[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
World News See other World News Articles Title: Is There a Way Out of the Russia-Ukraine War? Is There a Way Out of the Russia-Ukraine War? Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola June 03, 2022 STORY AT-A-GLANCE In the video above, Lex Fridman interviews Oliver Stone about the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Stone, an award-winning film director, was the executive producer of Ukraine on Fire,1,2 a documentary that came out in 2016. Stone also interviewed Russian President Vladimir Putin between 2014 and 2016. The interviews became the documentary series, The Putin Interviews, which aired in 2017. So, Stone has some insight into both countries. Fridman, meanwhile, is half-Russian, half-Ukrainian. Ukraine on Fire Ukraine on Fire focused on the Maidan Revolution3 that began in Kiev in 2013. After three months of peaceful protests against the Ukrainian governments decision to not sign a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU, favoring an offer from Russia instead, deadly violence broke out. Petro Poroshenko was elected president in a special election in May 2014. According to the official story, Ukrainians were dissatisfied with president Viktor Yanukovychs growing authoritarianism, and his refusal to sign the EU association agreement, so they overthrew him. Yanukovych and other high-level officials, however, claim the violent revolution was orchestrated by the U.S. for the purpose of regime change. Leaked conversations revealed top-level officials discussing how to implement a coup to overthrow Ukraines democratically elected government. You can read more about this and see the film in my previous article, Ukraine on Fire: 2016 Documentary by Oliver Stone. The current president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, a former comedian and actor, was voted in in April 2019. Putin, the Leader and the Man In this interview, Fridman and Stone primarily focus on Putin how and what he thinks, based on Stones perception of the man and Russias incursion into Ukraine. Stone presents a different side of Putin that many Americans probably have never seen, and explains why Putins behavior is, perhaps surprisingly, rational. The U.S. has a long history of anti-Soviet bias. As noted by Stone, the American stance was that capitalism works and communism doesnt. Modern Russia is no longer communist,4,5,6 yet the U.S. antagonism against Russia remains, while the U.S. government, ironically, is now doing everything in its power, and beyond, to implement communism here. Stone notes that Putin is very much a market man, and has been very clear that he believes national sovereignty is paramount for world peace and harmonious relations. Putin insists that all nations must be sovereign, and I believe the United States has never accepted that, Stone says. The U.S., Stone believes, is far more interested in keeping nations subservient to it and its ideologies. According to Stone, Putin has a generally good reputation in other countries for being a man who promotes the interests of his country, but not at the expense of others. Keeping the world in harmony, this has always been in his picture, Stone insists. When asked if he thought power had a corrupting influence on Putin, Stone insists that Putin would never last if he were acting as a dictator. The Russian people would not keep him in a position of power which he has kept, on and off, for about 20 years. Russia is a functioning democracy, and the peoples displeasure would reveal itself in several different ways. The ballot box is only one avenue by which they exhibit their dissatisfaction. But, apparently, they think Putins doing a good job at protecting the country and looking out for its needs. Fridman, on the other hand, notes he senses a mixture of fear and apathy toward the leadership when he speaks to Russian family and friends, and this concerns him. Stone counters Fridmans concerns saying he saw far more freedom in the (Russian) press than what is pictured in the West, and that means different points of view. Russians are always arguing among themselves. Ive never seen a more contentious country. Stones Experience With Putin Part of Putins political longevity may have something to do with his ability to stay unruffled. I never saw him lose his temper, Stone says, noting that while most Americans tend to be emotional, Putin, in contrast, is calm, rational, balanced, mature and respectful, even under pressure. And, contrary to charismatic dictators such as former Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, Putin doesnt try to charm you. Hes a straight-shooter. All of his interviews with Stone were granted without rules or restrictions. All questions were allowable. Nothing was off the table. Putin also did not request to see any of the work before it was published. He trusted me, Stone says. According to Stone, Putin has no empire intentions, and repeatedly expressed his desire to have friendly relations with the U.S. Unfortunately, Putins reputation has been tarnished by U.S. media, people acting from a political agenda, those who never met him, never went to Russia and dont know Russian history. This U.S.-fabricated persona of Putin as an enemy of both his own people and the rest of the world has made such relations difficult. Stones Initial Take on Russias Invasion of Ukraine Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest
#1. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
One way is for the US of A to mined it's own GD business
I corrected spelling for you. Uncle Sam has the ability to do so, but he simply cannot keep his nose out of the business of other countries. The advice of George Washington is best to "be friends and trading partners with all and favorites to none." That is something that Chuck Schumer needs to keep in mind. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
|
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|