The “brains in the military and the state department”? I prefer “the crazies”.
Aaron, the buzz saw, strikes again. Simon seems completely unaware that the u.s. also has talking points and propaganda, not just “genocidal” russia. I don’t have cable tv but I remember hearing that the propaganda leading up to the war in Ukraine was worse than it was in the lead up to the war in Iraq. Is that true? Thanks guys. I will not read this guys book but I will get “An Army Like No Other” by your guest last month.
Typical mouthpiece for the staunchly anti-Russian, pro-NATO Russian expat community. Completely devoid of objectivity and therefore not a credible source of information. Accuses host of repeating talking points - classic pot calling kettle black.
I listen to Simon, and I am amazed by his lack of understanding & empathy. He assumes that because someone is powerful, that they are right. He assumes that people who live in the "hinterlands" are ignorant and don't understand, while those who sit in the position of power are endowed with wisdom, and understanding.
As someone who lives in the "hinterlands" I do not believe that those who sit in power have my interests at heart.
Simon also seems to believe that Western Propaganda is to believed, while Russian Propaganda is not to be believed. A sane position is not to trust propaganda, no matter the source.
This was extremely frustrating to listen to. Shuster is a complete hack. The most moronic thing he said was the concept that we can’t judge the outcomes of people’s actions because that would be some kind of ‘hindsight bias’. Huh??? That’s the entirely normal way of judging people’s actions and decisions - was the outcome good or bad? If fully apply his logic, his book about Zelensky shouldn’t exist - how can he judge his actions in hindsight? Lol. (Of course, that logic doesn’t apply to Putin - Shuster freely judges him). His (non)responses to Katie’s questions at the end were also disturbing: Russia will only use nukes if it’s losing….we should make sure they lose….
Thank you for exposing us to the shitlib brain: A bunch of empty platitudes and and ink cloud when challenged.
The “we can’t judge in hindsight” comment really caught my attention too! What the hell?? How are we to ever learn anything then??? Yes, I shouldn’t have touched this hot stove, but that’s just hindsight as I wrapped my burns. The next time I’m faced with this choice, I’ll simply have to ignore the outcome from last time!
The assumptions underlying Simon’s position on Russia re its so-called lack of democracy and aggressive intentions are definitely “mainstream” as he calls it. Aaron and Katie did a great job of undermining them via facts. Examples: pointing out denying people in the Donbas the right to use the Russian language; Zelensky’s use of Azov, Right Sektor, etc to oppress them. Of course there are any number of further examples, such as eight years of shelling civilians in that territory, all of which give the lie to the whole notion that US support has been “defending democracy.” The interview was a great “get” in terms of self-exposure by the agents of the “mainstream” position. Keep up the great work, kids!
Loved the way Aaron continually challenged Mr. Shuster’s neocon talking points without letting the interview get out of hand but I wish that he would have followed one other line of questioning. Mr. Shuster kept referring to Russia as an extremely aggressive, genocidal country that must be stopped. I wish Aaron had confronted him with NATOs aggressive push to gobble up former Warsaw Pact countries and bring their offensive capabilities right up to Russia’s border. NATOs aggressive expansion must look like an existential crisis to Putin and his coterie. Also to harp on Russia’s genocidal regime in light of the recent Gaza genocide, almost fully funded by the US and the U.S.’s almost constant military interventions and crippling sanctions regimes put on countries worldwide that have been the cause of the deaths of millions of innocent civilians since WWII is kind of myopic of Mr. Shuster. The other thing that was briefly mentioned was the far right infiltration of the Ukrainian military. This faction has its roots in the anti-Russian sentiment that goes all the way back to World War II. I wish he had followed up a little bit on that and the fact that many Ukrainians think of themselves as Russian first, that’s why the Russian language is so prevalent in some parts of Ukraine
I like it that Aaron used the term, "alleged" when speaking of the alleged Russian responsibility for that atrocity. That seems like the responsible thing for a journalist to do.
As a war correspondent, Chris Hedges was averse to being embedded with troops. He liked to be on his own. He felt that reporters being embedded with platoons and regiments resulted in biased reporting. Perhaps there's a similar phenomenon going on when reporters are basically embedded with politicians during wartime.
