Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[QUOTE=BloodRed;3061461]Are you Ukrainian? Just curious.

Crimea has always been Russian. Google it. The vast majority of their population identify as Russians. Crimea was taken without even a fire being shot. Why do you think that is? And the Crimean people voted to join Russia.

The EU set the precedent with Kosovo and that referendum they had. You reap what you sow.[/QUOTE]I love Russia, so I can only hate criminal dictator Putin ranked as war criminal. Crimea did belong to Ukraine from 1991, don't you know?

As the saying goes: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

In any conflict it's understandable that each side will push the narratives they believe best serve their interests. And those narratives can span the spectrum from sincerely held beliefs to blatant lies. Whatever the case, anyone who accepts either side's narrative without doing their own research to verify and confirm (or debunk) is either a shill, troll, or fool.

As one example, the Russian narrative is that Zelenskyy has somehow improperly or illegally held on to power. The counterpoint from Ukraine is that elections are prohibited during times of martial law. From (non-Ukrainian) sources I've checked, the Ukrainian prohibition on elections during wartime was enacted in 2015, which was before Zelenskyy took office. Additionally, martial law needs to be affirmatively renewed by the legislature every 90 days. Since the war has been going on for 4 years, that's around 16 renewals. One may not like it, or agree with it, but Zelenskyy is following a process created before he assumed office.

It's also quite interesting to observe the hyper-projection of anti-Ukraine sentiment onto the person of Zelenskyy. There's zero evidence that his absence from the scene would result in any changes in Ukraine's attitude or position. In fact, if Zelenskyy vanished tomorrow, the favorite to replace him is former Commanding General (and current Ambassador to the UK) Zaluzhnyi.

Whatever one's feelings about Zelenskyy, to myopically focus on him is an intellectually lazy position.

[QUOTE=Jmsuttr;3061681]As the saying goes: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

In any conflict it's understandable that each side will push the narratives they believe best serve their interests. And those narratives can span the spectrum from sincerely held beliefs to blatant lies. Whatever the case, anyone who accepts either side's narrative without doing their own research to verify and confirm (or debunk) is either a shill, troll, or fool.

As one example, the Russian narrative is that Zelenskyy has somehow improperly or illegally held on to power. The counterpoint from Ukraine is that elections are prohibited during times of martial law. From (non-Ukrainian) sources I've checked, the Ukrainian prohibition on elections during wartime was enacted in 2015, which was before Zelenskyy took office. Additionally, martial law needs to be affirmatively renewed by the legislature every 90 days. Since the war has been going on for 4 years, that's around 16 renewals. One may not like it, or agree with it, but Zelenskyy is following a process created before he assumed office.

It's also quite interesting to observe the hyper-projection of anti-Ukraine sentiment onto the person of Zelenskyy. There's zero evidence that his absence from the scene would result in any changes in Ukraine's attitude or position. In fact, if Zelenskyy vanished tomorrow, the favorite to replace him is former Commanding General (and current Ambassador to the UK) Zaluzhnyi.

Whatever one's feelings about Zelenskyy, to myopically focus on him is an intellectually lazy position.[/QUOTE]What is sure is Russian official medias tell what Putin wants they tell and a ex actor resisting to him from KGB and FSB who made being killed so many, is kind of humiliation. Despite doubts of corruption, but Putin built beautiful castles, not anymore kolkhozes, no riot in Ukraine or in medias. Ukr versus Zelensky and at least he tries to defend Ukrainians versus Putin who attacked them and robbed them Marioupol and other parts of Donbass, after Crimea. Putin is ranked as a war criminal, same than Netanyahou.

Seymour Hersh is someone I do not always agree with but I am astonished at his contacts and how he has gotten facts right before anyone else, and this post shocked the crap out of me.

Russia's stalled War in Ukraine, The conflict's turning into a drone war has turned the tide.

The war in Ukraine, which began with Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion in February 2022, has gone on longer than the Soviet war against Nazi Germany. With its huge army and population, Russia seemed in the early years to be on the verge of winning only to have Putin, behaving like the irrational czars of the past, reject peace plans that gave him control of some of the territory his troops had taken inside eastern Ukraine. And now, I have been told, a war that Russia seemed to be winning has turned in the last year into an economic and military nightmare for Putin and the Russian army led by General Valery Gerasimov, the battle-tested commander who is one of three men in Russia with access to the nation's nuclear codes.

