Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[PedroMorales]

I refer you to my previous summary regarding Comrade Morales, which is now known as "The Vindici Code" LOL.

Like X Partan or whatever the dog's name is, you are an American simpleton. His job here is to litter stupid shit and American Women / Politics threads with his cliches. Guess what. Russia is winning in Ukraine. The Nazis is Mariupol have been vanquished. The Russian / Chinese alliance is strong and all you have is Zelensky, a transvestite clown (look up the videos) who got to act as a President in a TV show and now gets to act the part.

Anyone in Europe paying attention. A small percentage in any country. Sees what is going on. Four million Ukrainian women and children off loaded on us, inflation, unemployment etc. As Europe impales itself, a big reaction is brewing. The American tank is running on empty and soon the bill falls due.

One more thing, you moron. Russia is not a Communist country though the CP, not that Pussy Riot American shill, are the main opposition.

To repeat: you are American and therefore stupid. Look up the futility of arguing with fools.

[VinDici]

"Most likely"? Wow...

...Imbecile!

I refer you to my previous summary regarding Comrade Morales, which is now known as "The Vindici Code" LOL.

This guy is totally unhinged and removed from reality.

[Xpartan]

You are most likely a moron.

You mock Putin, whose father fought the Nazis but you use a nazi name.

"Most likely"? Wow! You're giving him a benefit of a doubt, ain't you a prince!

Well, I'm not a prince, so I'll give it to you straight. You ARE a moron.

Who gives a fuck that Putin's father fought the Nazis? Of course he fought the Nazis, every man in the USSR fought the Nazis. How does it absolve his homicidal son?

Imbecile!

[Xpartan]

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/...ficial-resigns

Before getting into a discussion of this event's significance, if anyone takes exception to the "sinking ship" characterization, I would simply point out that it doesn't matter what you or I think, it only matters what Chubais thinks. As someone who's been in or around senior levels of govt for quite a while, he's obviously in a better position to know than anyone in this forum.

It's also noteworthy that previous Russian military "special operations," including prior incursions into Ukraine, never triggered such a response. Why now? My personal theory is that never has Russia faced such a severe and united backlash. And that Chubais is savvy enough to know that Russia faces a dim future for years to come. In other words, the ship may have suffered blows in the past, but it wasn't in danger of sinking the way it is now.

I haven't done a deep dive into his personal history, but he's described as having been an advisor to Putin. To me that means, at a minimum, that he was acceptable to Putin's circle of insiders and also seen as loyal and non-threatening. To have someone like that not only resign, but also leave the country, has got to be sending a few shockwaves through govt circles and potentially through the public at large.

It'll be interesting to see how the Kremlin handles this over the next few days. Will Chubais be portrayed as one of the "traitors and scum," or will the reaction be relatively low key? So far all I've seen is an acknowledgement that Chubais stepped down "on his own accord," without further comment.

One intriguing question is whether Chubais had an exit plan already laid out, or whether something changed recently that convinced him he needed to get out of Dodge ASAP? I'm leaning toward the former theory, as anyone with money and resources would be foolish not to have a full set of contingency plans.

It's a certainty that no official or media discussions that dwell on the negatives will be allowed. But I'll be keeping an eye out for signals of any possible ripple effects. If other prominent figures feel that the exit door might be slamming shut, who knows how they'll react? Interesting times!

Chubais was more than an "advisor" to Putin. Chubais is one of the main creators of Putin. His cast a decisive vote (allegedly) when a small group of Russian oligarchs made Putin a heir apparent to Boris Yeltsin back in 1997.

Having said that, I wouldn't read too much into Chubais' "defection". I've read that 300,000 Russians have fled the country in the last month alone, so you don't have to be sly Chubais to know that Russia is poison right now, and this is not going to change any time soon, no matter what they do (or don't do) next.

[YummyPL]

The difference is, that the "to be liberated" population even in Eastern UA, which is very based on Russia, is fighting their "liberators".

Free men fighting slaves.

