CHAOS by Tom O'Neill introduced me to Dulles, what a wild book.

Yeah, the interesting thing is there are plenty of "crazy breadcrumbs" out there that are just as crazy if not more insane than the theories labeled crazy.

The space alien angle of this whole, totally wild tale actually explains a lot of it! ;-)

If what so many have described, especially the past few years, is true, then he most certainly was at the very center of it all...

Also skim through the finidngs of the Church Committee from 1975. They opened (part of) the books of the CIA and lo and behold they were engaging in lots of harmful conspiracies such as overthrowing foreign governments, installing CIA assets in major news networks controlling the information stream to the american public (I often call the corporate enemy-of-the-people media the "mockingbird" media in reference to the revelations made thanks to the Church Committee. This particular info-war operation I was just describing was named "operation Mockingbird") and much more. Of course activities like this could not possibly be going on today, could they? Especially not in relation to this proxy war in Ukraine on Russia's border...

I recommend folks check out some of the writings of Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer. As far as credentials and credibility go it'll be hard to find better than what these guys have. (That is what many people appear to give most weight to, more than the actual logic, rationality and historical accuracy or general soundness of what people are arguing... So for the people like that: I've got you covered on that front.) People will probably be familiar with the mainstream media / corporate media / mockingbird media depiction of the conflict. Perhaps they won't be familiar with the one depicted by guys like Sachs and Mearsheimer.

I think that accurate and rational understanding of this situation in particular is quite important since nuclear conflict is on the table.

Don't read my crappy summary of some of what they've said; go read their stuff. Mearsheimer has a piece, I think it was from 2014, provocatively titled "Why the Ukraine crisis is the West's fault" or something to that effect. That one is probably prerequisite reading to properly understand the situation. It's short. It probably takes well under half an hour the read. Jeffrey Sachs has even shorter pieces.

The main point is this: USA or "the west" would never accept, if done to themselves, what they have been doing to Russia. Saying one's motives are pure and righteous and that the party being encircled has nothing to fear does not change the situation at all. There should be large neutral zones between Great Powers. USA would never accept China or Russia overthrowing the government of Mexico or Canada and installing puppet governments and arming them. The security of the world is lessened that way, not increased. Put defensive weapons on your own borders and perhaps those of your neighbourng countries. That's rationally defensible. Potential enemy countries can do the same and we each keep our weapons within our own region. USA and western powers have one rule for themselves and another for all the rest. This failure of consistency and or integrity and or empathy on the part of USA and "the west" seems to be the main cause of the conflict.

Basically NATO has been expanding closer and closer to Russia's border installing nuclear capable weapons systems all the way. Russia has been protesting this every step of the way but was too weak to do anything about it, USA / NATO / "western powers" ignored Russia's continued cries about security concerns. In 2014 democratically elected pro-Russian or maybe just neutral and rational president Yanukovich was violently overthrown and a pro-western puppet installed. Phone calls later leaked of Victoria Nuland discussing who they'd put in what position of the government in a few weeks. EU leaders were present in Ukraine celebrating the new government. Putin took Crimea as a response. A Civil war broke out between the new federal government of Ukraine and pro-russian eastern regions in Ukraine. The Minsk agreement failed to keep the peace. Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel later admitted on tape they were using these agreements to stall and win time to arm Ukraine for a fight against Russia. December 2021 was the last diplomatic attempt of Russia to do politics peacefully. It was dismissed and arming of Ukraine continued. Russia would rather leave Ukraine a wasteland than have it be a NATO base with nuclear missiles pointed at them all along the 2000 mile border. They'd rather have it be a neutral buffer zone and Russian diplomats had been beseeching for that for decades to no avail and all the while the hostile military alliance kept creeping closer and closer. Also during many of these years, intensifying as time went on, the mockingbird media painted Russia's leader as a devil and Russia in general as bad. An example of this is the Russian election interference stories which appear to have been PR operations with little to no basis in fact. How does this look from Russia's point of view? A military alliance is creeping closer and they're firing their populations up with hostile sentiment against Russia. Not a very reassuring state of affairs...

Remember the quote of that famous war historian "War is politics by other means". This quote applies very well to the conflict in Ukraine. After decades of trying to get guarantees diplomatic about Ukraine's neutrality Russia finally resorted to war as the means. Saving lives and keeping the peace regionally should bias people of compassion and rationality towards diplomatic solutions but in this case with the nuclear aspect the bias should be even stronger. There's my 2 cents.

Allen Dulles transformed the CIA into a central force during the Cold War, orchestrating bold operations that reshaped the geopolitical landscape. His strategic insight and vision not only influenced American policy but also left a lasting impact on global intelligence.