NYT reports on decades long Russia-Sanders connection

[mcar]

Link to tweet

?s=20

Exclusive: For Bernie Sanders, his 1988 trip to the Soviet Union was an effort to build diplomatic ties. For the Soviets, it was the start of a years-long propaganda effort to exploit his antiwar agenda, documents obtained by The New York Times show. https://nyti.ms/2Ip6mWg

[dem4decades]

1. Trump went to Moscow and became a useful idiot.

[NCProgressive]

2. There must be a smoking gun in there somewhere

[peoli]

9. If you read the article you would find nothing

[NCProgressive]

19. I didn't mean the article

I meant the Russian archives.

Plus, I won't be looking at it with doting devotee eyes.

[TomCADem]

23. Daily Beast: Sanders Wants New NATO with Russia

I guess Bernie's trip to Russia must have made quite an impression since he has frequently criticized NATO as a waste of money and has even suggested that Russia be included in "NATO 2.0."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/11/19/sanders-wants-new-nato-with-russia

The senator’s campaign press secretary, Symone Sanders, confirmed after the speech that the candidate wants Russia and Arab League member nations to be part of the group. She referred to it as “NATO 2.0.”

NATO and Russia have a complicated relationship, as you might imagine, and Russia was strongly opposed when Albania and Croatia joined the alliance in 2009. So suggesting that NATO member states team up in a similar alliance with Russia is, to put it mildly, outside the mainstream. Sanders’ spokeswoman didn’t give additional details on how the alliance would work and whether member nations would commit to defending each other.

The United States joined with other North Atlantic countries in 1949 specifically to contain the Soviet Union’s then-growing regional hegemony. The Soviet Union responded by joining with Eastern European nations to form the now-defunct Warsaw Pact. NATO member nations commit to defending each other’s security; Article 5 of its charter says that an attack on one member nation will be treated as an attack on all of them. It has only been invoked once, after the 9/11 attacks.

In the speech, Sanders also deviated from the remarks as prepared and erroneously referred to NATO as the “North American Treaty Organization.” NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

[brush]

37. If Russia's in NATO who will defend us against Russia? There will be...

no point to NATO.

[thesquanderer]

45. Read the article, and you'll see that the part posted above is misleading.

Here's how Sanders' statement started:

“We must create a new organization like NATO to confront the security threats of the 21st century

He was not talking about having Russia join NATO. He was talking about working with Russia (and Arab League nations) and NATO nations to form a new organization to combat terrorism. Nothing there about having Russia join NATO, or about doing away with NATO.

[Celerity]

55. fail

[thesquanderer]

57. Fail right back at'cha!

The part you highlighted still depends on the context of the immediately preceding sentence.

We must create a new organization like NATO to confront the security threats of the 21st century

A new organization like NATO is, by definition, clearly not NATO. Even the article's author refers to it as "the creation of a new multi-nation organization." This is not even ambiguous.

In that context, the following sentence would mean that the new organization would be an expanded coalition including, not only the members of NATO, but also Russia, and would also work with (or perhaps include) members of the Arab league.

[Celerity]

60. lol, ludicrous spin and pettifogging nt

[thesquanderer]

61. Just the literal words, plain as day! n/t

[Celerity]

62. no, and you know it, simply slapping a new name on an organisation that is NATO in all but name

AND that now includes Russia is exactly what he's talking about.

Are you you a proponent of including Russia into an Article 5-type collective defence scheme?

Article 5 is literally the beating heart and soul of NATO.

To bring in Russia under that umbrella is madness, as they are tilting towards yet another round of expansionism and military adventurneering, including strategic threats involving the Baltics, who are NATO members. They also have been launching non linear, asymmetric warfare attacks on the US, the UK, and multiple other nations, especially via election interference.

Don’t be fooled: Russia is still NATO’s greatest challenge

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/dont-be-fooled-russia-is-still-natos-greatest-challenge/

Seventy years after NATO’s birth, the Alliance is still confronting an existential threat to its east, several defense and foreign affairs ministers said on December 3. Although French President Emmanuel Macron has made waves by suggesting that terrorism, not Russia, was the biggest threat facing NATO today, the defense ministers from Estonia and Lithuania were clear that they still see Moscow as their biggest challenge.