[The Cane]

It's the 1939 Winter War all over again, which saw tiny Finland stop the mighty Russian aggressor, inflicting heavy losses and humiliation upon the Ruskie bear:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

[WyattEarp]

"Leftists in particular may think, when criticizing NATO expansion, that they are correcting their own or fellow citizens' biases as citizens of an imperial power that has often acted in bad faith. They may think they are adequately acknowledging this fraught legacy by focusing their critique on what they perceive to be Western expansionism. But they in fact perpetuate imperial wrongs when they continue to deny non-Western countries and their citizens agency in geopolitics. Paradoxically, the problem with American exceptionalism is that even those who challenge its foundational tenets and heap scorn on American militarism often end up recreating American exceptionalism by centering the United States in their analyses of international relations. It is, in Gregory Afinogenov's words, a 'form of provincialism that sees only the United States and its allies as primary actors. ' Speaking about Eastern Europe and Eastern Europeans without listening to local voices or trying to understand the region's complexity is a colonial projection."

Translation? The USSR fell, largely due to their own failures and inadequacies. A number of former countries from that sphere tasted freedom, enjoyed it, then asked for economic integration and protection from tyrants. Ignoring their agency while demonizing NATO is slanted analysis.

I agree that it is erroneous thinking to believe the Ukraine is a matter to be decided by the USA / NATO vis-a-vis Russia. The Ukrainians have agency and as a sovereign nation should have self-determination.

I think people forget that the Ukrainians quickly and overwhelmingly pursued independence after the Soviet Union dissolved.

Per Wikipedia:

"Voters were asked "Do you support the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?" The text of the Declaration was included as a preamble to the question. The referendum was called by the Parliament of Ukraine to confirm the Act of Independence, which was adopted by the Parliament on 24 August 1991. Citizens of Ukraine expressed overwhelming support for independence. In the referendum, 31,891,742 registered voters (or 84.18% of the electorate) took part, and among them 28,804,071 (or 92.3%) voted "Yes.""

After approximately 250 plus years of Russian domination and control, the Ukrainians amazingly maintained their identity and never really warmed to Russia. The Czars and then the Soviets fucked up the development of all the empire from brutal oppression and mismanagement.

[WyattEarp]

Forgot to repost your link, but it's fair to say that Mearsheimer goes further than your analysis, as he places blame for Putin at the feet of NATO. That's neither pragmatic (real politik) or real for the reasons stated in my prior post. And as to you saying that the West needs to back away from "unflinching support for democracy and human rights in certain parts of the world," well it's impossible for us to back away from a place we've never been. "Unflinching" support" would mean direct military intervention in Ukraine, where nukes off the table we'd mop up Russia in short order. We've never had any plans to do that, but we are projecting strength which is important when dealing with war criminals like Putin. We have the world's largest military and economy, and we set the terms, not Putin. He can use nukes assuming the order is carried out, but that's suicide. The more pressure that is put on him the greater the chances his own people will remove him. He's not only bad for the world but for them as well.

I do not share Mearsheimer's views on the Ukraine. I used it as an example of the multiple viewpoints that are circulating Western media. I've heard some Fox News commentators have been criticized for not wanting to getting further involved in the Ukraine war. I heard a business commentator saying isolating the Russian economy was self-defeating. Anyway, the point is that the West has a myriad of media perspectives because we have freedom of speech.

I think Mearsheimer's POV is important to consider though. It harks back to the Cold War struggle between the USA And Soviet Union. For several reasons, this is not a great global struggle between two superpowers with opposing ideologies. However, the Russian nuclear arsenal makes for some of the same strategy considerations. Already, we have this tentative (as you point out) physical support for the Ukraine. How much can the West support the Ukraine without provoking Russia? Ground-based anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons are okay, but Polish MiG's are not. Putin has the diabolic advantage of what we use to joke about with Reagan in the 1980's. He is a crazy, motherfucker and you don't know how he will react.

To paraphrase the late Senator John McCain, Russia is a gas station with a pissed off, violent gas station attendant masquerading as a country.

