Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[QUOTE=VinDici;2834113]It's a bit interesting that you suddenly started posting here after Q stopped and are hugely Pro-Russian.

Since you are pointing out the DPCIMs that the US will provide to Ukraine, I would love to hear your opinion on the extensive and continued use of cluster munitions and more recently chemical weapons by the Russian armies? Also would be very good to know your stance on the kidnapped children, which is reported to be more than 500,000, who have been taken from Ukraine to be "educated" in Russia.

Please enlighten us?

Xpartan is correct, any result other than Ukraine winning back its land back to the 2014 borders at a minimum would be a catastrophic loss for the Western nations and call into question the efficacy of NATO. Russia can withdraw wherever it likes, there is no sword of damocles on the Nation, Putin on the other hand.[/QUOTE]Hugely pro-Russian? You completely mischaracterize what I wrote.

Of course I don't approve of the use of cluster munitions, chemical weapons or kidnapping. Yes, you have righteousness on your side. And yes, Russia and the Ukraine have already used cluster bombs on each other, so this is nothing new. As a USA Citizen I don't approve of my country using cluster bombs or providing them to other countries. I also don't approve of capital punishment, although I imagine that analogy is lost on you.

According to the press, one of the reasons the USA is providing cluster bombs is because the USA's supplies of certain other munitions is running low, as a result of military aid to Ukraine. The USA no longer manufactures cluster bombs, and I believe the last time it used them was 20 years ago. We're unlikely to use them in the future, on humanitarian grounds. But apparently it's OK to give them away.

Your, Zelensky's and others position that this cannot end until Russia withdraws to pre-2014 borders is a recipe for an endless war. And it's not fair to the people of Crimea, and probably some parts of the Donbass, where the majority want to be part of Russia. And, while they may not recognize it yet, it's not in the best interest of other Ukrainians, as it prevents a peace agreement that assures the country's security.

A peace agreement need not call into question the efficacy of NATO. It could involve a side deal with Ukraine where NATO guarantees its security.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3_0GqPvr4U

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2834138]Your, Zelensky's and others position that this cannot end until Russia withdraws to pre-2014 borders is a recipe for an endless war. And it's not fair to the people of Crimea, and probably some parts of the Donbass, where the majority want to be part of Russia. And, while they may not recognize it yet, it's not in the best interest of other Ukrainians, as it prevents a peace agreement that assures the country's security.

A peace agreement need not call into question the efficacy of NATO. It could involve a side deal with Ukraine where NATO guarantees its security.[/QUOTE]I do not think it is possible for you to conclude that there are parts of Donbass where the majority want to be part of Russia. Where are you getting this information? Was it from the "election" results, what is your opinion on the "referenda" conducted in Donetsk and Luhansk?

Allowing Russia to leave this conflict with something more than what they had previously will destroy any credibility for NATO as guarantors of peace. How would this even be possible, when the US and the UK did not step in when Russian broke the Budapest memoranda? Ukraine would be dependent on the whims of whoever was in charge and if Trump wins the next election, he has already stated he will try to force Ukraine to cede territory.

It is certainly not up to the likes of you (or me for that matter) to tell Ukrainians what is in their best interests, they have made it clear they want self determination, and the majority of Ukrainians are strongly opposed to ceding territory to Russia.

Given that the Russians continually lie and also break each and every accord they sign, I would say it is not possible to make any deals with them at all. If they are not completely exterminated from Ukrainian land, they will most likely regroup, and try again as soon as they can, and if they cannot do it via military means, they will employ all their soft power and troll factory resources to destablize Ukraine, and continue trying to sow discord in Europe and the US. This is not an outcome I want to see.

We have seen time and again that appeasement does not work. It will not work here. This conflict may span more years, however during that time, Russia will become more and more of a pariah, and during that time each Western power is doing all they can to remove any dependencies on their resources, which means that income for Russia will only shrink, not matter what the oil and gas price.

Russia as it is now is a dangerous and belligerent state, and I have had my eyes opened and fully agree with my friends in the Baltics and Poland, that they are not to be trusted in any way.

