The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Matt Allison]

Putin apologists twisting themselves into pretzels trying to ignore the fact Putin simply thought Crimea and Ukraine belong to Russia. Belarus would have experienced a similar fate by now if it wasn't already run by a Putin puppet dictator.

Jim- Biden didn't only give diplomacy a chance for one day; there were diplomatic efforts being made for weeks prior to the invasion. Putin was never interested in diplomacy. He claimed he was only interested in a couple provinces and look what happened: He invaded the entire country. 

The 2014 "putsch" was 100,000 protesters in the street rejecting a Putin stooge as President. As real as it gets. There have been two normal democratic elections since.

I'm sorry Vladimir Putin isn't the hero you thought. Oliver Stone got fooled as well. And now Putin is threatening use of nuclear weapons. He is a madman and he is finished.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Honestly, I'm astonished at the naivete (or dishonesty, in Jeff's case) of the Putin apologists on the forum.

Sadly, you guys seem to have no awareness of what has been happening in the Russian Federation during the past 20 years under Putin's rule.  The RF became a fascist police state in the 21st century.  I realized that fact 15 years ago.

I've been there, studied it, and I've also fraternized with the Russian Orthodox community here in Denver for the past quarter century.  I recently posted a comment with a book review I wrote in 2010 about former KGB Col. Konstantin Preobrazhensky's expose of the Putin/FSB annexation of the ROCOR in 2007. 

No comments from the Jeff Carter's peanut gallery, other than Jeff's erroneous comment that Putin critics are merely posting propaganda from the M$M.  It's Jeff's latest absurdity, because Preobrazhensky's book and the 2007 KGB/MP/ROCOR putsch was completely ignored by the M$M.  At the time, only ITASS reported Putin's cynical comment that, "Religion is one of Russia's best weapons of self defense!"

In my recent post, I wrote that, "people in the West are finally seeing Putin for who he really is, a KGB apparatchik from the Yuri Andropov Red Banner Institute."

Then, today, Russian writer Vladimir Sorokin wrote exactly what I posted here a few days ago-- that "Putin's mask" has cracked, exposing the Andropov-trained KGB agent inside.  Obviously, Sorokin knows a great deal more about Putin and the Russian Federation than I do, but we both, independently, reached the same conclusion.

I'd like to know what the Putin apologists here have to say about Sorokin's observations of Putin and the Russian Federation.

 

22 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Putin apologists twisting themselves into pretzels trying to ignore the fact Putin simply thought Crimea and Ukraine belong to Russia. Belarus would have experienced a similar fate by now if it wasn't already run by a Putin puppet dictator.

Jim- Biden didn't only give diplomacy a chance for one day; there were diplomatic efforts being made for weeks prior to the invasion. Putin was never interested in diplomacy. He claimed he was only interested in a couple provinces and look what happened: He invaded the entire country. 

The 2014 "putsch" was 100,000 protesters in the street rejecting a Putin stooge as President. As real as it gets. There have been two normal democratic elections since.

I'm sorry Vladimir Putin isn't the hero you thought. Oliver Stone got fooled as well. And now Putin is threatening use of nuclear weapons. He is a madman and he is finished.

Guys, I see the collective terms have been rolled out, such as "Putin apologists." I have a serious question:

Is it possible for a person to condemn Russia's actions, Putin's track record, and the invasion of another nation, but, also to hold a position where they hold the west (NATO & its allies) responsible (in part) for the crisis the world find itself in? 



 

[James DiEugenio]

I guess its pretty hard to do that here Chris.

But please take a look at this film.  Its pretty neutral.  Ukraine should have never invaded the Donbass.

 

[Paul Rigby]

He is surrounded by enemies, some of them uniformed, and presides over a crumbling economy beset by gross inequality, hyperinflation, a devalued currency, a collapsing supply chain, and militarism run amok. And then there’s the small matter of an imminent, deeply humiliating, military defeat. His position is surely untenable. 