The war is now a war of drones, in the view of one military expert who has toured the front under cover, with Ukraine holding a distinct edge. Bedraggled Russian soldiers at the front find themselves under deadly drone attack the moment they crawl out of their bunkers. "Ukraine has a vast drone surveillance network that is picking off Russians as soon as they appear," the expert told me. He added that he was repelled by the horrid living conditions for all the soldiers on both sides of the front lines.

One fix to the growing Russian battlefield losses was to offer potential recruits a bonus of hundreds of thousands or millions of rubles to sign up. The bonus is not fully paid out in most cases, I was told, until the recruits finish their basic training and get to the front. Once there, the corruption reaches new heights because officers demand payments to keep the new recruits from being sent to combat zones at the front, where death by drone awaits.

The result of the corruption and the intense Ukrainian drone surveillance, the expert told me, is that the Russian army "is no further along in its invasion than it was two years earlier. They can't move—have no offensive capability. This is the same army that went from Moscow to Berlin in World War II. Now the army has gone only one hundred kilometers into Ukraine. No real progress at all."

Another sign of Russia's, and Putin's, fall from military and political dominance in the region, the expert added, was the decision of Finland, which shares a 830-mile border with Russia, and Sweden, which shares a maritime border, to join NATO. In general, the official noted, the losing war, the rise of NATO, and the nation's economic downturn—as measured by economists around the world—has undone Russia's long held strategy of maintaining regional dominance and diminishing the import of NATO. "This was an incredible defeat for the Russians," the official told me. It has also freed up Putin's critics to become more outspoken.

One person who has been more vocal in his private conversations about Russia's demise is General Gerasimov, who as chief of staff has had repeated contacts with his peers in the US and British armed forces about theater-wide military issues. He is kept up to date on various peace talks involving Americans and other nations eager for a political settlement to the Russian war with Ukraine.

The expert told me that Gerasimov has always seen the Russian army as the people's army, and not that of the czars—an obvious reference to Putin. The general, the expert said, "wants to end the Ukraine war with honor—to save Russia. Only the poor with no money and no education stay" to fight.

The expert said that in speaking out about the corruption and the lack of the best available Russian soldiers being in the war Gerasimov is being true to his oath of office and to the army. "And the army respects him for it," the expert told me.

Meanwhile, the much criticized Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president since his election in 2019, widely thought to participate in the corruption that has tarnished Ukraine for decades, has emerged from the war as a respected leader who never lost faith, even in the worst of days, in the ability of Ukraine's army to defeat Russia. By contrast, Putin has destroyed any reputation he had as a sagacious world leader by irrationally resisting any settlement of the war as his army and his economy crumbles.

A few questions remain.

Will Putin ever allow Gerasimov to tell the truth to the Russian people about the costs to the Russian army and Russia's standing in the world of their president's decision to attack Ukraine?

And is there any senior officer in the US military willing to do the same about the leadership in the White House and Pentagon in the aftermath of the vital decisions about the Middle East that are now being made in Washington and Tel Aviv?

Will it happen in Russia and not in America? If so, what does that tell us?

End of link.

Yeah, the American and Israel stuff I think is nonsense. It was interesting though that the counter to manpower was drones. At this point, if you are Putin, you have to wonder what the point of fighting is anymore. At this point, all you are doing is killing your young people.

The other part I found interesting is how during the Iran war, the USA was using these million dollar interceptors to shoot down these thousand dollar drones while Ukraine has been building massive amount of thousand dollar drones and how Ukraine of all places was the most advanced nation in the world with regard to cheap drone warfare.

But I am a lot more optimistic about the Iran war than this one. Putin seems to have dug in and is incapable of admitting he made a mistake whereas the Iranian leadership is new with the old guard wiped out. You have to wonder if those close to Putin are thinking about putting him out of misery. Even Hitler had an assassination attempt.

At Elvis 2008 As I posted once, you should do better. Why to post the compiled nonsense? Just look at how have you ended the post. Yes, corruption is a centuries old issue in Russia. Yes, drones present very serious problem now. Everything else in the article is crap, and I can deconstruct it piece by piece. I wonder who was the intended audience of the article? I guess nobody, because no one in Ukraine or Russia would take such cheap crap. 'The expert', just pathetic.

