reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @TheOliverStone

Posted - March 11, 2025 at 1:20 PM

Saved - March 11, 2025 at 2:23 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I’m sharing Jeffrey Sachs's speech to the EU, which outlines our actions against Russia. I believe Trump is aware of some details, but the EU remains unresponsive. My earlier post from March 2022 reflects that little has changed unless we better understand the war's root causes. While the U.S. has its own history of aggression, it doesn’t justify Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. His miscalculations have isolated Russia further. We must seek back-channel negotiations to avoid a catastrophic confrontation, as the potential for a peaceful partnership between the U.S. and Russia has been tragically lost.

@TheOliverStone - Oliver Stone

I’m reposting #JeffreySachs's speech to the European Union – a clear and fair step-by-step account of what we did in the hopes of destroying #Russia. Trump, I believe, knows some of this, but the EU is deaf. I’ve added my post put out in March of ’22 after the war broke out. Basically, nothing changes – unless the basic causes of the war are better understood in the West. Sachs's Speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjcMoDFU1xg My thoughts on the invasion of #Ukraine (March 3, 2022): Although the United States has many wars of aggression on its conscience, it doesn’t justify Mr. Putin’s aggression in Ukraine. A dozen wrongs don’t make a right. Russia was wrong to invade. It has made too many mistakes -- 1) underestimating Ukrainian resistance, 2) overestimating the military’s ability to achieve its objective, 3) underestimating Europe’s reaction, especially Germany upping its military contribution to NATO, which they’ve resisted for some 20 years; even Switzerland has joined the cause. Russia will be more isolated than ever from the West. 4) underestimating the enhanced power of NATO, which will now put more pressure on Russia’s borders, 5) probably putting Ukraine into NATO, 6) underestimating the damage to its own economy and certainly creating more internal resistance in Russia, 7) creating a major readjustment of power in its oligarch class, 8 ) putting cluster and vacuum bombs into play, 9) and underestimating the power of social media worldwide. But we must wonder, how could Putin have saved the Russian-speaking people of Donetsk and Luhansk? No doubt his Government could’ve done a better job of showing the world the eight years of suffering of those people and their refugees -- as well as highlighting the Ukrainian buildup of 110,000 soldiers on the Donetsk-Luhansk borders, which was occurring essentially before the Russian buildup. But the West has far stronger public relations than the Russians. Or perhaps Putin should’ve surrendered the two holdout provinces and offered 1-3 million people help to relocate in Russia. The world might’ve understood better the aggression of the Ukrainian Government. But then again, I’m not sure. But now, it’s too late. Putin has allowed himself to be baited and fallen into the trap set by the U.S. and has committed his military, empowering the worst conclusions the West can make. He probably, I think, has given up on the West, and this brings us closer than ever to a Final Confrontation. There seems to be no road back. The only ones happy about this are Russian nationalists and the legion of Russian haters, who finally got what they’ve been dreaming of for years, i.e. Biden, Pentagon, CIA, EU, NATO, mainstream media -- and don’t overlook Nuland and her sinister neocon gang in D.C. This will significantly vindicate the uber hawks in public eyes. Pointing out the toxicity of their policies (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, NATO expansion, breaking nuclear treaties, censoring and omitting crucial facts from the news, etc.) will be next to impossible. Pointing out Western double standards, including Kyiv and Zelenskyy’s bad behavior, will likewise fall on deaf ears as we again draw the wrong conclusions. It's easier now to smear those of us who tried to understand the Russian position through these last two decades. We tried. But now is the time, as JFK and Khrushchev faced down the perilous situation in Cuba in October 1962, for the two nuclear powers to walk this back from the abyss. Both sides need to save face. This isn’t a moment for the U.S. to gloat. As a Vietnam War veteran and as a man who’s witnessed the endless antagonism of the Cold War, demonizing and humiliating foreign leaders is not a policy that can succeed. It only makes the situation worse. Back-channel negotiations are necessary, because whatever happens in the next few days or weeks, the specter of a final war must be realistically accepted and brokered. Who can do that? Are there real statesmen among us? Perhaps, I pray, Macron. Bring us the likes of Metternich, Talleyrand, Averell Harriman, George Shultz, James Baker, and Mikhail Gorbachev. The great unseen tragedy at the heart of this history of our times is the loss of a true peaceful partnership between Russia and the U.S. -- with, yes, potentially China, no reason why not except America’s desire for dominance. The idiots who kept provoking Russia after the Cold War ended in 1991 have committed a terrible crime against humanity and the future. Together, our countries could’ve been natural allies in the biggest battle of all against climate change. In its technical achievements alone, in large scale science, in its rocketry, heavy industries, and its most modern, clean nuclear energy reactors, Russia has been a great friend to man. Alas, in our century so far, man has failed to see or reach for the stars.

@TheOliverStone — Oliver Stone

Posted - July 24, 2024 at 4:20 PM

Saved - July 24, 2024 at 6:39 PM

@TheOliverStone - Oliver Stone

This interview is from 1992. It’s not 1963 anymore. People are awake and sentient. Too many cameras. Let’s not allow the media to move on without getting real answers. https://t.co/auIffMNV6g

Video Transcript AI Summary

The media failed in 1963 by accepting the cover story that Oswald acted alone in JFK's assassination. Oswald was portrayed as the lone culprit worldwide before being charged. Kennedy's motive was seen as promoting peace during the Cold War, evident in his actions with Khrushchev and Castro. The media's trivialization of important issues has led to the neglect of Kennedy's true intentions and accomplishments.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: The media basically blew the story in 1963. I'm talking about the American media. They accepted the cover story, which was put out on Friday afternoon, that Oswald did it alone. And I showed that in the movie with Donald Sullen. They had the cover story right in place. It was a technique of black operations, a technique of covert operations. They had a studio biography of Oswald that was available on all the wires. You could have been in New Zealand. You could have been in Egypt. You could have been in England, South Africa. You got the same story on Friday afternoon. This was 4 or 5 hours before Oswald was charged with the killing of the President, but it was already starting to point to Oswald. And when Oswald was killed on Sunday by Jack Ruby, the New York Times headline said, President's assassin is shot. It didn't say, President's alleged assassin is shot, which is what it should have said. Oswald never had representation. I point to the motive as being the winding down of the Cold War. On a much larger scale, I'm saying what the movie says is that Kennedy was reaching sort of a form of early detente with Khrushchev, 25 years ahead of Gorbachev, There's plenty of evidence of this, not only the American University speech, but the deals that he made with Khrushchev in 1962 over the Cuban Missile Crisis, the signing of the nuclear peace treaty, which was a groundbreaking thing at that time, the installation of the hotline, the backdoor negotiation with Castro, and a very strict, very strict no combat troop policy by President Kennedy, not only in Vietnam, but in Cuba and in Laos and several times in Vietnam, in 1961, 'sixty two and 'sixty three. Well, radical because, you know, we're living in the Orwell age. Your English writers was much more acute than people give him credit for. I remember when 1984 rolled around, Time Magazine had a cover, and they sort of chuckled and said, Well, you see, 1984 came and went, and it never happened. But it did happen, and it happened in a much more subtle way than even Orwell could have predicted. It happened in a way where the media did take over, but they gave you so much trivialization and so much marginalization that they could depoliticize any issue by trivializing it. And it worked. And in fact, Kennedy has been trivialized by all this Kennedy bashing, the womanizing, this, that. It doesn't matter how many women he went with. What matters is what he was trying to do, and that's been forgotten.