The CIA in Ukraine

[Scott]

Some here may have read or at least heard about the recent New York Times article published on February 25th revealing the secret partnership between the CIA and Ukraine over the past decade. If not and you have a subscription to their site, it's here if you'd like to take a look:

The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin | The New York Times

I do have a New York Times subscription, though I haven't yet read the article in its entirety. I have been reading quotes from it, as well as commentary on it, from 2 articles published in another news publication, Scheerpost. Below are some quotes from these articles. Here a quote from the first:

**
The New York Times recently ran a story called "The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin." Patrick Lawrence writes that these "secrets" only contained what the CIA "wanted and did not want disclosed," and were "effectively authorized" by the agency.
**

Source:
Patrick Lawrence: The CIA in Ukraine — The NY Times Gets a Guided Tour | Scheerpost

And the second:

**
Did The New York Times publish its “The Spy War: How the CIA Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin” piece to reveal government secrets in the public’s interest? Or was it to convince Americans that “Now these intelligence networks are more important than ever?"
**

Source:
CIA in Ukraine — An Ex-CIA Agent’s View | Scheerpost


I'm interested to hear some constructive commentary on what others here think of one or more of the articles linked to above.

 

[Cypress]

The CIA has a relationship with dozens of countries.

Anyone 'shocked' by this news has been living under a rock.

America, her soft power, her diplomatic corps, her intelligence agencies should always be deployed to contain tyranny, illegal military aggression, and dictatorship.

I can't think of anything more American than that.

 

[Nordberg]

The CIA is charged with gathering knowledge about countries that may present a threat to society. Ukraine is a neighbor of Russia which we saw as a threat for decades. That is where I would put my information gatherers.

 

[Scott]

The CIA has a relationship with dozens of countries.

Anyone 'shocked' by this news has been living under a rock.

From what I've read of the 3 articles I linked to, none of them expressed shock that the CIA has relationships with a lot of countries. From what I can tell, the main issue on the 2 articles I linked to commenting on the New York Times article is the CIA's close relationship with the mainstream media and how it uses these close connections to influence what the American public thinks. In this particular case, what it thinks of the U.S.'s involvement in the war on Ukraine.

America, her soft power, her diplomatic corps, her intelligence agencies should always be deployed to contain tyranny, illegal military aggression, and dictatorship.

I can't think of anything more American than that.

I don't believe that's what the CIA is doing. I think it's more the reverse- that for a long time now, it has aided and abetted tyranical regimes so long as the those in power in the U.S. consider it to be in their best interests. I think the war in Ukraine is one such example of this.

 

[Scott]

The CIA is charged with gathering knowledge about countries that may present a threat to society. Ukraine is a neighbor of Russia which we saw as a threat for decades. That is where I would put my information gatherers.

If only all the CIA did was gather information. Unfortunately, that's far from the case. The CIA's involvement in Ukraine goes back to before Ukraine was an independent country. I just found a story of their involvement when Ukraine was still part of the U.S.S.R. and the CIA's dispatching of agents to the region. It didn't go so well for them at the time. Politico reported on this near the start of Russia's military operation in Ukraine:

The Covert Operation to Back Ukrainian Independence that Haunts the CIA | politico.com

They had greater success once Ukraine became independent, leading to the Euromaidan coup, as detailed in this July 2022 article from Kit Klarenberg:

Anatomy of a Coup: How CIA Front Laid Foundations for Ukraine War | Global Research

 

[Cypress]

If only all the CIA did was gather information. Unfortunately, that's far from the case. The CIA's involvement in Ukraine goes back to before Ukraine was an independent country. I just found a story of their involvement when Ukraine was still part of the U.S.S.R. and the CIA's dispatching of agents to the region. It didn't go so well for them at the time. Politico reported on this near the start of Russia's military operation in Ukraine:

The Covert Operation to Back Ukrainian Independence that Haunts the CIA | politico.com

They had greater success once Ukraine became independent, leading to the Euromaidan coup, as detailed in this July 2022 article from Kit Klarenberg:

Anatomy of a Coup: How CIA Front Laid Foundations for Ukraine War | Global Research

What happened in 1948 is irrelevant to today, and Stalin was arguably the most evil dictator in World History, so I have no complaints about efforts to undermine him.


Ukraine is an emerging democracy on track for European Union membership.

Russia is a totalitarian police state, and arguably the most dangerous threat of tyranny in the 21st century.

I don't have a problem with the CIA and America choosing a side.