Should the Federation break up, only then will there be a chance for long term peaceful relations with Russia, but until then we need to give Ukraine everything it needs to defeat the invaders / occupiers / war criminals.

[QUOTE=VinDici;2834146]I do not think it is possible for you to conclude that there are parts of Donbass where the majority want to be part of Russia. Where are you getting this information? Was it from the "election" results, what is your opinion on the "referenda" conducted in Donetsk and Luhansk?[/QUOTE]Please see this article from 2019.

[URL]https://www.kyivpost.com/post/7557[/URL]

"Only 5.1 percent of people living in the Russia-controlled parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions want Ukraine to regain control over the territories. Half (50.9 percent) want a union with Russia and another 13.4 percent said the region should accede to Russia with a "special status." For the whole of Donbas, including its Ukraine-controlled areas, 49.6 percent want it to become part of Russia, with another 13.3 percent choosing such a scenario with a "special status" for Donbas. A fifth (19.2 percent) see Donbas as part of Ukraine."

So apparently 50.9% wanted to live in a Russian oblast, and another 13.4% in something like a Russian territory (e.g. like Puerto Rico in the USA). Only 5.1% wanted to live in a Ukrainian controlled oblast.

I don't know much about the referenda.

[QUOTE=VinDici;2834146]Allowing Russia to leave this conflict with something more than what they had previously will destroy any credibility for NATO as guarantors of peace. How would this even be possible, when the US and the UK did not step in when Russian broke the Budapest memoranda? [/QUOTE]Russia's gotten a lot more than what it bargained for when it decided to invade Ukraine. NATO, the west and Ukraine must have much more credibility in Russia's eyes. Putin is rational. Seeing the cohesiveness of the west and the expansion of NATO to include Finland, he must be less enthusiastic about his adventures outside the Russian republic, or at least those that he believes will attract the west's attention.

I don't know the history of the Budapest memoranda, but suspect they were intended to protect Ukraine from the West more so than from Russia. Russia believes it was betrayed by NATO and the USA, when NATO expanded eastward after 1990, and Putin who's nationalistic and somewhat paranoid has unfortunately looked to correct this. If the USA and UK had committed troops to Ukraine as you apparently suggest we could be dead by now. Probably not, but it's possible.

[QUOTE=VinDici;2834146]Ukraine would be dependent on the whims of whoever was in charge and if Trump wins the next election, he has already stated he will try to force Ukraine to cede territory.[/QUOTE]Agreed.

[QUOTE=VinDici;2834146]It is certainly not up to the likes of you (or me for that matter) to tell Ukrainians what is in their best interests, they have made it clear they want self determination, and the majority of Ukrainians are strongly opposed to ceding territory to Russia.[/QUOTE]If the USA and Europeans are mostly funding the war effort they should have a say. And should IMHO push for an end to the war in a way that provides security for Ukrainians.

[QUOTE=VinDici;2834146]Given that the Russians continually lie and also break each and every accord they sign, I would say it is not possible to make any deals with them at all. If they are not completely exterminated from Ukrainian land, they will most likely regroup, and try again as soon as they can, and if they cannot do it via military means, they will employ all their soft power and troll factory resources to destablize Ukraine, and continue trying to sow discord in Europe and the US. This is not an outcome I want to see.[/QUOTE]Yes, Russia has and probably will continue to employ soft power and troll factories to destabilize Ukraine and sow discord in the Europe and the USA. It didn't have to be this way. If the west had pursued friendlier relations with Russia after the breakup of the USSR, maybe even making Russia a part of NATO as proposed by Putin in 2000, the world would be in a lot better shape. Perhaps Russia would look a lot like Hungary today, semi-autocratic but inside the tent instead of outside.

[QUOTE=VinDici;2834146]We have seen time and again that appeasement does not work. It will not work here. This conflict may span more years, however during that time, Russia will become more and more of a pariah, and during that time each Western power is doing all they can to remove any dependencies on their resources, which means that income for Russia will only shrink, not matter what the oil and gas price.

