What does Putin want (and whatabout it)
nan said:
Ukraine DOES have a Nazi problem. That's not a made up story. At the beginning of the war Putin was willing to sign a peace deal that did not take any territory except Crimea. They should have signed this. Now they are in the superior position so lots of land is gone and won't be coming back. The people in these areas are glad to be part of Russia. Russia does have losses, but they are much smaller than Ukraine's (unless you believe Zelensky's 30,000 figure). Russia will take the areas with lots of Russian speaking population. They are not so keen on Ukrainian speaking areas.
The west used (to the last Ukrainian -- as I and some others have been saying) and will soon abandon Ukraine because it's a lost cause. The West vastly underestimated the power of the Russian military or economy. The areas that are going to Russia are the lucky ones. Better to live in Russia than being owned by Blackrock.
Kremlin propaganda 101. "To the last Ukranian" is from Vlad media.
If there's a nazi problem - how many are left? Should the US join Russia to help eliminate them? Who is their current leader?
How many Russian do YOUR sources say are dead?
I also love how you never acknowledged the Nazi Wagner army when they were the prime henchmen of Vlad for many years.
nan said:
Sanctions are a form of war. The sanctions were intended to destroy the Russian economy and have Putin removed from office and a more western friendly leader put in place so they could open the vulture floodgates as they did in the 1990s.
No country, including our own, would tolerate what NATO/West has done to Russia. Donbas is an area where Russian speaking people dominate and they were being attacked by their own government because they had a problem with the 2014 coup.
This whole mess is mostly the fault of the west. They were the ones who had Zelensky tear up the peace deal. They were the ones to push the 2014 coup and to arm Ukraine. They were the ones to make up the propaganda that people like you believe it's important to support spending more for military spending (NATO). NATO is a business and needs to expand to survive. It's doing a great job with the propaganda, but that's not reality.
Sanctions in response to the illegal seizure of Ukraine by Russia. And the situation in the Donbas was a result of Russia agitation and enabling of separatists.
NATO is not a business and was slowly withering away for lack of purpose until Putin clarified things for people.
You have to be a special kind of crazy to think that Ukraine is fighting for their freedom from Russia because NATO is telling them to fight.
jamie said:
nan said:
Ukraine DOES have a Nazi problem. That's not a made up story. At the beginning of the war Putin was willing to sign a peace deal that did not take any territory except Crimea. They should have signed this. Now they are in the superior position so lots of land is gone and won't be coming back. The people in these areas are glad to be part of Russia. Russia does have losses, but they are much smaller than Ukraine's (unless you believe Zelensky's 30,000 figure). Russia will take the areas with lots of Russian speaking population. They are not so keen on Ukrainian speaking areas.
The west used (to the last Ukrainian -- as I and some others have been saying) and will soon abandon Ukraine because it's a lost cause. The West vastly underestimated the power of the Russian military or economy. The areas that are going to Russia are the lucky ones. Better to live in Russia than being owned by Blackrock.
Kremlin propaganda 101. "To the last Ukranian" is from Vlad media.
...
I haven't paid much attention to this thread for some time, so it's a bit remarkable to see that she's still repeating the same, tired old tropes that were debunked long ago when I was paying attention.
jamie said:
Kremlin propaganda 101. "To the last Ukranian" is from Vlad media.
If there's a nazi problem - how many are left? Should the US join Russia to help eliminate them? Who is their current leader?
How many Russian do YOUR sources say are dead?
Not from Russian propaganda. From Lindsey Graham
drummerboy said:
jamie said:
nan said:
Ukraine DOES have a Nazi problem. That's not a made up story. At the beginning of the war Putin was willing to sign a peace deal that did not take any territory except Crimea. They should have signed this. Now they are in the superior position so lots of land is gone and won't be coming back. The people in these areas are glad to be part of Russia. Russia does have losses, but they are much smaller than Ukraine's (unless you believe Zelensky's 30,000 figure). Russia will take the areas with lots of Russian speaking population. They are not so keen on Ukrainian speaking areas.