This was actually a truly excellent debate. Simon revealed many nuances about Zelensky that I wasn't aware of. I wish there'd been more time to address, and to challenge, Simon's view of a Russian "victory". Particularly on his view of Putin's expansionistic aims. I don't think Putin even wants to take all of Ukraine. HIs stated goals are quite clear, and it's hard to imagine him going beyond that. Would a negotiated end, with the concession of some Ukraine territory, be a victory or defeat for either side? Simon was pretty clear about NATO membership being essential to Ukraine agreeing, but that's been a red line for Russia from the beginning , or even arming them like a member.
I will tag on your comments to say that IF I was inclined, I think reading this book would be a worthy read. NOT because it's perfect but because it presents a piece of the puzzle of American (via NATO) involvement in this very sad war action. A draining of American Treasure and an abuse of the people of Ukraine. (Only winners: the military Industrial Complex). It's uncomfortable to me that whenever the possibility of American manipulation is brought up, the standard reply is usually that it was the course of action that Ukrainians wanted. (Sort of a rape narrative with a twist...) but as Katie Halper pointed out current surveys show that sentiment is toward peacemaking. Great interview.
The subscribers here have made all very good points regarding this interview. The guest did not once consider the actions of NATO which contributed to the war, beginning with NATO expansion to the east, after promising Russia not to do so in 1991. In addition, he did not mention that the two main points for Russia - denied by the West - were neutrality for Urkaine and a pan-European security agreement. He was also quick to point out Russia not fulfilling the Minsk Accords, but he did so without examining the West's craven use of those agreements to build up Ukraine's military and prepare for war with Russia. Moreover, which nation pulled out of arms control agreements first (ABM treaty, INF treaty, Open Skies Arms Control Treaty)? It was not Russia.
Christ, you need BOOTS for this guy. From the stentorian affectation on down. WOW.
Simon says there was no serious campaign against the Russian language, except that Ukraine banned it on television and in courts of law?? Maybe to a men of affairs like Simon, televised media and the justice system are just frivolous sites of cultural expression with no bearing on *real* uses of language, which I guess happen in private where no one else can hear it. Shuster may want to pull his head out and do a quick google of minority language rights battles as they have raged in many, many, many other places. A perfunctory review should be more than sufficient, but if he’s still confused afterward, I’d invite him to conduct all his own future legal proceedings in Mandarin or Danish, and see how that feels.
In addition, as he already TOLD us, to the contrary, he sets ENORMOUS store by the power of televised media specifically in its linguistic inflection. Abandoning his faith in the ‘agency’ of Ukrainians from earlier in the interview, Simon ventriloquizes Zelensky to claim that residents of the Donbas are apparently all brainwashed (to a person) by Russian TV— so the obvious solution is to legally prohibit any TV in Russian and broadcast exclusively Ukrainian propaganda in its place. Simon says all those people need to get re-brainwashed for the good side.
Speaking of agency, wasn’t it noble of him to scold Aaron for dismissing the Ukrainians and their vision and leadership and diplomacy? After all, (did he mention this?) Simon was on the ground, in the room, embedded with Zelensky et al. See, what we couldn’t possibly understand, not having been there and all, is that actually it was the Ukrainians who were calling the shots, and the US and UK just had to deal with it. It’s Ukraine’s world; the current and former global hegemons just live in it.
Agency indeed.
Keep in mind, this is a country that required a permission slip from Ol’ Daddy Biden to fire back into the country that’s invading it. This is a country so desperate for Western arms supplies that they settled for cluster bombs, now littered across the Ukraininan countryside like a vast, deadly, nonconsensual scavenger-hunt of horror lasting from now till forever.
‘Agency,’ after all, is essentially a spiritual measure of national vigor; it’s the moral fortitude of a nation huffing whiffs of destiny after pounding shots of esprit de corps. It cares little for pedestrian, banal, material constraints like existential dependency on a superpower for the military means to survive an ongoing invasion. None of that stuff is relevant. Simon says Western pressure could not have been decisive anyway, since the US felt like it simply wasn’t their place to get all involved in the peace talks. Far be it from the US to meddle in the affairs of other countries! Us? Shit no! Zelensky abandoned the talks because of the zeitgeist. He did it for the feels. Was it Bucha? No, that redoubled his efforts. Then what changed? Uhhmm…something about a ship? Simon says you had to be there.