As far as "realpolitik", Russia cannot project its power as far off and as extensively as the Soviets. However, we are already seeing realpolitik in play. It seems the USA Wants to speed up a reconciliation with Iran and get their oil back into Western petroleum markets. The USA Likely backs off criticizing Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Mideastern countries for human rights. The USA Is already dancing with India's Modi.

[Mojo Bandit]

I am all against war! For whatever reason it is.

However I can't resist on one thing, the freedom of search of Western Media. The first thing Western policy has done is to Ban all Russian media!

RT is not available anywhere in Europe!! Oops!! We can say its biased! But why is the West / US afraid of the Russian Media!

Why I think so? We only need to think about 'Julian Assange', that is more than enough for us to know how the media works, if its in US, west or in Russia!

US just used Ukraine to poke Putin!

Politicians are supposed to find political solution considering the life of their own people.

If you see press confress my Ukrainian president some 6 weeks ago, you will know, where this was going.

You need to understand that this is not me arguing with you. This is me explainging to you the way things are to you. You should think of this as a learning oppurtunity. So if you respond to this post with the same delusional drivel as your propaganda above stinks of I will not respond, I will simply realize that my intervention has failed.

Are you here to make us laugh? I do not think that Ukranians believe that being Putin's slaves is a "political solution". Putin started the war and yet you put the burden on Ukraine, that is not even in the same universe as reality. Putin wants to end their freedom. They did not "poke Putin". That is just repeating the propaganda. All Ukraine did was exercise their freedom. Putin hates freedom. I suppose you hate freedom too. You do not even seem to grasp what freedom is. There is probably no way to expalin it to you since you do not value it. I pity the ones with a slave morality. The free world admires Ukraine becuase they choose to fight rather than be slaves. Anyone repeating the Russian propaganda either does not understand what freedom is or they do not respect it because they have a slave mentality.

RT is still available in the USA. You must be a Russian troll since you just repeat all the same lies that are being echoed there. You are either being dishonest or you believe what you are saying in which case that reflects a slave mentality. Other than the horrific acts of brutalizing Ukraine what is being revealed is the lack of respect people seem to have for your fellow Russians. Ukranians are dying by the thousands and it is really sad to see that Russians have no respect for their young men who had signed up to fight for their country. Thousands of Russian soldiers are dying. Even by the most conservative estimates more Russian soldiers have died in Ukraine than American and allies soldiers who died in Afghanistan and Iraq combined over a twenty year period.

The fact that you repeat what the Russian propaganda machine has spit out means you do not realize that Russia does not have a media. There would be no point in trying to rationally explain to you how a "free press" works. It would be no point in explaining you that in the west Jouranalism is a profession, there are standards and ethics that many follow, not all but many do and if you have a free mind you know how to find them. In Russia they had some of those but they have all been shut down and only the propaganda remains. Russia now only has a propaganda machine. That is not media. When you say "the west want the people to know only what they want us to know! You are delusional. You have obvisouly never lived in a free society and watched time after time as the government takes on the press in courts and loses, something in the west that someone with a slave mentality can never understand. The fact that the press reported everything that Julian Assange reported should be proof enough to you that the western press is free.

[Paulie97]

https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2...ins-of-realism

Is this shitty for the Ukrainians? Of course it is. Is this real sovereignty for the Ukraine? Of course not. This might be described as "realpolitik" as the West must back away some from unflinching support for democracy and human rights in certain parts of the world. This doesn't mean Putin is right. Or that he is not evil. Or that the Russian people would not be better off without Putin and his cronies. Realpolitik will likely be practiced as we enter a second Cold War that hopefully is short and evades armed conflict around the globe.

So do our pro-Russian friends understand that we are hearing all sorts of opinions in the West? Hearing them doesn't mean we have to agree with these opinions.

Social media is kind of a haven for pointless analogies and comparisons.

Forgot to repost your link, but it's fair to say that Mearsheimer goes further than your analysis, as he places blame for Putin at the feet of NATO. That's neither pragmatic (real politik) or real for the reasons stated in my prior post. And as to you saying that the West needs to back away from "unflinching support for democracy and human rights in certain parts of the world," well it's impossible for us to back away from a place we've never been. "Unflinching" support" would mean direct military intervention in Ukraine, where nukes off the table we'd mop up Russia in short order. We've never had any plans to do that, but we are projecting strength which is important when dealing with war criminals like Putin. We have the world's largest military and economy, and we set the terms, not Putin. He can use nukes assuming the order is carried out, but that's suicide. The more pressure that is put on him the greater the chances his own people will remove him. He's not only bad for the world but for them as well.