The west used (to the last Ukrainian -- as I and some others have been saying) and will soon abandon Ukraine because it's a lost cause. The West vastly underestimated the power of the Russian military or economy. The areas that are going to Russia are the lucky ones. Better to live in Russia than being owned by Blackrock.
Kremlin propaganda 101. "To the last Ukranian" is from Vlad media.
...I haven't paid much attention to this thread for some time, so it's a bit remarkable to see that she's still repeating the same, tired old tropes that were debunked long ago when I was paying attention.
As if the others on this thread have new ideas, including you—still launching personal attacks when you have no examples.
I’m saying what I said before because time has shown me to be right.
nan said:
As if the others on this thread have new ideas, including you—still launching personal attacks when you have no examples.
I’m saying what I said before because time has shown me to be right.
to say that you are posting now the same debunked crap that you posted a year ago is not even close to a personal attack.
So for a while there Paul kept wanting to talk about Syria in this thread, and I'd invite him to start a thread to talk about that rather than trying to reduce Syria to a rhetorical prop. I guess now he can finally claim Syria is a bit more relevant:
ISIS-K has both denounced the Kremlin for its interventions in Syria and condemned the Taliban for engaging with Russian authorities decades after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.
Though actually no, I'm wrong -- it's still not relevant. I mean, Putin sure is trying hard to claim that there's some connection to Ukraine here (and let's take a moment to admire how quickly that went from Putin's mouth to Nan's keyboard), but there's not really a connection here.
Of course, if Paul remains interested in talking about Syria, I remain willing to join him on a thread about it. I'm sure he has plenty to say about Russia's ongoing involvement there.
nohero said:
nan said:
Not from Russian propaganda. From Lindsey Graham
Priceless.
He's hardly the only person who holds this view. Adam Schiff is another who said we fight Russia over there so we don't have to fight Russia over here. That's just one more example--there are more. That's why we call it a proxy war. They fight and die for our benefit--except in this one Russia came out ahead and Europe is going down the toilet and we are not doing so great either.
nan said:
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
Even western polling showed that Putin, who is considered a moderate in Russia, was the favorite.
Can you provide any examples of the polling? I wasn’t aware that Russia permitted Western outfits to conduct independent polls of its citizens, and my online searches came up empty.
US government-funded polling organization, the Levada Center.
Here's an article about them polling Russians:
West Declares Russian Elections "Undemocratic" Because it Doesn't Like Winner
A steady diet of Russian propaganda distorts one's view of reality. In the example above, "Journal-neo.su" is the website of a Russian government institution.
And the Levada Center does exist, and at one time did receive funding from a U.S. government agency. They explain that measuring public approval in Russia shouldn't be interpreted as the same as measuring electoral support in Western countries. This is from an article by a Levada Center analyst:
"In Russia, the state's control of the mainstream media helps maintain a sense that there are no alternatives: half the population gets its information about current events almost exclusively from news programs on 3-4 television networks. For those who care little about events in the world, this is plenty. The same goes for politics: the candidates who cause problems for the authorities are shut out from elections (the races this fall were just the latest demonstration of this phenomenon). It's hard to imagine an election where Putin might compete not just against anti-corruption activist Alexey Navalny, but also against former President Dmitry Medvedev and former Finance Minister Alexey Kudrin. The establishment always offers but a single candidate.
"What all this means is that it's wrong to compare directly the ratings of Russian and foreign politicians. In democratic countries, politics is based on competition and the constant contestation between different candidates and platforms. The Russian political system, on the other hand, is based on the absence of a credible alternative. Accordingly, public approval doesn't indicate the country's assessment of concrete political decisions, but a general acceptance of the course chosen by those in power."
In other words, polling in Russia measures the effectiveness of the propaganda which spreads Putin's false narrative. As we can see here on MOL, that propaganda is also effective in spreading that false narrative onto social media in the United States.
The more to-the-point question is not how much support Putin has. It's what can Russians actually change if they don't support Putin? Nan, apparently, finds the fact that the answer is "nothing" to be a sign of healthy Russian democracy.
nohero said:
nan said:
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
Even western polling showed that Putin, who is considered a moderate in Russia, was the favorite.