Did Johnson and Nuland descend on the talks just before they fell apart? Yes. Have they told us that they advised against peace? Sure. Does this comport with the DC blob rationale heard everywhere before, during, and since? Well, yea. Was it this same Nuland who was caught on a phone call personally selecting the post-coup leader of this same sovereign, democratic, and agentic country a decade ago? Yippee-kay-ay fuck-the-EU-yeah, bro! What of it? That’s getting pretty deep in the weeds for Simon’s taste. Let’s stick with generalities like a professional, ok pal?
Anyway, the US wouldn’t backstop the peace, but war? Absolutely! Not to worry, Vlod, we’ve got your back. And America, famously, always keeps its promises.
Katie and Aaron, this interview was beneath your standards. This guy is beyond stupid and should never be next to a microphone. Sounds as if he should be one of our US congressman who so love Ukraine (most corrupt country in Europe) and Israel (most corrupt country on earth via the US). Why would people as bright as you two have him on? Puzzling. Baffling. Incomprehensible.
P.S. Bucha was NOT done by Russia. Don't you know propaganda when you see it? SS doesn't.
Yes, Scott Ritter did a very thorough analysis of Bucha just from the publicly available evidence that is completely at odds with Schuster's take. I'd like for Katie and Aaron to give Ritter equal time.
How about it, Katie and Aaron? Do you read the comments? I'd love for you to interview Scott Ritter on Ukraine and, especially, Bucha. Don't be useful idiots for Newsweek!
The “brains in the military and the state department”? I prefer “the crazies”.
Aaron, the buzz saw, strikes again. Simon seems completely unaware that the u.s. also has talking points and propaganda, not just “genocidal” russia. I don’t have cable tv but I remember hearing that the propaganda leading up to the war in Ukraine was worse than it was in the lead up to the war in Iraq. Is that true? Thanks guys. I will not read this guys book but I will get “An Army Like No Other” by your guest last month.
Simon is a tool
Yes. In fact one might say: a Useful Idiot.
Yes, he is.
Typical mouthpiece for the staunchly anti-Russian, pro-NATO Russian expat community. Completely devoid of objectivity and therefore not a credible source of information. Accuses host of repeating talking points - classic pot calling kettle black.
I listen to Simon, and I am amazed by his lack of understanding & empathy. He assumes that because someone is powerful, that they are right. He assumes that people who live in the "hinterlands" are ignorant and don't understand, while those who sit in the position of power are endowed with wisdom, and understanding.
As someone who lives in the "hinterlands" I do not believe that those who sit in power have my interests at heart.
Simon also seems to believe that Western Propaganda is to believed, while Russian Propaganda is not to be believed. A sane position is not to trust propaganda, no matter the source.
This was extremely frustrating to listen to. Shuster is a complete hack. The most moronic thing he said was the concept that we can’t judge the outcomes of people’s actions because that would be some kind of ‘hindsight bias’. Huh??? That’s the entirely normal way of judging people’s actions and decisions - was the outcome good or bad? If fully apply his logic, his book about Zelensky shouldn’t exist - how can he judge his actions in hindsight? Lol. (Of course, that logic doesn’t apply to Putin - Shuster freely judges him). His (non)responses to Katie’s questions at the end were also disturbing: Russia will only use nukes if it’s losing….we should make sure they lose….
Thank you for exposing us to the shitlib brain: A bunch of empty platitudes and and ink cloud when challenged.
The “we can’t judge in hindsight” comment really caught my attention too! What the hell?? How are we to ever learn anything then??? Yes, I shouldn’t have touched this hot stove, but that’s just hindsight as I wrapped my burns. The next time I’m faced with this choice, I’ll simply have to ignore the outcome from last time!