Russia as it is now is a dangerous and belligerent state, and I have had my eyes opened and fully agree with my friends in the Baltics and Poland, that they are not to be trusted in any way.

Should the Federation break up, only then will there be a chance for long term peaceful relations with Russia, but until then we need to give Ukraine everything it needs to defeat the invaders / occupiers / war criminals.[/QUOTE]OK, you're much more realistic than I thought you were about how long this may last. And maybe I'm an optimist about what the future holds after this war is over. I hope not.

[URL]https://youtu.be/C3_0GqPvr4U[/URL]

[QUOTE=VinDici;2834146]

Given that the Russians continually lie and also break each and every accord they sign, I would say it is not possible to make any deals with them at all. If they are not completely exterminated from Ukrainian land, they will most likely regroup, and try again as soon as they can, and if they cannot do it via military means, they will employ all their soft power and troll factory resources to destablize Ukraine, and continue trying to sow discord in Europe and the US. This is not an outcome I want to see.

We have seen time and again that appeasement does not work. It will not work here. This conflict may span more years, however during that time, Russia will become more and more of a pariah, and during that time each Western power is doing all they can to remove any dependencies on their resources, which means that income for Russia will only shrink, not matter what the oil and gas price.

Russia as it is now is a dangerous and belligerent state, and I have had my eyes opened and fully agree with my friends in the Baltics and Poland, that they are not to be trusted in any way.[/QUOTE]Any peace agreement with Russia other than "please-don't-shoot-at-us-while-we're-getting-out" (like the one that ended the war in Afghanistan) is pointless.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2834153]Please see this article from 2019.

[URL]https://www.kyivpost.com/post/7557[/URL]

"Only 5.1 percent of people living in the Russia-controlled parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions want Ukraine to regain control over the territories. Half (50.9 percent) want a union with Russia and another 13.4 percent said the region should accede to Russia with a "special status." For the whole of Donbas, including its Ukraine-controlled areas, 49.6 percent want it to become part of Russia, with another 13.3 percent choosing such a scenario with a "special status" for Donbas. A fifth (19.2 percent) see Donbas as part of Ukraine."

So apparently 50.9% wanted to live in a Russian oblast, and another 13.4% in something like a Russian territory (e.g. like Puerto Rico in the USA). Only 5.1% wanted to live in a Ukrainian controlled oblast.

I don't know much about the referenda.[/QUOTE]You bring up a poll 3 years before the start of the war? Facepalm! No further comment needed.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2834153]
Russia's gotten a lot more than what it bargained for when it decided to invade Ukraine. NATO, the west and Ukraine must have much more credibility in Russia's eyes. Putin is rational. Seeing the cohesiveness of the west and the expansion of NATO to include Finland, he must be less enthusiastic about his adventures outside the Russian republic, or at least those that he believes will attract the west's attention.

I don't know the history of the Budapest memoranda, but suspect they were intended to protect Ukraine from the West more so than from Russia. Russia believes it was betrayed by NATO and the USA, when NATO expanded eastward after 1990, and Putin who's nationalistic and somewhat paranoid has unfortunately looked to correct this. If the USA and UK had committed troops to Ukraine as you apparently suggest we could be dead by now. Probably not, but it's possible.[/QUOTE]The expansion of NATO argument has been debunked hard, I can't believe you're bring this up now. Facepalm!

"We could be dead by now" "It's possible".

Given the evidence before our eyes of the Russian army performance versus deprecated NATO arms, if there had been a kinetic war, Russia would have been fucked hard. So yes it's "possible", but in the sense that an asteroid could hit our heads tomorrow.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2834153]If the west had pursued friendlier relations with Russia after the breakup of the USSR, maybe even making Russia a part of NATO as proposed by Putin in 2000, the world would be in a lot better shape. Perhaps Russia would look a lot like Hungary today, semi-autocratic but inside the tent instead of outside.[/QUOTE]Wow a lot of parroting of Kremlin narratives. In line with the Kremlin narrative you also have neglected to explain why Russia didn't just trade and become an equal partner instead of secretly fucking with everyone and invading it's neighbours. As Kasparov predicted, putting a former KGB agent in charge is not going to work out well.