Can you provide any examples of the polling? I wasn’t aware that Russia permitted Western outfits to conduct independent polls of its citizens, and my online searches came up empty.
US government-funded polling organization, the Levada Center.
Here's an article about them polling Russians:
West Declares Russian Elections "Undemocratic" Because it Doesn't Like Winner
A steady diet of Russian propaganda distorts one's view of reality. In the example above, "Journal-neo.su" is the website of a Russian government institution.
And the Levada Center does exist, and at one time did receive funding from a U.S. government agency. They explain that measuring public approval in Russia shouldn't be interpreted as the same as measuring electoral support in Western countries. This is from an article by a Levada Center analyst:
"In Russia, the state's control of the mainstream media helps maintain a sense that there are no alternatives: half the population gets its information about current events almost exclusively from news programs on 3-4 television networks. For those who care little about events in the world, this is plenty. The same goes for politics: the candidates who cause problems for the authorities are shut out from elections (the races this fall were just the latest demonstration of this phenomenon). It's hard to imagine an election where Putin might compete not just against anti-corruption activist Alexey Navalny, but also against former President Dmitry Medvedev and former Finance Minister Alexey Kudrin. The establishment always offers but a single candidate.
"What all this means is that it's wrong to compare directly the ratings of Russian and foreign politicians. In democratic countries, politics is based on competition and the constant contestation between different candidates and platforms. The Russian political system, on the other hand, is based on the absence of a credible alternative. Accordingly, public approval doesn't indicate the country's assessment of concrete political decisions, but a general acceptance of the course chosen by those in power."
In other words, polling in Russia measures the effectiveness of the propaganda which spreads Putin's false narrative. As we can see here on MOL, that propaganda is also effective in spreading that false narrative onto social media in the United States.
This is hilarious. Totally nuts. Talk about spinning narratives.
The Levada Center is still listed as a foreign agents in Russia. It is clearly a western funded institution so they have to find a way to explain why Putin is popular for the Putin hating US.
Lets look again at your highlighted paragraph:
"What all this means is that it's wrong to compare directly the ratings of Russian and foreign politicians. In democratic countries, politics is based on competition and the constant contestation between different candidates and platforms. The Russian political system, on the other hand, is based on the absence of a credible alternative. Accordingly, public approval doesn't indicate the country's assessment of concrete political decisions, but a general acceptance of the course chosen by those in power."
First of all, Putin was running against four other people, so they had choices, and probably zero choices suffering from dementia. In our country, we only get to choose between two brain dead idiots. WE have no credible alternative!
I have no idea how this affects polling anywhere, but I don't even agree with the assumptions behind that idea.
nan said:
First of all, Putin was running against four other people, so they had choices,
No -- Putin selects other "candidates" to run against him, but there is no actual competition. It is impossible for Putin to be voted out.
PVW said:
The more to-the-point question is not how much support Putin has. It's what can Russians actually change if they don't support Putin? Nan, apparently, finds the fact that the answer is "nothing" to be a sign of healthy Russian democracy.
Most Russians support Putin and they voted for him and he is their president? Why does that bother you? Why can't you accept that? No one said you had to live there and we are not converting to the Russian constitution. Do you think in this country, a supposed healthy democracy, that people who don't support Biden get things to change? Where is our Medicare for All? Why are we sending all this money to never ending wars? Why are there so many homeless people living under bridges? What about all those communities affected by poisoned water and gas fumes? The US Government treats the people who live here as an afterthought.
When you listen to speeches by Putin, he sounds like Bernie Sanders, talking about improving the lives of people who live in Russia. When you listen to speeches by Joe Biden, you hear about how important it is to send more money to the black hole that is Ukraine and that if you don't vote for him you will get the even more demented Trump. Oh, and he provided jobs that pay over 100K a year for people who did not go to college. Yeah, right.
Not saying that Putin is Mr. Wonderful, and I'm sure the people of Russia have lots of complaints--but he's nothing like the cartoon as portrayed in the West. And our "healthy" democracy is not so healthy or democratic.
