect is of course something you can count on everyone here agreeing with.
znModeratorZN, Off topic: Just tried to post a new thread on the latest IPCC climate report. Stuck in moderation. May be the report/link is a pdf.
On it.
znModeratorThe fear expansion of Euro-American hegemony, though. .
Which is only the case because they want their own expanded hegemony.
Imagine a Russia that was completely in accord with Europe, did not desire a return of the old USSR borders. Could it not still be a ruthless oligarchy with all sorts of nefarious imperial ambitions? Sure. Just not in Europe. It’s actually in Russia’s interests to not feel threatened by NATO. When Russia de-escalates in relation to Europe, Europe de-escalates in relation to them. Again the only thing they lose is westward re-expansion.
znModeratorOdell Beckham Jr@objI feel like everytime u packin up a krib to leave there’s always those last moments ur sittin there in the house reflecting…. Gettin ready to leave LA for a lil bit, get on this journey to recovery….. I must say. I DID COME HERE AND ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION.Blulou@photo_vac
like Staley, McVay puts in the work/effort to find him, digs him out of the Bears mess, hands him a highly respected, top notch defense IN L.A. with an explosive O to help! Staley in turn not only leaves, but continues into 2nd year to pic off assistants.
.Rich Hammond@Rich_HammondI understand what you’re saying, but you also seem to be coming at this as though it’s some sort of a double-cross on the part of these guys. McVay knows exactly what this game is. McVay, himself, took four coaches from the 2016 Washington staff. It’s just the way it goes.McVay also has the ability to promote people himself, instead of bringing in outsiders, if he’s concerned about that.Greg Beacham@gregbeachamMatthew Stafford on Andrew Whitworth’s upcoming decision on retirement: “I’m gonna leave it up to him. I want him back, but he’s an old man.”znModeratorCompany of the Week… pic.twitter.com/AaKxd0KkQu
— RB (@rbisrb) February 27, 2022
znModerator
znModeratorI had my doubts I’d ever see it again. I’ve been savoring vids of the 3 game stretch — Bucs, 49ers, Bengals. I just cant imagine any other Super Bowl winner came ‘that’ close to losing 3 times in a row. It was uncanny. Or somethin. If you watch those games, the tension ‘still’ lingers, they were so razor-close. w v
Back in the days when Seattle had a top team and was going to superbowls, I remember the times the Rams lost to them, and each time, it was because a Seattle player made a play. Earl Thomas, Russell Wilson, Sherman, Wagoner…it was always somebody. I kept saying in game chats “Seattle just makes plays when they have to against the Rams.”
And that’s exactly what the 2021 Rams became in their final stretch. They just made plays at key turning points. Plays that will actually be immortal as times go along. Like 4th and 1 on their own 30 in the final minutes down by 4 and they give it to Kupp on a jet sweep? 😯 And Kupp is stopped dead to rights but he cuts like a premier RB and gets the yards.
znModeratorThe Los Angeles Rams won the Super Bowl. Its been 14 days now. Since Feb 13. STILL feels goooood. Biosphere being murdered. Resource wars breaking out. Extinctions snowballing. Universe apparently looking at Earth, and “running it back.” …Still feels good. w v
I posted this in the tweets thread but it fits here too.
Ruan 🇺🇸 Super Bowl LVI Champs@StaffordtoOBJ
I saw my team win a Super Bowl before WW3 so I’m goodznModeratorYeah, I’m just trying to figure out what all our differences/positions are on all this. The way you just laid your view out, NATO/US has zero culpability in the Russian Invasion, and you think its “nonsense” for Putin to think of NATO as a threat.
I did explain that stance though. As I see it, no one in their right mind believes that NATO is an aggressive force capable of using military might to acquire territory. NATO is not going to invade anyone. And that’s regardless what you think of NATO.
Putin, on the other hand, sees NATO as threatening his own aggressive interests in re-acquiring the lost portions of the old USSR’s eastern European empire. Not that different from Serbia trying to grab what it could from the collapse of Yugoslavia. Russia is not threatened by NATO. Russian imperial expansion is threatened by NATO.
I honestly believe that all stands to reason and in fact, to me, it seems like it is completely obvious. Anyway. What Putin “sees as a threat” is of no interest to me, except that it explains his pathologies as a right-wing dictator. To me, it’s like a domestic abuser who believes people calling him on his violence means they are aggressively threatening to harm an innocent person.
znModeratorPARam
Has this ever happened before in the NFL? A team winning 3 straight playoff games by 3 points each game.No. I checked every year since the NFL went to 3 rounds of playoff games in 1967 after forming 4 divisions.
The closest?
The 2007 Giants won the Divisional game by 4, the CCG by 3 and the SB by 3.
2007 Giants:
*Wild Card 24-14 over Tampa Bay
*Divisional Game 21-17 over Dallas (went down by 3 with 6:53 left in third, took final lead with 13:29 in the 4th)
*CCG 23-20 in OT at Green Bay (the Coughlin red nose game; Green Bay tied the game with 11:46 in the 4th to send it to OT)
* SB 17-14 over New England (went down by 4 with 2:42 left in the game; went up by 3 with 0:35 to play and won it)Almost as close as the 2021 Rams. Almost as dramatic.Rams came from behind in the final 2 minutes in 3 consecutive postseason games to win by 3 each time, culminating in a SB ChampionshipRams own that record.znModeratorYou know you’re getting old when not a single member of the Legion of Boom is on an NFL team pic.twitter.com/iNuzqRwKru
— NFL Memes (@NFL_Memes) February 27, 2022
znModerator— ALEX (@AleksM805) February 27, 2022
-
AuthorPosts