 

[Kamala Trump]

From what I've read of the 3 articles I linked to, none of them expressed shock that the CIA has relationships with a lot of countries. From what I can tell, the main issue on the 2 articles I linked to commenting on the New York Times article is the CIA's close relationship with the mainstream media and how it uses these close connections to influence what the American public thinks. In this particular case, what it thinks of the U.S.'s involvement in the war on Ukraine.




I don't believe that's what the CIA is doing. I think it's more the reverse- that for a long time now, it has aided and abetted tyranical regimes so long as the those in power in the U.S. consider it to be in their best interests. I think the war in Ukraine is one such example of this.

cypress is a deep state warmonger cia shillhole, no different than a libertarian zionist fiat currency lover..

 

[goat]

Cypress and Nordberg get their news from Mika on mourning Joe. You can't have an adult conversation with those who parrot CIA talking points. Ukraine exposed NATO as a bankrupt paper tiger headed for another decade of deep recession and worker uprising.

The world is changing and there's no way to deny it. I can't see a way to avoid worldwide revolution.

 

[Kamala Trump]

jesus will come and destroy A.I. and the robots and the surveillance grid.

bet on it.

 

[Scott]

If only all the CIA did was gather information. Unfortunately, that's far from the case. The CIA's involvement in Ukraine goes back to before Ukraine was an independent country. I just found a story of their involvement when Ukraine was still part of the U.S.S.R. and the CIA's dispatching of agents to the region. It didn't go so well for them at the time. Politico reported on this near the start of Russia's military operation in Ukraine:

The Covert Operation to Back Ukrainian Independence that Haunts the CIA | politico.com

What happened in 1948 is irrelevant to today, and Stalin was arguably the most evil dictator in World History, so I have no complaints about efforts to undermine him.

Yes, Stalin was terrible, but let's not forget that Stalin also helped end the Nazi regime in Germany. Speaking of Nazis, I think it's worth noting who the CIA was working with in 1949. From the Politico article above:

**
Yet, back in Washington, concerns started to grow. On the one hand, there was the reality of who these Ukrainian emigres were actually linking up with. The main body of Ukrainian insurgents, and in particular the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, had already been linked directly to Nazi atrocities in the region. “They were Nazis, pure and simple,” one CIA operations chief said. “Worse than that, because a lot of them did the Nazis’ dirty work for them.”
**

I hope you're aware that the Nazi influence in Ukraine never went away, although they are now generally called Neo Nazis because there have been some shifts. The Neo Nazi influence in Ukraine got a strong boost after the Euromaidan coup. Here's an article from The Hill published in 2017 that goes into some details:

The reality of neo-Nazis in Ukraine is far from Kremlin propaganda | The Hill

Ukraine is an emerging democracy on track for European Union membership.

Countries during full scale wars usually aren't very strong on democracy, and Ukraine is no exception. Now that Ukraine is in an all out war with Russia, Zelensky's ties with Neo Nazi elements has only grown stronger. Here's a article from last August that I think demonstrates where Zelensky's political affiliation has gone:

Zelensky holds court with Ukraine’s most notorious neo-Nazi | The GrayZone

Russia is a totalitarian police state, and arguably the most dangerous threat of tyranny in the 21st century.

As Tucker Carlson has said, Russia is not a country I would personally want to live in. That being said, on the whole, I have found that they have tended to exert their influence the most on things that are close to their borders, Ukraine being a prime example. The U.S., on the other hand, has long tried and had some success in dominating much of the world. I think the War in Ukraine has had a profound effect on that. Here's an article from late 2022 that gets into the U.S. and its western allies diminishing role in the world:

America’s Global Dominance Is Ending: What Comes Next? | Centre for International Governance Innovation

I don't have a problem with the CIA and America choosing a side.

The side they chose was one where they attempted to "weaken" Russia. Mainstream media articles said as much near the start of Russia's military operation in Ukraine:

Austin’s assertion that US wants to ‘weaken’ Russia underlines Biden strategy shift | CNN

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess that Russia wouldn't take kindly to this strategy. That being said, I believe that Russia continues to offer off ramps for the U.S. and the west, as exemplified by what he said when Tucker Carlson interviewed him. What remains to be seen is when the U.S. will finally take Russia up on its implied offer to bury the hatchet and try to use diplomacy rather than weapons to resolve their differences.

 

[Scott]

cypress is a deep state warmonger cia shillhole, no different than a libertarian zionist fiat currency lover..

I think you underestimate him. Cypress is capable of being civil in his disagreements. I've found it to be exceedingly difficult to have a civilized debate when it comes to subjects like Ukraine, so I am grateful that he has stepped up to the plate to try to debate this in a civil way.