So this overrated ass War that never escalated to anything! Has lasted longer than WW2 LOL.

[QUOTE=Questner;3062707]At Elvis 2008 As I posted once, you should do better. Why to post the compiled nonsense? Just look at how have you ended the post. Yes, corruption is a centuries old issue in Russia. Yes, drones present very serious problem now. Everything else in the article is crap, and I can deconstruct it piece by piece. I wonder who was the intended audience of the article? I guess nobody, because no one in Ukraine or Russia would take such cheap crap. 'The expert', just pathetic.[/QUOTE]But Putin showed to the world his huge army with many Russian meats, but so many left Russia of Putin, is not performing, not able to defeat poor Ukrainians since 2022, when Ukrainians adapted their army, now advising even USA about drones. I'm happy no more Orban. Hu, so EU will help Ukraine with 90 billions €, when inflation and the fall for economics for Russia, even Trump helped Russia when blocking Ormuz and don t help Ukraine since his election. He would prefer to make business with Putin. Fortunately, EU help Ukraine and I m very proud about this, even agreeing to pay tax for this, versus criminal dictator Putin ranked as international war criminal.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3062616]You have to wonder if those close to Putin are thinking about putting him out of misery. [/QUOTE]Somebody told me, a $1 B bounty would solve the issue very fast. . And relatively cheap.

It's always interesting, whenever someone advances historical arguments about this place or that belonging to a certain country or people, to observe what point in time they choose as their reference. This is especially true in areas of the world where territory has changed hands many times. For example, Israelis and Palestinians both tend to cherry-pick the historical record to maximize their own claims and minimize the other. Irrespective of which narrative one prefers, however, there are historically established facts that any intellectually honest position needs to acknowledge. It's beyond rational dispute that there was an ancient kingdom of Israel, based in Jerusalem, which fact Jews see as central to their claim. It's also well-established that there were periods in history when there was little or no Jewish presence in the area and Arab groups were dominant. Any honest debate, at a minimum, needs to refrain from twisting history to fit their own narrative.

Similarly, Crimea has been under the rule of the Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, and Russian empires, followed by the USSR. Of all those, the Byzantines ruled longest by far from Istanbul (800+ years) and arguably have a strong claim. It's also historically relevant that the indigenous Crimean people, the Tatars, endured periods (esp under Stalin) in which they were removed from Crimea and replaced by people from more Slavic areas of Russia. Whatever one thinks about an empire's right to move its population around, it does muddy the waters when making history-based claims.

Even the Russian heartland has issues, since its existence derives from Kyivan Rus, which preceded Moscow by hundreds of years. And then the Mongols took over the neighborhood for another couple of hundred years. Eventually the Mongols faded and Moscow began its own territorial expansion. That expansion and growth, however, doesn't alter their origin story, just as Brazil, larger by far, still acknowledges its Portuguese beginnings.

[URL]https://www.britannica.com/topic/Rurik-dynasty[/URL]

For most empires, their borders were redrawn after defeat in war (ex. Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian) and their former territories were either claimed by the victors or went their own way. The Russian Empire didn't fall to an external power but was taken over from within by way of revolution. Territories that tried to break away at that time were forcibly pulled back in. The Soviets inherited the empire's territories and ruled until dissolution in 1991. That historical inflection point can certainly be argued to be the functional equivalent of an empire losing territories by defeat or collapse, as it's certainly the case that many of the former Soviet Republics declared independence and went their own way. After 1991 the leadership in Moscow signed numerous agreements with the newly independent countries (incl with Ukraine) acknowledging the new territorial reality. I'm not sure about other former Soviet Republics, but I know Ukraine held a vote in which every region, including Crimea, voted to separate from Russia.

In one sense the 1991 breakup can be viewed as a contentious divorce in which one party (Russia) is unhappy with the settlement and wants to change things by force. Putin has often relied on historical arguments, although obviously from a perspective that favors the Russian narrative.