But enough of the Bidenescu regime. What about that other feeble Deep State puppet, Zelenskyy, eh?

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I guess its pretty hard to do that here Chris.

But please take a look at this film.  Its pretty neutral.  Ukraine should have never invaded the Donbass.

 

That child buried in the rubble, the squalor people are living in. 😞

[Matt Allison]

Putin has shown all the signs of victim complex and mental illness that we've seen from other dictators, and has perversely enjoyed discussing his nuclear arsenal on more than one occasion, despite exactly no one having ever demonstrated any interest in invading his inhospitable homeland.

https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-confirms-russian-doomsday-nuclear-weapon-in-annual-speech-2018-3

https://www.businessinsider.com/likely-us-nuclear-targets-2017-5?amp

[W. Niederhut]

44 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

Guys, I see the collective terms have been rolled out, such as "Putin apologists." I have a serious question:

Is it possible for a person to condemn Russia's actions, Putin's track record, and the invasion of another nation, but, also to hold a position where they hold the west (NATO & its allies) responsible (in part) for the crisis the world find itself in? 



 

Chris,

I've said as much repeatedly.

To wit, I'm not an apologist for the black ops and war crimes of NATO and, as I said above, the NATO exercises with Ukraine last fall were an unnecessary, foolish provocation.

That said, Putin apologists are ignoring the man-eating Russian bear in the living room, while fretting about what Putin wants in order to feel happy about his fascist police state. 

Who gives a flying f--- about what Vlad Putin wants?  He's a dictator, a murderer, and a thief.

What about what the people of Ukraine want?

Why are Putin apologists dodging that question?

[James DiEugenio]

I do not condone the invasion of Ukraine.

I think it was a mistake. I am just trying to understand it based on the Russian point of view and what I think has been a misreading and mishandling of the issue on America's part.

I could have tolerated troops being sent into the Donbass and the declarations of independence there..

I think that after that would have happened then Putin could have been in a strong position to make a deal.

 

[W. Niederhut]

P.S.  I'm still waiting for Jeff Carter and the Putin apologists to tell us what they think about Vladimir Sorokin's article in The Guardian today.  Why the silence?

Vladimir Putin sits atop a crumbling pyramid of power | Vladimir Sorokin | The Guardian

        Is Sorokin's perspective on the history of Putin and the Russian Federation during the past 20 years accurate?

        How about Gary Kasparov's perspective, which I posted here a week or so ago?  (Greeted by silence.)

        Is it possible that Kasparov and Sorokin know more about the modern Russian Federation than we do?  🤥

Edited February 28, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Guest]

1 minute ago, W. Niederhut said:

Chris,

I've said as much repeatedly.

To wit, I'm not an apologist for the black ops and war crimes of NATO and, as I said above, the NATO exercises with Ukraine last fall were an unnecessary, foolish provocation.

That said, Putin apologists are ignoring the man-eating Russian bear in the living room, while fretting about what Putin wants in order to feel happy about his fascist police state. 

Who gives a flying f--- about what Vlad Putin wants?  He's a dictator, a murderer, and a thief.

What about what the people of Ukraine want?

Why are Putin apologists dodging that question?

Thanks W.

Who are the apologists here? Can you list them? 

I can't say I have read all of the comments lately, due to work. I don't think I am apologising for Putin but, I do feel the west has a degree of responsibility in this. I am not sure any of us are exactly clear how much. 

The trouble with NATO black ops or war crimes, is that we probably only know about a small percentage of them, and usually long after the deeds. What are the chances we'd understand what is happening now in realtime? 

Let's go with your elaborate characterisation that Putin is a "man-eating Russian bear" ie an animal. What do we know about animals? You don't put them in a corner or you get a "fight or flight" reaction. Do you think it's wise that NATO has expanded east beyond the Elbe? If you were Putin, where would your hill be? The USA was prepared to invade Cuba or "first strike" the Soviet Union based on their enemy having missiles in Cuba (a sovereign nation). What that exchange did was made JFK assess the Turkey missile situation that the USSR was not happy about. 