[Jmsuttr]

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/...ficial-resigns

Before getting into a discussion of this event's significance, if anyone takes exception to the "sinking ship" characterization, I would simply point out that it doesn't matter what you or I think, it only matters what Chubais thinks. As someone who's been in or around senior levels of govt for quite a while, he's obviously in a better position to know than anyone in this forum.

It's also noteworthy that previous Russian military "special operations," including prior incursions into Ukraine, never triggered such a response. Why now? My personal theory is that never has Russia faced such a severe and united backlash. And that Chubais is savvy enough to know that Russia faces a dim future for years to come. In other words, the ship may have suffered blows in the past, but it wasn't in danger of sinking the way it is now.

I haven't done a deep dive into his personal history, but he's described as having been an advisor to Putin. To me that means, at a minimum, that he was acceptable to Putin's circle of insiders and also seen as loyal and non-threatening. To have someone like that not only resign, but also leave the country, has got to be sending a few shockwaves through govt circles and potentially through the public at large.

It'll be interesting to see how the Kremlin handles this over the next few days. Will Chubais be portrayed as one of the "traitors and scum," or will the reaction be relatively low key? So far all I've seen is an acknowledgement that Chubais stepped down "on his own accord," without further comment.

One intriguing question is whether Chubais had an exit plan already laid out, or whether something changed recently that convinced him he needed to get out of Dodge ASAP? I'm leaning toward the former theory, as anyone with money and resources would be foolish not to have a full set of contingency plans.

It's a certainty that no official or media discussions that dwell on the negatives will be allowed. But I'll be keeping an eye out for signals of any possible ripple effects. If other prominent figures feel that the exit door might be slamming shut, who knows how they'll react? Interesting times!

[Paulie97]

Good response. Western Europe (and the USA) is not even trying to feign neutrality.

Furthermore, shutting down RT is not a violation of free speech. Free speech is almost entirely the right of a sovereign country's citizens. This right is certainly not extended to a Russian state-owned media outlet. On the other hand, Americans and most Europeans are free to say and publish any opinion on the Ukraine. Russians are clearly not.

One only has to look at the extensive attention recently given to John Mearsheimer's (University of Chicago Professor) opinions on the Ukraine in various Western media outlets. One might conclude he is a Putin propagandist. However in a very real and pragmatic way. Mearsheimer believes that the West has to allow Russia to dominate and keep the Ukraine in the Russian sphere of influence. He is just one of many commentators opining that the West should avoid getting deeper into the Ukrainian conflict..

Here's an excellent, recent academic response to Mearsheimer.

https://newrepublic.com/article/1656...perialism-nato

"Leftists in particular may think, when criticizing NATO expansion, that they are correcting their own or fellow citizens' biases as citizens of an imperial power that has often acted in bad faith. They may think they are adequately acknowledging this fraught legacy by focusing their critique on what they perceive to be Western expansionism. But they in fact perpetuate imperial wrongs when they continue to deny non-Western countries and their citizens agency in geopolitics. Paradoxically, the problem with American exceptionalism is that even those who challenge its foundational tenets and heap scorn on American militarism often end up recreating American exceptionalism by centering the United States in their analyses of international relations. It is, in Gregory Afinogenov's words, a 'form of provincialism that sees only the United States and its allies as primary actors. ' Speaking about Eastern Europe and Eastern Europeans without listening to local voices or trying to understand the region's complexity is a colonial projection."

Translation? The USSR fell, largely due to their own failures and inadequacies. A number of former countries from that sphere tasted freedom, enjoyed it, then asked for economic integration and protection from tyrants. Ignoring their agency while demonizing NATO is slanted analysis. Also, Russia nor anyone else tells us who can and cannot join NATO. This is decided by a consensus of the members, and Russia and any other country is also welcome to apply.