[URL]https://historyguild.org/why-does-putin-insist-ukranians-and-russians-are-one-people-the-answer-spans-centuries-of-colonisation-and-resistance/[/URL]

IIRC, he made a speech a couple of years ago referring to himself as the modern day equivalent of Peter the Great, with a mission to regather Russian lands. The only problem is that all of those former territories are now independent. Not just Ukraine, but Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, the Baltics, etc. So where does one fix the historical reference point? It's pretty clear where Putin places it, but others would beg to differ. Mongolia anyone? Byzantium calling?

[QUOTE=Jmsuttr;3063617]It's always interesting, whenever someone advances historical arguments about this place or that belonging to a certain country or people, to observe what point in time they choose as their reference. This is especially true in areas of the world where territory has changed hands many times. For example, Israelis and Palestinians both tend to cherry-pick the historical record to maximize their own claims and minimize the other. Irrespective of which narrative one prefers, however, there are historically established facts that any intellectually honest position needs to acknowledge. It's beyond rational dispute that there was an ancient kingdom of Israel, based in Jerusalem, which fact Jews see as central to their claim. It's also well-established that there were periods in history when there was little or no Jewish presence in the area and Arab groups were dominant. Any honest debate, at a minimum, needs to refrain from twisting history to fit their own narrative.

Similarly, Crimea has been under the rule of the Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, and Russian empires, followed by the USSR. Of all those, the Byzantines ruled longest by far from Istanbul (800+ years) and arguably have a strong claim.[/QUOTE]In 1991, Putin was nothing and about decision with Crimea and Donbass belonging to new Ukraine. Many years after, Putin decided to make his own war.

[QUOTE=Jmsuttr;3063617]It's always interesting, whenever someone advances historical arguments about this place or that belonging to a certain country or people, to observe what point in time they choose as their refere.

..................

In one sense the 1991 breakup can be viewed as a contentious divorce in which one party (Russia) is unhappy with the settlement and wants to change things by force. Putin has often relied on historical arguments, although obviously from a perspective that favors the Russian narrative.[/QUOTE]Let me just add that Putin's claims to Crimea and the rest of Ukraine are not only criminal but illiterate. No honest historian would take them seriously. It was Yeltsin who initiated and conspired with Ukraine and (back then) Belorussia to dissolve the USSR. Why? Only to deny Gorbachev the way to return to power after the defeat of the 1991 coup. With an exception of the Baltic states, the big Soviet breakup was not a result of anti-colonial movements from the former Soviet Republics; it was Yeltsin's way to usurp all the power in Russia by taking away Gorbachev's job since he couldn't afford to take away Gorby himself.

Certainly, the peaceful dissolution of the USSR was a blessing. It prevented the Yugoslavia's scenario in a nuclear country. But it wasn't Russia's motivation at the time. Their motivation was power. Easy-peasy.

With petrol increasing rate because of blocking Ormuz, Trump is making big gift, more than 250 billions, to his criminal dictator friend Putin. No MAGA, when a shameful loser leading USA.

[URL]https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2026/05/01/sacked-russian-deputy-minister-flees-to-us-amid-fraud-probe-sources-say-a92663[/URL]

The curious part isn't that a Deputy Minister would flee to avoid prosecution, that's understandable. But, if the report is accurate, he traveled Moscow to Minsk to Tblisi to the US. So, the curious part to me is why flee to America? Once clear of Russia's borders he could have gone to any place from which extradition would be unlikely, Turkey and UAE come to mind (among others).

It's my understanding that visas for Russian citizens are not currently being issued by the US. Pre-approved diplomatic visits are another matter, but that would require coordination between the US State Department and the Russian Foreign Ministry. That's unlikely, for at least three reasons: First, because of the unusual trip routing; Second, because there's no official reason for a Deputy Environmental Minister to visit right now; and Third, as someone under investigation, he would obviously not want to tip his hand about wanting to leave Russia and it's doubtful he'd be allowed to leave.

In view of the above, and considering how quickly he was allowed entry into the US, the clear implication is that he had some channel of communication with the US that didn't go through (and wasn't known by) the Russian government. One possibility is that he was a US asset, and another is that this was part of a contingency plan laid out in advance. There might be other explanations, but those are two that come immediately to mind.

What I'll be watching for now is whether he stays in the US for an extended period (or permanently) or whether he continues on to take up residence in another country. Also, since the Kremlin is obviously not going to be happy, hopefully he's got access to enough money to pay for robust security!