“Russia has shown with its actions that it is a serious security threat,” Estonian defense minister Jüri Luik said during a panel discussion on Baltic and Black sea security during the NATO engages event in London on December 3. “For Lithuania, [Russia] is the only external existential threat we have,” added Lithuanian defense minister Raimundas Karoblis. While Macron has a legitimate concern in preventing terrorism in Europe, Luik argued that unlike terrorism, “Russia is the existential threat” because “it is a nation state.” NATO, he added, is “the only organization that can viably” deter Russian aggression against its neighbors.

Both ministers praised NATO’s efforts to protect the Baltic states from Russian attack and show Moscow that the Alliance would not leave them undefended. “Lithuania has never had such a great number of guarantees and allies as we have now,” Karoblis said. Luik warned, however, that persistence is key to staving off Russian aggression. “If we are serious in our actions, if we are clear and concise in our messaging, then the threat is quite low,” he explained. “But if we are weak, if we are wobbly, then the threat can go up.”

Both Karoblis and Luik suggested that NATO needs to do more to shore up its Baltic defense, including larger exercises to show “how we bring in additional troops if they are necessary,” as Luik suggested. Karoblis highlighted the need for “more precise defense planning,” a wish that has become controversial after a reported Turkish attempt to block new military plans for the Baltics and Poland until NATO recognizes Syrian Kurdish groups as terrorist organizations. Despite the supposed Turkish opposition, neither Luik nor Karoblis were concerned that the proposed plans would be blocked more than temporarily. “The discussions are going on all the time,” Luik explained, adding that “if we don’t find a compromise here, we hopefully will find it a bit later. But I am absolutely sure we will find a compromise.” Karoblis promised “we will find a solution to this.”

Black Sea instability

snip


Russia’s Next Land Grab Won’t Be in an Ex-Soviet State. It Will Be in Europe.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/15/russias-next-land-grab-wont-be-in-an-ex-soviet-state-it-will-be-in-europe-putin-saakashvili-sweden-finland-arctic-northern-sea-route-baltics-nato/

[thesquanderer]

63. Geez. From my perspective, you completely miss the point.

A NEW organization that is SIMILAR to NATO, by definition, cannot simultaneously also BE NATO.

Nowhere was there ANY indication of wanting to do away with the CURRENT NATO.

So this would be a different organization, similar to NATO in that it would be an alliance of numerous countries, but in this case, it would be a different alliance, for a different purpose, the purpose of coordinating efforts against terrorism.

It would not replace NATO nor its Article 5, and from reading the quote, I don't know where anyone would get the idea that it would.

It's not complicated. I'm just sticking to exactly what was said in the quote. Instead of adding things he didn't say.

[Cha]

3. Interesting that more is coming out now.. TY, mcar

[peoli]

12. Interesting that this article says so many positive things about Bernie Sanders

[lostnfound]

39. The day after Warren drops out.

The masters of the universe like to have it their way.

[sheshe2]

4. mueller report. nt

[FreepFryer]

5. Played like a cheap fiddle that won't accept it's no Stradivarius (nt)

[FreepFryer]

15. Bless your heart. (n/t)

[peoli]

6. I CAN'T FIND ANYTHING IN THIS ARTICLE THAT SHOWS ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT BERNIE SANDERS

[brush]

16. Russian ties by a socialist and you see nothing negative?

[el_bryanto]

48. Well not everybody is excited about the new red scare. nt

[brush]

49. True, but millions, not all, but millions of boomers and genXers were...

schooled in their formative years to fear socialism, the USSR, Red China, the iron curtain, failed communist communes, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, etc. Many know better now but millions of voters still retain those views and fears—and they vote heavily.

What I don't understand is how, Sanders, a grown-ass man, who has lived in this country all his life can so misread the zeitgeist of the nation and mislead his supporters into thinking that this country will elect a socialist when there are still millionscwho see socialism as toxic and will not vote for him—especially now when there is no economic downturn. It's just not going to happen. His naivete is stunning. Why do you think trump and the repugs keep pushing for Sanders? They know the country is not going to elect a socialist so they want him to be trump's opponent.

[el_bryanto]

51. And of course, on the off chance that Democrats win, they want someone who isn't going to

rock the boat that much. Someone who believes in capitalism and is willing to turn a blind eye to it's cruelties.

Bryant

[brush]

52. You do know the social democracies of Europe, which Sanders claims to favor...

Last edited Mon Mar 9, 2020, 01:22 PM - Edit history (1)

are capitalist countries, right?

[el_bryanto]

53. Oh thanks for explaining that to me- being born yesterday I hadn't heard

But yes, Democratic Socialist countries are also Capitalist - but they avoid the cruelty of capitalism by having a strong regulatory framework and strong social programs.