The assumptions underlying Simon’s position on Russia re its so-called lack of democracy and aggressive intentions are definitely “mainstream” as he calls it. Aaron and Katie did a great job of undermining them via facts. Examples: pointing out denying people in the Donbas the right to use the Russian language; Zelensky’s use of Azov, Right Sektor, etc to oppress them. Of course there are any number of further examples, such as eight years of shelling civilians in that territory, all of which give the lie to the whole notion that US support has been “defending democracy.” The interview was a great “get” in terms of self-exposure by the agents of the “mainstream” position. Keep up the great work, kids!
btw, Katie: You were FABULOUS on Piers Morgan!!!
Loved the way Aaron continually challenged Mr. Shuster’s neocon talking points without letting the interview get out of hand but I wish that he would have followed one other line of questioning. Mr. Shuster kept referring to Russia as an extremely aggressive, genocidal country that must be stopped. I wish Aaron had confronted him with NATOs aggressive push to gobble up former Warsaw Pact countries and bring their offensive capabilities right up to Russia’s border. NATOs aggressive expansion must look like an existential crisis to Putin and his coterie. Also to harp on Russia’s genocidal regime in light of the recent Gaza genocide, almost fully funded by the US and the U.S.’s almost constant military interventions and crippling sanctions regimes put on countries worldwide that have been the cause of the deaths of millions of innocent civilians since WWII is kind of myopic of Mr. Shuster. The other thing that was briefly mentioned was the far right infiltration of the Ukrainian military. This faction has its roots in the anti-Russian sentiment that goes all the way back to World War II. I wish he had followed up a little bit on that and the fact that many Ukrainians think of themselves as Russian first, that’s why the Russian language is so prevalent in some parts of Ukraine
I like it that Aaron used the term, "alleged" when speaking of the alleged Russian responsibility for that atrocity. That seems like the responsible thing for a journalist to do.
As a war correspondent, Chris Hedges was averse to being embedded with troops. He liked to be on his own. He felt that reporters being embedded with platoons and regiments resulted in biased reporting. Perhaps there's a similar phenomenon going on when reporters are basically embedded with politicians during wartime.
Yes. I feel as though Simon was caught up in the play acting going on in Kiev. He seems to disregard what happened in 2014-2022
This was actually a truly excellent debate. Simon revealed many nuances about Zelensky that I wasn't aware of. I wish there'd been more time to address, and to challenge, Simon's view of a Russian "victory". Particularly on his view of Putin's expansionistic aims. I don't think Putin even wants to take all of Ukraine. HIs stated goals are quite clear, and it's hard to imagine him going beyond that. Would a negotiated end, with the concession of some Ukraine territory, be a victory or defeat for either side? Simon was pretty clear about NATO membership being essential to Ukraine agreeing, but that's been a red line for Russia from the beginning , or even arming them like a member.
I will tag on your comments to say that IF I was inclined, I think reading this book would be a worthy read. NOT because it's perfect but because it presents a piece of the puzzle of American (via NATO) involvement in this very sad war action. A draining of American Treasure and an abuse of the people of Ukraine. (Only winners: the military Industrial Complex). It's uncomfortable to me that whenever the possibility of American manipulation is brought up, the standard reply is usually that it was the course of action that Ukrainians wanted. (Sort of a rape narrative with a twist...) but as Katie Halper pointed out current surveys show that sentiment is toward peacemaking. Great interview.
Please PLEASE make future guests take an IQ exam before the interview; this one's was so low, my brain hurts!
and yes! Katie was absolutely amazing on Piers Morgan! It was a pleasure to see her shred them.
The worst human impairment is the belief that “they” are bad, but “we” are good.
Anyone, from any country or political inclination, who talks about anything with this perspective, should immediately be discounted.
The subscribers here have made all very good points regarding this interview. The guest did not once consider the actions of NATO which contributed to the war, beginning with NATO expansion to the east, after promising Russia not to do so in 1991. In addition, he did not mention that the two main points for Russia - denied by the West - were neutrality for Urkaine and a pan-European security agreement. He was also quick to point out Russia not fulfilling the Minsk Accords, but he did so without examining the West's craven use of those agreements to build up Ukraine's military and prepare for war with Russia. Moreover, which nation pulled out of arms control agreements first (ABM treaty, INF treaty, Open Skies Arms Control Treaty)? It was not Russia.