[QUOTE=Jmsuttr;3064224][URL]https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2026/05/01/sacked-russian-deputy-minister-flees-to-us-amid-fraud-probe-sources-say-a92663[/URL]

The curious part isn't that a Deputy Minister would flee to avoid prosecution, that's understandable. But, if the report is accurate, he traveled Moscow to Minsk to Tblisi to the US. So, the curious part to me is why flee to America? Once clear of Russia's borders he could have gone to any place from which extradition would be unlikely, Turkey and UAE come to mind (among others).

It's my understanding that visas for Russian citizens are not currently being issued by the US. Pre-approved diplomatic visits are another matter, but that would require coordination between the US State Department and the Russian Foreign Ministry. That's unlikely, for at least three reasons: First, because of the unusual trip routing; Second, because there's no official reason for a Deputy Environmental Minister to visit right now; and Third, as someone under investigation, he would obviously not want to tip his hand about wanting to leave Russia and it's doubtful he'd be allowed to leave.[/QUOTE]I don't know if diplomatic visits really need to be pre-approved. Plenty of Russian bigwigs have diplomatic passports, including sanctioned oligarchs, and use them as they see fit: [URL]https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/11/14/russias-elites-family-and-friends-travel-abroad-on-diplomatic-passports-the-insider-a87018[/URL]

Or he might have US or other citizenship allowing him to travel to the US. It's amazing how many of those "Collective West" haters do.

[URL]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/insight/russian-deputy-minister-defects-as-kremlin-fears-elite-coup/gm-GMD9BAA403[/URL]

Obviously one article is not definitive proof, but there are literally no articles (as in zero) that take the position that this is in any way a normal or routine trip.

- On the diplomatic side of things, there are at least three issues to consider:

First, since the beginning of Russia's invasion, I'm not aware of any visits to the US by Russian diplomats that haven't had a nexus to negotiations to try to end the war. The delegation to the United Nations is an obvious exception. But we are simply nowhere near a "normal" diplomatic environment.

Second, even in normal times, a Deputy Minister traveling solo would be highly irregular. A Deputy Minister might accompany the Principal Minister as an aide, or travel as part of a larger delegation. That's not what happened here. In fact there's nothing in this account that's consistent with routine diplomatic travel.

Third, any normal diplomatic endeavor would require the involvement of the Russian government. Every indication and report is that he slipped away because he was being investigated and feared arrest. Had the Russian government known in time, it's likely he would have been arrested or at least prevented from traveling. Also, his choice of Belarus as his initial destination would be the least likely to raise a red flag.

- On the personal side of things, he either traveled on a Russian passport or that of a third country. Either way presents problems:

With his personal Russian passport, he would absolutely need a visa. That would require an application at the US Embassy and a personal interview. It's hard to imagine anything like that happening without the FSB knowing. In fact, it's a pretty good bet the FSB is aware of every Russian who has any contact whatsoever with the US Embassy or Consulates. And that's especially true with respect to government officials.

If he has a third-country passport, he would almost certainly not have used it when boarding his Moscow to Minsk flight, as that would raise questions. Also, if he used it for Minsk to Tblisi, that could also be problematic as airport officials usually want to see an entry stamp before they'll process an exit stamp. And Belarus is still not safe territory, so he'd be sent back to Russia should any irregularity be spotted. So, if we assume a third-country passport, Tbilisi is where he would most likely to have started using it, but would still have to deal with lacking an entry stamp.

Even assuming the most favorable circumstances (third-country passport with no visa required for BOTH the US and Georgia), he's still not the clear. DHS gets a copy of the passenger manifest for every flight scheduled to arrive in the US. There's no way Butsayev, no matter what passport he used, could escape being flagged as a Russian government official. Once flagged, it's virtually certain he would be detained at the arrival airport and questioned. He would not be viewed as a casual visitor, irrespective of what passport he was using. And DHS would also be aware of his unusual Moscow to Minsk to Tblisi to USA trip routing.

Of course, if everything was worked out in advance, through a confidential back-channel or intermediary, then easy-peasy and no problem! So, while more details will certainly help clear things up, at this point in time it's safe to say that all available indications are that this was not a regular, routine trip (personal or diplomatic). More details would certainly be nice but, if this truly is a defection, we may not get many. Also, no matter how you slice it, the Kremlin can't be happy that they let him slip away.