When you ask what the people of Ukraine want; do you mean the people of Crimea? Or Donetsk? Or Luhansk? or the rest of Ukraine? What is your solution there? 

I'd prefer Russia out of Ukraine, pronto, a detente, peace, immediately. Are we to achieve that by economically and diplomatically isolating them? Having them under siege? Or, do we create a new cold war and live again under the tension of USSR era? People who are desperate with nothing to lose are more likely to fight than those who are comfortable. 
 







 

[Paul Rigby]

44 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Putin has shown all the signs of victim complex and mental illness that we've seen from other dictators, and has perversely enjoyed discussing his nuclear arsenal on more than one occasion, despite exactly no one having ever demonstrated any interest in invading his inhospitable homeland.

https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-confirms-russian-doomsday-nuclear-weapon-in-annual-speech-2018-3

https://www.businessinsider.com/likely-us-nuclear-targets-2017-5?amp

"Perversely enjoyed discussing his nuclear arsenal"? Oooh er Missus, this really is the Frankie Howard school of history. For the record, it was the comedian cowering in Lvov who, on February 19, in a speech at the Munich Security Conference, got all hot & desirous of nuclear weapons. You can read a very informative discussion of the speech in question here: http://eu.eot.su/2022/02/21/zelenskys-statement-a-bluff-or-a-dream-of-nuclear-weapons/

As for the claim that "no one...ever demonstrated any interest in invading his inhospitable homeland" - you've obviously never been to Moscow or St Petersburg, both of which are wonderful - Wikipedia provides the following helpful list of those who did precisely that:

• Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus' (1223–1236), a series of invasions that resulted in the Rus states becoming vassals of the Golden Horde.
• Russo-Crimean Wars (1571), an Ottoman invasion that penetrated Russia and destroyed Moscow.
• Polish–Muscovite War (1605–1618), Poland gained Severia and Smolensk.
• Ingrian War (1610–1617), a Swedish invasion which captured Novgorod and Pskov.
• Swedish invasion of Russia (1707), an unsuccessful Swedish invasion.
• French invasion of Russia (1812), an unsuccessful invasion by Napoleon's French Empire and its allies.
• Japanese invasion of Sakhalin (1905), an invasion and annexation by the Japanese.
• Eastern Front (World War I) (1914–1918), Russia was forced to cede Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states to Germany as the Russian Empire collapsed.
• Caucasus campaign (1914-1918), a series of conflicts between the Russian Empire, its various successor states, and the Ottoman Empire.
• Japanese intervention in Siberia (1918-1922), an occupation of the Russian Far East by Japanese soldiers during the Russian Civil War.
• Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War and the contemporaneous Polish–Soviet War (1919–1921), the Polish occupation of Belarus and West Ukraine.
• Operation Barbarossa (1941), a German-led invasion that started the Eastern Front of World War II.
• Kantokuen (1941), an aborted plan for a major Japanese invasion of the Russian Far East during World War II.
• Operation Unthinkable (1945), a proposed contingency plan for an Anglo-American invasion of the Soviet Union developed by the British Chiefs of Staff during the later stages of World War II.
• War of Dagestan (1999), a repulsed Chechen invasion of Dagestan.

The one led by the Austrian watercolourist cost the Soviet Union a mere 27 million inhabitants, the kind of minor intrusion you may have forgotten, but which the Russians most unreasonably haven't.

[Bob Ness]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I do not condone the invasion of Ukraine.

I think it was a mistake. I am just trying to understand it based on the Russian point of view and what I think has been a misreading and mishandling of the issue on America's part.

I could have tolerated troops being sent into the Donbass and the declarations of independence there..

I think that after that would have happened then Putin could have been in a strong position to make a deal.

 

There are a few people here, myself included, that realize the touchy position Russia is in. They are surrounded on the West by the most violent group of nations ever assembled on earth. They have been a part of that. Since the end of world war two a tentative standoff has existed (with only a few exceptions) that has eliminated the usual Russo-European bloodshed over borders that has existed there for centuries.