PVW said:
nan said:
First of all, Putin was running against four other people, so they had choices,
No -- Putin selects other "candidates" to run against him, but there is no actual competition. It is impossible for Putin to be voted out.
Just like the Democrats only let Hillary run and selected Bernie to go against her because they thought he was a joke and then they always figured out a way to dump him when he became popular. (WikiLeaks revealed this).
And just like the Democrats found a way to get rid of RFK, Jr. by making up crazy rules so he had to run as an independent. And they said no debates--Joe is the candidate.
Trump got the nomination through competition (no debate but some campaigning) but the Democrats are trying to lock him up like they do in banana republics.
Seriously, a country that only gets to choose between Joe Biden and Donald Trump for president does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to "competition."
PVW said:
Guest link for you:
The New York Times. So, unbiased.
When are they going to run the story, Why does the world's greatest superpower only offer a choice between two demented warmongers in the presidential election?
nan said:
Just like the Democrats only let Hillary run and selected Bernie to go against her because they thought he was a joke and then they always figured out a way to dump him when he became popular. (WikiLeaks revealed this).
And just like the Democrats found a way to get rid of RFK, Jr. by making up crazy rules so he had to run as an independent. And they said no debates--Joe is the candidate.
Seriously, a country that only gets to choose between Joe Biden and Donald Trump for president does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to "competition."
Compared to Russia, the US is far more democratic. Where Putin cannot lose, Biden could. Heck, going back to 2016, Putin did not believe Trump would be "allowed" to win, and yet he did. Similarly, there is no guarantee which party will will the House or Senate in any given election. Unlike Russia, there is genuine competition.
Compared to the ideal, the U.S. falls far short. It's a topic I opine on with some regularity. First-past-the-post elections strongly incentivize a two-party system -- we should expand the use of ranked choice voting so that the winner actually needs to win a majority, rather than a plurality, of votes. The House should be drastically expanded, and redistricting taken out of the control of the legislatures. We should look into multi-member districts. All of this can be done within the bounds of our current constitution.
Beyond that -- abolish the electoral college (though arguably this can also de facto happen without changing the constitutions via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact). The Senate needs to be reformed or perhaps even abolished as it malapportions representation. (the filibuster should go -- it's not even part of the constitution -- though with a malapportioned Senate remaining in place I have some concerns about ditching it).
There are many areas in which the US could be more democratic. But there are far fewer incidents of defenestration here than in Russia.
nan said:
Seriously, a country that only gets to choose between Joe Biden and Donald Trump for president does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to "competition."
Ah, the privilege of those whose lives are unaffected by whether Trump or Biden is president.
PVW said:
terp said:
PVW said:
terp said:
i didn't ask you. I asked PVW what he/she meant by that.
Basically, you feel strongly that we need to support Ukraine. So much so, that anyone who questions the US sending hundreds of millions of dollars and copies amounts of weapons is "erasing their agency".
Why did you ask for my explanation if you were just going to ignore it? Go back and re-read. It's not what you say here.
You are an ****. You made me read your pointlessly long post again. YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION. Take it back or shut the **** up you pathetic blood thirsty lightweight.
How exactly did I erase their agency you warmongering piece of ****?
My last post may have been a tad harsh. I should leave the door open to the fact that PVW is merely been mislead by the powers that be. It certainly wouldn't be the first time he mindlessly followed the status quo down the primrose path. Actually, now that I think about it, its kind of the rule.
Still though. You should really answer the question. Or is your character as hollow as your intellect?
PVW said:
nan said:
Seriously, a country that only gets to choose between Joe Biden and Donald Trump for president does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to "competition."
Ah, the privilege of those whose lives are unaffected by whether Trump or Biden is president.
Not only a hypocrite. A douchy one.
PVW said:
nan said:
Just like the Democrats only let Hillary run and selected Bernie to go against her because they thought he was a joke and then they always figured out a way to dump him when he became popular. (WikiLeaks revealed this).
And just like the Democrats found a way to get rid of RFK, Jr. by making up crazy rules so he had to run as an independent. And they said no debates--Joe is the candidate.