 

[Kamala Trump]

I think you underestimate him. Cypress is capable of being civil in his disagreements. I've found it to be exceedingly difficult to have a civilized debate when it comes to subjects like Ukraine, so I am grateful that he has stepped up to the plate to try to debate this in a civil way.

civility is less important than merit, intelligence, and morality.

 

[Scott]

Cypress and Nordberg get their news from Mika on mourning Joe. You can't have an adult conversation with those who parrot CIA talking points.

I find that they are both pretty civilized when it comes to debates. I think it's fairly hard to find people like this in forums, so I'm happy they're around.

Ukraine exposed NATO as a bankrupt paper tiger headed for another decade of deep recession and worker uprising.

I don't consider NATO a paper tiger at all, but so long as actual NATO members refrain from sending troops into Ukraine, I think the war in Ukraine may finally end in a way that doesn't involve things like nukes.

The world is changing and there's no way to deny it. I can't see a way to avoid worldwide revolution.

I can certainly agree that the world is going from the old uni polar world once dominated by the U.S. to a more multi polar world. BRICS seems to be a strong rebuttal to the dominance of the western SWIFT banking system, for instance.

 

[Scott]

civility is less important than merit, intelligence, and morality.

I think Cypress has that too to some degree. Ultimately, I think that as long as 2 opposing sides of an argument can continue to debate a point for a sufficient amount of time, the truth can slowly be revealed, whatever that truth may be.

 

[Kamala Trump]

I think Cypress has that too to some degree. Ultimately, I think that as long as 2 opposing sides of an argument can continue to debate a point for a sufficient amount of time, the truth can slowly be revealed, whatever that truth may be.

if both are arguing in good faith in pursuit of truth i might agree.

a lot of times dealing with a lying idiot just goes in endless circles of retardation.

those are worth pursuing as well, however, as the retardation and it's methods can be studied and revealed.

thats a slightly different kind of truth revelation, but I guess..... you 're actually right.

 

[goat]

I find that they are both pretty civilized when it comes to debates. I think it's fairly hard to find people like this in forums, so I'm happy they're around.



I don't consider NATO a paper tiger at all, but so long as actual NATO members refrain from sending troops into Ukraine, I think the war in Ukraine may finally end in a way that doesn't involve things like nukes.



I can certainly agree that the world is going from the old uni polar world once dominated by the U.S. to a more multi polar world. BRICS seems to be a strong rebuttal to the dominance of the western SWIFT banking system, for instance.

Let me know how your conversation with the msnbc tools works out.

 

[Scott]

civility is less important than merit, intelligence, and morality.

I think Cypress has that too to some degree. Ultimately, I think that as long as 2 opposing sides of an argument can continue to debate a point for a sufficient amount of time, the truth can slowly be revealed, whatever that truth may be.

if both are arguing in good faith in pursuit of truth i might agree.

Glad to hear it.

a lot of times dealing with a lying idiot just goes in endless circles of retardation.

I think we can agree that calling anyone a lying idiot is an insult and it's precisely these types of insults that I fear when it comes to discussions here. These types of insults drag the conversation down to a place where it isn't worth anyone's time to continue responding. In this thread, at least, I have found that Cypress has been quite civil. If that continues, I think we could perhaps make some headway in resolving our different views on the subject of this thread.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Glad to hear it.



I think we can agree that calling anyone a lying idiot is an insult and it's precisely these types of insults that I fear when it comes to discussions here. These types of insults drag the conversation down to a place where it isn't worth anyone's time to continue responding. In this thread, at least, I have found that Cypress has been quite civil. If that continues, I think we could perhaps make some headway in resolving our different views on the subject of this thread.

what lowers the conversation is liars and those who argue in bad faith and who arent pursuing truth at all.

emphasis on civility is a superficial analysis seeking to propagate sophistry over truth,

a cult of conformity over criticial thought.

 

[Scott]

I think we can agree that calling anyone a lying idiot is an insult and it's precisely these types of insults that I fear when it comes to discussions here. These types of insults drag the conversation down to a place where it isn't worth anyone's time to continue responding. In this thread, at least, I have found that Cypress has been quite civil. If that continues, I think we could perhaps make some headway in resolving our different views on the subject of this thread.

what lowers the conversation is liars and those who argue in bad faith and who arent pursuing truth at all.

I could certainly agree that that would be an -additional- factor that could lower the conversation. However, insults alone can bring constructive conversation to a halt all by itself.

emphasis on civility is a superficial analysis seeking to propagate sophistry over truth,

a cult of conformity over criticial thought.

I don't see why we can't both be civil -and- engage in critical thought. Do you?