I wish during the the dissolution of the USSR we and our allies had done more to help them but that is one of the big disadvantages to our democracy in that it's difficult to maintain continuity of foreign policy over successive administrations. Agreements between countries (especially super powers) that aren't formally ratified in Congress have little more weight than policy decisions, which Trump made abundantly clear. Most administrations will honor them but Russia is always a moving target especially since Yeltsin.

All of those complicating factors and historical enmity between ethnic groups and political factions doesn't paper over the need to resolve these differences diplomatically rather than at gun point.

Edited February 28, 2022 by Bob Ness

[Benjamin Cole]

I'll say one thing: It's just like old days! 

The solons can make long faces and issue sermons about Russia and inflation. 

Like a comfortable old pair of shoes. 

 

[Jeff Carter]

3 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Yeah right Jeff. When I shared my friends PJ images with you YEARS AGO FROM MAIDEN SQUARE WHEN HE WAS THERE You and Jim kept prattling on the same BS and never commented because your reading was so well informed IN SPITE OF THE FACT HE WAS THERE AT THE SAME TIME YOU WERE SPILLING GARBAGE!!

The "putsch was a revolt!

NATO NEVER SIGNED AN AGREEMENT AND RUSSIA NEVER KEPT ITS PROMISES EITHER.

THE OUTSIZED FAR-RIGHT GARBAGE IS EXACTLY THAT!! You have no problem with Putin's fascist regime do you?? 

And now Germany is going to increase its spending for your joy!

Russia is now incinerating civilians and you're defending it??? FFS.

The extent of your delusion is stupefying only matched by your unending arrogance trying to claim you know better than the MILLIONS OF PEOPLE OBJECTING AND FIGHTING THE INVASION!! iNCONVENIENT FACT HUH? WHY AREN''T THEY WAVING FLAGS FOR THEIR CONQUERING HEROS THE RUSSIANS?????

Bob - I do not wish to deny or disrespect the experiences of your friend, but my understanding of the 2014 Ukraine coup and the instrumental role of a far-right “nationalist” cadre in facilitating the coup at the ground level has relied on the published accounts of multiple reporters/ journalists also on the scene. That these accounts are consistent with each other in observing the same events directed by the same persons leads me to accept these accounts as materially objectively factual.

Describing the events as a “revolt”, an “uprising”, or a “revolution”, does not overcome the most salient fact that a democratically elected government was removed by unconstitutional means. This is civics class stuff but… democracies have constitutions which establish the functioning methodology of the a political system, and establish the legal frameworks by which governments can be impeached or removed before the end of their mandate. A mob storming the legislature, in most instances and certainly not in Ukraine’s constitution, does not have legal standing - as most posters on this thread seem to understand when it comes to Jan 6/21.

The mantra - “did you get it in writing?” - usually applies when someone has been taken in by some sort of shyster/ fraud artist.  But as a legalistic alibi, it doesn’t hold up in the field of geopolitics and it doesn’t excuse a pattern of deceit. In fact, following through with broken promises harms the integrity of an organization or polity, and may serve to reduce the “space” of negotiation in the future. That is, it may lead to unintended consequences with negative effect. In this case, senior political-diplomatic-military persons associated with NATO’s membership long warned of approaching and then crossing Russia’s red lines, which has now occurred. NATO’s response over the past months has doubled down on the error, insisting that Russia has no legitimate regional security concerns and that NATO will not acknowledge Russia’s identified red lines. This approach was at one time feasible, due to an obvious imbalance in relative strength (military and political), but those metrics seem to have since evened out. NATO members have responded with a cascade of economic penalties over the last few days, but it is far from clear that the consequence of these were properly “gamed” out. Tomorrow (Monday Feb 28) may kick off one of the craziest days in financial markets and exchanges in modern history.

[Matt Allison]

At some point the younger generation of Russians are going to take back their country from these leftover geriatric Soviet dinosaurs and I welcome the day it happens.