Seriously, a country that only gets to choose between Joe Biden and Donald Trump for president does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to "competition."
Compared to Russia, the US is far more democratic. Where Putin cannot lose, Biden could. Heck, going back to 2016, Putin did not believe Trump would be "allowed" to win, and yet he did. Similarly, there is no guarantee which party will will the House or Senate in any given election. Unlike Russia, there is genuine competition.
Compared to the ideal, the U.S. falls far short. It's a topic I opine on with some regularity. First-past-the-post elections strongly incentivize a two-party system -- we should expand the use of ranked choice voting so that the winner actually needs to win a majority, rather than a plurality, of votes. The House should be drastically expanded, and redistricting taken out of the control of the legislatures. We should look into multi-member districts. All of this can be done within the bounds of our current constitution.
Beyond that -- abolish the electoral college (though arguably this can also de facto happen without changing the constitutions via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact). The Senate needs to be reformed or perhaps even abolished as it malapportions representation. (the filibuster should go -- it's not even part of the constitution -- though with a malapportioned Senate remaining in place I have some concerns about ditching it).
There are many areas in which the US could be more democratic. But there are far fewer incidents of defenestration here than in Russia.
I agree that the US is more democratic. The crazy thing is how much more imperialist and aggressive our Foreign Policy is. Is this something we vote on? I mean is there a check box on the ballot we can choose to maybe scale back just a tad or is the US war machine on autopilot? If I didn't know better I'd think it was the latter.
PVW said:
nan said:
Just like the Democrats only let Hillary run and selected Bernie to go against her because they thought he was a joke and then they always figured out a way to dump him when he became popular. (WikiLeaks revealed this).
And just like the Democrats found a way to get rid of RFK, Jr. by making up crazy rules so he had to run as an independent. And they said no debates--Joe is the candidate.
Seriously, a country that only gets to choose between Joe Biden and Donald Trump for president does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to "competition."
Compared to Russia, the US is far more democratic. Where Putin cannot lose, Biden could. Heck, going back to 2016, Putin did not believe Trump would be "allowed" to win, and yet he did. Similarly, there is no guarantee which party will will the House or Senate in any given election. Unlike Russia, there is genuine competition.
Compared to the ideal, the U.S. falls far short. It's a topic I opine on with some regularity. First-past-the-post elections strongly incentivize a two-party system -- we should expand the use of ranked choice voting so that the winner actually needs to win a majority, rather than a plurality, of votes. The House should be drastically expanded, and redistricting taken out of the control of the legislatures. We should look into multi-member districts. All of this can be done within the bounds of our current constitution.
Beyond that -- abolish the electoral college (though arguably this can also de facto happen without changing the constitutions via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact). The Senate needs to be reformed or perhaps even abolished as it malapportions representation. (the filibuster should go -- it's not even part of the constitution -- though with a malapportioned Senate remaining in place I have some concerns about ditching it).
There are many areas in which the US could be more democratic. But there are far fewer incidents of defenestration here than in Russia.
Our constitution is better than the Russian's but it's not a contest--Russians are proud of their country and happy there--they are not wanting to live the way we do and they don't understand it. Also, those freedoms we value are being attacked and compromised.
Biden can lose, but currently he is trying to lock up Trump so he can't. There is very little competition and the choices are usually two sides of the same coin. Biden and Trump have more in common than people realize. The media supports specific candidates and manufactures consent. At least in Russia, the people know the media is propaganda--here they thinks it's telling the truth. Anyone who wants major change is weeded out. The donors often give to both sides and the winners are beholden to the donors. There is also the power of the deep state which is not elected and does not change when the president does.
PVW said:
nan said:
Seriously, a country that only gets to choose between Joe Biden and Donald Trump for president does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to "competition."
Ah, the privilege of those whose lives are unaffected by whether Trump or Biden is president.
What privilege? Our lives will be negatively affected by both of these buffoons. Neither of them gives a crap about ordinary people.
btw - Bernie really likes the job Biden is doing - what happened to him?
I wonder why the people in Ukraine don’t think they’re better off living in Russia… they just love black rock.