Furthermore Putin isn't concerned about NATO per se but of a large, thriving democracy operating on his border. That's a threat to his antiquated worldview, as well as to his autocratic power. The largely "westernized" youth of his country represent the same threat, but those are just quickly beaten up, then sent home or jailed.

That said we at the moment are doing both what is right and pragmatic. We are supporting the Ukrainians in defending themselves while calling out war criminals, while crippling the Russian economy, and all while avoiding direct conflict with a nuclear power. Any less projects weakness which is the wrong strategy with someone like Putin.

[PhotoSlider]

Before the "always Russian", Crimea was Turkish, and Mongolian, and Scythian.

Through the course of history, parts of Crimea were also Genoese, Volga Khazar, Greek, and more.

Russia simply didn't exist during some of those "always" times.

Nazi invasion in 2014 didn't make it Russian, not again, not always. According to the current international law, that invasion made the Crimea an Ukrainian territory temporarily occupied by the terrorist force from Russia.

BTW, take a look at the huge uptick in local real estate postings there. FSB and army moving out their families back to the motherland. As a result Putler issued a new decree preventing the exodus, as he needs more cannon fodder and hostages. He obviously doesn't care about human life, including the serfs of his own country.

And? What's done, is done.

Looks like, you and Putler do not care about contracts or agreements. Only good to break them, obviously.

Like the "Budapest Memorandum", https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDe...00000280401fbb.

In which also Russia confirmed UAs borders. But Putler feels free, to break this agreement. Like Adolf Hitler did, with Stalin.

So, Putler is in good Nazi tradition.

Hitler brought back the "Sudentenland" back into the "Reich". Like Putler trying to do now with (parts of) UA.

Good old Nazi tradition, again..

[WyattEarp]

I'm guessing you can find an RT feed if you try hard enough. But nothing requires Western European countries to be neutral, which is why most are helping Ukraine and shunning Russia.

Good response. Western Europe (and the USA) is not even trying to feign neutrality.

Furthermore, shutting down RT is not a violation of free speech. Free speech is almost entirely the right of a sovereign country's citizens. This right is certainly not extended to a Russian state-owned media outlet. On the other hand, Americans and most Europeans are free to say and publish any opinion on the Ukraine. Russians are clearly not.

One only has to look at the extensive attention recently given to John Mearsheimer's (University of Chicago Professor) opinions on the Ukraine in various Western media outlets. One might conclude he is a Putin propagandist. However in a very real and pragmatic way. Mearsheimer believes that the West has to allow Russia to dominate and keep the Ukraine in the Russian sphere of influence. He is just one of many commentators opining that the West should avoid getting deeper into the Ukrainian conflict.

https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2...ins-of-realism

Is this shitty for the Ukrainians? Of course it is. Is this real sovereignty for the Ukraine? Of course not. This might be described as "realpolitik" as the West must back away some from unflinching support for democracy and human rights in certain parts of the world. This doesn't mean Putin is right. Or that he is not evil. Or that the Russian people would not be better off without Putin and his cronies. Realpolitik will likely be practiced as we enter a second Cold War that hopefully is short and evades armed conflict around the globe.

So do our pro-Russian friends understand that we are hearing all sorts of opinions in the West? Hearing them doesn't mean we have to agree with these opinions.

Social media is kind of a haven for pointless analogies and comparisons.

[The Cane]

Lance Armstrong?

Comparing what Lance Armstrong did to what the nation state of Russia has been caught doing is beyond lame. Lance Armstrong does not stand for an entire, nationalized program of cheating. He represents only himself. This is why there is no ban placed upon the Americans by the International (not American) Olympic Committee. We my compete under our flag. On the other hand the Russian Olympic Committee, and all of the Ruskie athletes who must now compete under its own corrupt flag, is the current standing representative of an entire, nationalized, banned Russian doping program, which actually continues to this very day. Did anybody really think that just because we now have the "Russian Olympic Committee" that somehow the Kremlin-backed and encouraged cheating would cease? Hahaha!