I don’t think callous is a problem for these folks. After decades of the cold war, harming the Soviet Union justified about anything to those leaders. Some ragtag radicals getting some guns in the desert was not a problem.
To this day, that is mostly praised as a heroic thing - see the movie ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’.
The leadership of Russia always has its more hawkish side like any country - see the deposing of Kruschev - but when I said a lack of options, I meant for Russia, not just Putin. What do the hawks want, nuclear war? If
anything Putin has been pretty damn hawkish with his treatment of Ukraine.
This is the ugly side of international politics - we’re pressuring regions for no one’s benefit but our, and there isn’t a lot they can do about it. Putin wrongs Ukraine, and there isn’t a lot they can do about it. Israel
wrongs the Palestinians, and there isn’t a lot they can do about it.
I’m pretty dubious about the CIA’s role in 1949 - look at another part of it, what we’ve learned of CIA history. We’ve learned intimate information about the 1950’s coups, and nothing similar about 1949, while we know
the politics were very different for CIA intervention in 1949.
While it did great green lights for things like interfering in elections - see Italy, France, Greece under Truman - regime change was another matter. Even the main ‘confessor’ claiming a role changed his story over time. I’d like our country to get a lot more
informed about the 1950’s history, though.