Bryant

[brush]

54. True enough, that is a good thing. Too bad Sanders made the mistake a...

few years back of labeling himself a democratic socialist instead of social democrat when he switched from just plain,self-avowed socialist to use the Democratic Party to run for president.

[Maru Kitteh]

17. I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY SOME CANDIDATE'S SUPPORTERS ARE SO FOND OF ALL CAPS ! !

ARE SOME PEOPLE GOING DEAF OR SOMETHING? IS THIS A COVID-19 THING?

IT'S LIKE A TREND.

why

[NCProgressive]

21. LOL

[emmaverybo]

30. +LOL

[Just_Vote_Dem]

18. They were using him for propaganda purposes while he was trying to work with them

The feeling you get is that he was naive and easily fooled.

[emmaverybo]

32. And therein lies the problem. Bernie lacks fundamentaL knowledge of foreign policy matters,

relations, politics, and history. Otherwise, why extol virtues of communism during the Cold War? And what a lack of judgement!

[onetexan]

38. K&R -a useful idiot, just like the orange one

[mcar]

42. That's my take too

[Celerity]

24. ...

[awesomerwb1]

36. Maybe if you yelled a little bit more

it would be easier for you to get your point across comrade.

[brush]

7. Even more negative oppo? He's toast.

[dalton99a]

8. Would President Sanders sign a Russia sanctions bill?

[HarlanPepper]

11. Doubtful. He's voted against them in the past.

[Todd79]

31. Hmmm

He voted against gun control in the past too.

Words are another story

Not a fan of Reason, but those are his quotes:

[emmaverybo]

33. OMG. Romania he thought was nice under communism?

[Gothmog]

13. No

sanders had voted against sanctions on Russia more than once

[Gothmog]

10. so Both the Washington Post and the NYT are covering Russia and sanders

[NCProgressive]

22. They are getting a treasure trove of Russian archives

It will take a while to go through it all

[DanTex]

40. The media bashing Bernie! I'm shocked!!!!

[mcar]

43. Ah, the old blame the media strategy

Also, not bashing. Reporting on.

[ehrnst]

46. "Firehose of Falshood"

“None of this is brand new; politicians have always sought to smear journalism they didn’t like. What’s new is that the attack is no longer about this or that story, but about journalism itself. It’s a challenge to the very notion of an independent accounting of facts.”

https://www.niemanlab.org/2017/12/the-firehose-of-falsehood/

[Tarheel_Dem]

50. You call it "bashing". Some call it "vetting". Something that never really happened last time. nt

[Me.]

20. How Long Have We Been Trying To Bring This To The Forefront

Time you finally caught on NY Times


and thank you mcar...

[emmaverybo]

34. K+R

[betsuni]

25. K&R

[Hekate]

26. It's about time for a full vetting.

Nuff said

[evertonfc]

27. who the hell goes to Soviet Union in 1988?

especially some small town mayor? Good grief. This guy writes his own ads

[DonaldsRump]

28. No wonder Comrade Trump loves BS so much n/t

[GulfCoast66]

29. Lord, can you imagine this coming out in September if he were our candidate?

And who doubts the republicans already have this and were waiting. Putin, you know.

Pete, Amy, Beto and most importantly representative Clyburn are owed a debt by all Americans.

[emmaverybo]

35. Yesl And so is Biden.

[brer cat]

41. K&R

[Happy Hoosier]

44. I still can't understand the American far left's romance with the Soviets and their stooges.

I mean, It's possible to be a Marxist and denounce the obvious authoritarian perversion that is the Soviet and Cuban models.

[Cha]

47. KR!

[pampango]

56. Sanders bashes Putin and Russian interference on a regular basis. He supports NATO and the EU.

A Russian asset he is not. He is not anti-Russia nor should he be. He is anti-authoritarian government in Moscow led by Putin.

Many presidents try to ‘reset’ relations with Russia which, given their nuclear arsenal, is not a bad idea.

[Politicub]

58. I think Bernie wanted closer ties with the Soviet Union

before it collapsed. It doesn’t mean he wants the same connection with modern Russia.

And it made sense (in Bernie land) at the time because the Soviet Union was a socialist state. A failed one, though. It had already devolved into totalitarianism by 1988.

Either way, it’s not a good look. Republicans seem to be okay with ties to the current Russian regime, so they may not care.

[onetexan]

59. correct, the optics would be horrible should BS become our nominee. The right shudders at the word

"socialist", and even uninformed Independents will be scared off. We will have another 4 yrs of the Idiot.