NATO is setup to counter the "chimpanzee with a machine gun" that is the Russian state. Please explain how admitting Putin into NATO and sharing all of our weapons technologies and strategies would have been a good idea?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2834153]OK, you're much more realistic than I thought you were about how long this may last. And maybe I'm an optimist about what the future holds after this war is over. I hope not.[/QUOTE]You have a lot of disingenuous arguments, but at least try to engage in debate, unlike the other pair of absolute fuckheads. You'll find people here are not completely blind to the realities of what is happening, however it is not constructive to engage in debate with Z propagandists.

[QUOTE=VinDici;2834340]You bring up a poll 3 years before the start of the war? Facepalm! No further comment needed.[/QUOTE]Would you trust a poll after the start of the war in "Russian controlled parts of Donetsk and Luhansk," even if conducted by respected Ukrainian institutions like Dzerkalo Tyzhnia?

[QUOTE=VinDici;2834340]The expansion of NATO argument has been debunked hard, I can't believe you're bring this up now. Facepalm![/QUOTE]Yes, the Slavic Studies Council at the National Securities Archive at George Washington University did debunk your side of the argument hard.

[URL]https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early[/URL]

Wikipedia presents both sides of the argument. Mine's more compelling.

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_in_Russia_regarding_the_legitimacy_of_eastward_NATO_expansion[/URL]

[QUOTE=VinDici;2834340]Wow a lot of parroting of Kremlin narratives. In line with the Kremlin narrative you also have neglected to explain why Russia didn't just trade and become an equal partner instead of secretly fucking with everyone and invading it's neighbours. As Kasparov predicted, putting a former KGB agent in charge is not going to work out well.

NATO is setup to counter the "chimpanzee with a machine gun" that is the Russian state. Please explain how admitting Putin into NATO and sharing all of our weapons technologies and strategies would have been a good idea?[/QUOTE]Firstly if Russia had been on a path to NATO not long after the USSR disintegrated and Yeltsin became president, Putin might never have been elected, or at least his views might be very different today. Yes, it would have been a long process, but well worth it if it had succeeded.

I'm no expert on this. Yuriy Davydov, NATO Research Fellow, was. Perhaps you could debunk what he said. For example, that "voluntary mutual co-operation (with NATO) in the field of security would be a key to assertion of democratic values" in Russia. Or that "the final outcome of Russia joining NATO would be the establishment of an integrated, structurally formed security system of free and democratic states on the vast territories from Vancouver to Vladivostok. It could contain dozens of states that never fight against each other, thus establishing an extensive peace zone and exerting restraining influence on the surrounding areas. This system could to a certain extent become a model of comprehensive international security system. ".

[URL]https://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/98-00/davydov.pdf[/URL]

[QUOTE=VinDici;2834340]You have a lot of disingenuous arguments, but at least try to engage in debate, unlike the other pair of absolute fuckheads. You'll find people here are not completely blind to the realities of what is happening, however it is not constructive to engage in debate with Z propagandists.[/QUOTE]Treat them with respect and they most likely will engage respectfully.

[URL]https://youtu.be/C3_0GqPvr4U[/URL]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2834389]

Yes, the Slavic Studies Council at the National Securities Archive at George Washington University did debunk your side of the argument hard.

[URL]https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early[/URL][/QUOTE]And Gorbachev debunked your Council.

[QUOTE]The topic of NATO expansion was not discussed at all, and it wasnt brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didnt bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATOs military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Bakers statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich Genscher talked about it. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2834389]Firstly if Russia had been on a path to NATO not long after the USSR disintegrated and Yeltsin became president, Putin might never have been elected, or at least his views might be very different today. Yes, it would have been a long process, but well worth it if it had succeeded.[/QUOTE]Sure, why not flip a bird to all East European nations by bringing in the same crazy bear they are seeking protection from? I mean, do these people think they matter? Huh!