Christ, you need BOOTS for this guy. From the stentorian affectation on down. WOW.
Simon says there was no serious campaign against the Russian language, except that Ukraine banned it on television and in courts of law?? Maybe to a men of affairs like Simon, televised media and the justice system are just frivolous sites of cultural expression with no bearing on *real* uses of language, which I guess happen in private where no one else can hear it. Shuster may want to pull his head out and do a quick google of minority language rights battles as they have raged in many, many, many other places. A perfunctory review should be more than sufficient, but if he’s still confused afterward, I’d invite him to conduct all his own future legal proceedings in Mandarin or Danish, and see how that feels.
In addition, as he already TOLD us, to the contrary, he sets ENORMOUS store by the power of televised media specifically in its linguistic inflection. Abandoning his faith in the ‘agency’ of Ukrainians from earlier in the interview, Simon ventriloquizes Zelensky to claim that residents of the Donbas are apparently all brainwashed (to a person) by Russian TV— so the obvious solution is to legally prohibit any TV in Russian and broadcast exclusively Ukrainian propaganda in its place. Simon says all those people need to get re-brainwashed for the good side.
Speaking of agency, wasn’t it noble of him to scold Aaron for dismissing the Ukrainians and their vision and leadership and diplomacy? After all, (did he mention this?) Simon was on the ground, in the room, embedded with Zelensky et al. See, what we couldn’t possibly understand, not having been there and all, is that actually it was the Ukrainians who were calling the shots, and the US and UK just had to deal with it. It’s Ukraine’s world; the current and former global hegemons just live in it.
Agency indeed.
Keep in mind, this is a country that required a permission slip from Ol’ Daddy Biden to fire back into the country that’s invading it. This is a country so desperate for Western arms supplies that they settled for cluster bombs, now littered across the Ukraininan countryside like a vast, deadly, nonconsensual scavenger-hunt of horror lasting from now till forever.
‘Agency,’ after all, is essentially a spiritual measure of national vigor; it’s the moral fortitude of a nation huffing whiffs of destiny after pounding shots of esprit de corps. It cares little for pedestrian, banal, material constraints like existential dependency on a superpower for the military means to survive an ongoing invasion. None of that stuff is relevant. Simon says Western pressure could not have been decisive anyway, since the US felt like it simply wasn’t their place to get all involved in the peace talks. Far be it from the US to meddle in the affairs of other countries! Us? Shit no! Zelensky abandoned the talks because of the zeitgeist. He did it for the feels. Was it Bucha? No, that redoubled his efforts. Then what changed? Uhhmm…something about a ship? Simon says you had to be there.
Did Johnson and Nuland descend on the talks just before they fell apart? Yes. Have they told us that they advised against peace? Sure. Does this comport with the DC blob rationale heard everywhere before, during, and since? Well, yea. Was it this same Nuland who was caught on a phone call personally selecting the post-coup leader of this same sovereign, democratic, and agentic country a decade ago? Yippee-kay-ay fuck-the-EU-yeah, bro! What of it? That’s getting pretty deep in the weeds for Simon’s taste. Let’s stick with generalities like a professional, ok pal?
Anyway, the US wouldn’t backstop the peace, but war? Absolutely! Not to worry, Vlod, we’ve got your back. And America, famously, always keeps its promises.
Katie and Aaron, this interview was beneath your standards. This guy is beyond stupid and should never be next to a microphone. Sounds as if he should be one of our US congressman who so love Ukraine (most corrupt country in Europe) and Israel (most corrupt country on earth via the US). Why would people as bright as you two have him on? Puzzling. Baffling. Incomprehensible.
P.S. Bucha was NOT done by Russia. Don't you know propaganda when you see it? SS doesn't.
Yes, Scott Ritter did a very thorough analysis of Bucha just from the publicly available evidence that is completely at odds with Schuster's take. I'd like for Katie and Aaron to give Ritter equal time.
How about it, Katie and Aaron? Do you read the comments? I'd love for you to interview Scott Ritter on Ukraine and, especially, Bucha. Don't be useful idiots for Newsweek!