I might have an even better idea for you. Let's start hiring abusive husbands and boyfriends for Domestic Violence shelters. I'm sure that would work out just fine.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2834389]I'm no expert on this. Yuriy Davydov, NATO Research Fellow, was. Perhaps you could debunk what he said. For example, that "voluntary mutual co-operation (with NATO) in the field of security would be a key to assertion of democratic values" in Russia. [/QUOTE]So that's what realpolitic is -- pipe dreams galore.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2834389]Treat them with respect and they most likely will engage respectfully.[/QUOTE]Propagandists are the lowest form of life on this planet. Not happening.

[QUOTE=VinDici;2834340]Wow a lot of parroting of Kremlin narratives.[/QUOTE]That's what he's been doing daily for many months now on the American Politics thread in the ISG "Opinions" forum while calling himself a centrist. He's been debunked from here to Sunday then recently came to this thread to restart even though he's never been to Ukraine. Likely he discovered this discussion by searching the post histories of people he's been going back in forth with on the other thread.

For example he has ignored all that facts that clearly debunk the notion that Russia was given an oral promise regarding no NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It's plainly false, but even if true only a complete fool wouldn't insist on getting something so important in writing.

[URL]https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-enlarge-nato/[/URL]

[URL]https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/28/candace-owens/fact-checking-claims-nato-us-broke-agreement-again/[/URL]

[URL]https://theconversation.com/ukraine-the-history-behind-russias-claim-that-nato-promised-not-to-expand-to-the-east-177085[/URL]

So what can you do with someone who digs in online, ignores all corrections and keeps repeating the same fallacious arguments over and over? Ultimately all you can do is ignore them.

[URL]https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseam[/URL]

[QUOTE=Paulie97;2834463]That's what he's been doing daily for many months now on the American Politics thread in the ISG "Opinions" forum while calling himself a centrist. He's been debunked from here to Sunday then recently came to this thread to restart even though he's never been to Ukraine. Likely he discovered this discussion by searching the post histories of people he's been going back in forth with on the other thread.

For example he has ignored all that facts that clearly debunk the notion that Russia was given an oral promise regarding no NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It's plainly false, but even if true only a complete fool wouldn't insist on getting something so important in writing.

[URL]https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-enlarge-nato/[/URL]

[URL]https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/28/candace-owens/fact-checking-claims-nato-us-broke-agreement-again/[/URL]

[URL]https://theconversation.com/ukraine-the-history-behind-russias-claim-that-nato-promised-not-to-expand-to-the-east-177085[/URL]

So what can you do with someone who digs in online, ignores all corrections and keeps repeating the same fallacious arguments over and over? Ultimately all you can do is ignore them.

[URL]https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseam[/URL][/QUOTE]Fair enough. I don't want to intrude upon your private war fest.

Just one last thing for Xpartan first though.

[QUOTE=Xpartan;2834458]And Gorbachev debunked your Council.[/QUOTE]As communicated to you earlier.

Gorbachev in 2008:

"The Americans promised that Nato wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted."

[URL]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1933223/Gorbachev-US-could-start-new-Cold-War.html[/URL]

Gorbachev, from 2009:

"Kohl, US Secretary of State James Baker and others assured me that NATO would not move an inch east. The Americans didn't stick to that, and the Germans didn't care. Maybe they even rubbed their hands at how well the Russians were ripped off. What did it bring? It's just that the Russians no longer trust Western promises."

[URL]https://www.bild.de/politik/2009/bild-medienpreis/die-deutschen-waren-nicht-aufzuhalten-7864098.bild.html[/URL]

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3_0GqPvr4U[/URL]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2834389]Treat them with respect and they most likely will engage respectfully.[/QUOTE]They are a pair of cunts. The interactions with them are the same as with the Russian State, respectful engagement made no difference, both of those fuckheads ignored any debate, lied over and over again, and spread falsehoods and propaganda. Next time read the history of the thread before telling us to show respect.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2834584]

Just one last thing for Xpartan first though.

As communicated to you earlier.

Gorbachev in 2008:

"The Americans promised that Nato wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted."

[URL]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1933223/Gorbachev-US-could-start-new-Cold-War.html[/URL]

Gorbachev, from 2009:

"Kohl, US Secretary of State James Baker and others assured me that NATO would not move an inch east. The Americans didn't stick to that, and the Germans didn't care. Maybe they even rubbed their hands at how well the Russians were ripped off. What did it bring? It's just that the Russians no longer trust Western promises."

[URL]https://www.bild.de/politik/2009/bild-medienpreis/die-deutschen-waren-nicht-aufzuhalten-7864098.bild.html[/URL]

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3_0GqPvr4U[/URL][/QUOTE]And as communicated to you, Tiny, I'm well aware that Gorby gave different accounts on different occasions, but his earlier accounts can be dismissed with prejudice for a simple reason: he and his foundation had to coexist in the same country with Putin right after Putin's 2007 Munich speech launched Russia's most rancid anti-Nato campaign since the Cold War. Thus, Gorbachev's 2008 and 2009 interviews should be considered strictly a way to appease his increasingly volatile and totalitarian chieftain.

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Munich_speech_of_Vladimir_Putin[/URL]

In 2011 when Putin's intent to usurp power indefinitely became abundantly clear, Gorbachev publicly denounced Putin and repeated his accusations the following years.

So it only stands to reason that Gorbachev in 2008 and 2009 doesn't hold a candle to Gorbachev in 2015.

And even beyond Gorby's own words, you've been offered enough evidence that there have never been any agreements and / or promises not to extend Nato beyond the borders of Germany. If you can't except the facts, I don't think there is anything else that can be done about it.

Kremlin propaganda / false information has fueled an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign land while directly targeting and murdering civilians with precision weapons. This has also involved the deportation and indoctrination of about 200 K Ukrainian children. Their false narratives are no more worthy of respect than Holocaust deniers. Plus respect wouldn't do any good anyway as you can't reason with such people while they'd never honor any agreements. But we are covering ground that was covered long ago, and in greater detail. Anyone interested can go back to the start of the war and forward, chronologically in this thread.

P.S. Regarding the Russian speakers in the Donbass that prefer Russia, it's a good thing that they have a short journey, whether by car or foot. Get out of Ukraine and don't let the door hit you in the ass. It's easy. Go be Russian. A lot of Russian speakers were planted in that area since the Stalinist era famine that killed off millions of Ukrainians.

[QUOTE=Xpartan;2834868]And even beyond Gorby's own words, you've been offered enough evidence that there have never been any agreements and / or promises not to extend Nato beyond the borders of Germany. If you can't except the facts, I don't think there is anything else that can be done about it.[/QUOTE]That gwu website is, as even if some one term wonder Herbert Walker Bush administration official made some no eastward expansion statement over a cup of coffee it's as useless as tits on a boar hog. Little Vlad and everyone else knows that. There's no US official including the president that can make unilateral policies for NATO. Of course nothing is in writing plus the Warsaw Pact was still in place at that time, setting context. Viewed in the best possible light Russia still has no leg to stand on plus no right to any sphere of influence with an economy about the size of Texas.

It's ironic that Russia complains about an agreement that was never made while clearly breaking one themselves with their invasion.

[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/us/politics/russia-ukraine-james-baker.html[/URL]

A couple days ago, Mr. Pu had a meeting with Irkutsk Governor Mr. Kobzev. In the course of sucking up to the boss, Mr. Kobzev gave him a photograph depicting a group of fallen soldiers and said: "We have 192 citizens of Irkutsk awarded with state awards. Orders, medals. Of these, the youngest, Hero of Russia, is Private Eduard Dyakonov, who died in Mariupol in March last year. He covered a grenade with his body, thereby saving his fellow soldiers. This is very valuable for us, for us they are all heroes, they are in our memory, in our hearts. ".

Mr. Pu responds under his breath: "Tell them I said Hello. ".

Not a joke!

[URL]https://twitter.com/i/status/1681328245885530113[/URL]

The hardest part to me was to believe that the transcript of this meeting is still on Putin's official website -- after every Twitter and Youtube pandit has had their fun with that. But here it is.

The primary source:

[URL]http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/71688[/URL]