Reply With QuotePutin poopy pants-
https://freebeacon.com/national-secu...n-poops-pants/
May the gods of anal cancer be quick yet unmerciful.
Rugged, they don't make them so resistent anymore (.....), damn USA planned obsolescence.Originally Posted by Cipheron
Putin poopy pants-
https://freebeacon.com/national-secu...n-poops-pants/
May the gods of anal cancer be quick yet unmerciful.
Link typo
Totally agree with you!
I thought that alt accounts are against rules in here?
Here I see at least three assumptions: first, the assumption that this is an ethnic conflict; secondly, that this is a conflict between Russians and fascists; and thirdly, the Nazis control Ukraine and Russia's goal is to destroy the Nazis.
Firstly, the conflict is not ethnic, here one sovereign state invaded the territory of another sovereign state, which began to resist the invasion. This is a conflict of states, where the ethnic component does not play a very big role. The huge chunk of Ukrainian armed forces consists of Russian speakers (including those from Donbas). As for the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine, - this population, by the way, is most concentrated in the east and in the center of the Ukraine. Now, thanks to the efforts of Russian artillery and missiles, it is precisely the regions with a high percentage of Russian speakers who are suffering the greatest hardships, and entire cities (Popasna, Severodonetsk, and partly Mariupol) are being wiped off the ground due to Russian artillery attacks. I believe that in light of this, the loyalty of the population of these regions to Russia will ... slightly decrease.
Secondly, the influence of right-wing and ultra-right organizations and parties in Ukraine has always been relatively low: for example, the nationalist Svoboda party was not even able to get into parliament in the last elections. The Azov regiment also had a low level of social support before the war. President Poroshenko, who used militaristic rhetoric, lost the last presidential election to Zelensky, who used more universalist and populist rhetoric. It does not mean that the influence of right-wing and ultra-right organizations is negligible - this is not so. They harassed activists (including left-wing activists), attacked gypsies, marched in protests against any attempts to negotiate with the separatist enclaves (DPR and LPR). They pose huge problem to Ukraine because the police and the courts did not always investigate such cases. But at the same time, they did not have and do not have the support of the population of Ukraine as a whole, and are poorly represented in the Ukrainian parliament. Ukraine cannot be called a fascist state, and the Russian leadership is well aware of this, no matter what it feeds to Russian public.
Therefore, thirdly, the point is not really about fascism and not about a nuclear bomb (which Ukraine never had and does not have) - these are just reasons for the invasion, means of justifying it. Russia is simply trying to redefine the world order and become the third center of power, right after the US and China. As part of such a policy, it needs to consolidate around itself the countries that in Russia are considered as part of its sphere of influence. Those are Ukraine, Belarus, the South Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia and even Azerbaijan) and the countries of Central Asia - Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan. And this is completely right-wing and imperial policy, sometimes close to nazist ideology. Various fictional (fascism in Ukraine and the "nuclear bomb" of Ukraine) and valid (American colonial and proxy wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya) statements are used in Russian propaganda to justify such aggressive policy ("US did that - so we also can"). If these countries try to resist (like Ukraine and Georgia), an artificial pretext is invented to justify the invasion for the population of Russia.
In his post, Soul Tear talks about "honest experts who are silenced in the West". He presumes that we should listen, and not silence them. This can only be welcomed - if he himself followed his own advice. But, unfortunately, he himself repeats the clichés of Russian propaganda without attempting to critically comprehend what Russian TV says. And this is definitely a tragedy of him.
Last edited by michael a; 3rd Dec 2022 at 22:39.
They are, but this one seems to at least provide us with some laffs. Let's wait and see if it writes again
We here in Finland were able to join just fine despite Putin's loud barking, and once the NATO application was sent, the barking stopped. A few weeks later a rather meek Putin said something to the effect of "This is fine, I didn't care anyways." Russia allowed Finland to join, and once Russia loses the war, it will allow Ukraine to join as well.
Firstly, NATO is a defensive alliance that any country is free to apply to join. Secondly, if Russia hadn't posed a growing threat, there wouldn't be a need for more countries to join. Thirdly, once Finland's NATO application is processed and our membership finalized, Russia's common border with NATO will grow by 1340km. Missiles from, say, Lappeenranta will be able to reach Moscow in 5min. We will never attack of course, but the fact is that Russia will allow this.Rockets from Kharkov will reach Moscow in less than 3 minutes. Therefore, NATO will not be in Ukraine. Never.
No, Putin gives that image all by himself. Russia does have only one goal, and it is to spread its precious Mir. We don't want it on our side of the lawn, thanks.Your leaders want to impress upon you that Putin is a Demon and the Russians are savages, with only one goal - that any actions of your governments are justified.
Like I mentioned before, NATO was created to be a defensive alliance against any military threat against any of its members. Currently the biggest threat is Russia, but I'm sure NATO acts as a deterrent against a North Korean attack as well. Where are you getting this "destroy Russia" nonsense? A defensive alliance means that it will never invade or conquer another nation. And we have enough resources of our own, thanks once again. You can keep yours. We just recommend not burning all your gas into thin air. In August/September the torch flame at the Russian compressor station was so tall that it was seen all the way from Finland. Try selling your gas insteadAs for NATO - it was created not to protect poor Europeans, but to destroy Russia, in order to seize resources that you have almost no left. Gas, right?
When Russia disappears on global map (in the inflamed mind of your Nazi governors) you will be able to control the whole world "By bringing democracy here and there. That's what you guys do all the time, isn't it?
Ukraine once did have the nuclear bomb -- in fact, it was the third most powerful nuclear power in the world after they inherited a third of the Soviet arsenal after the dissolution of the USSR. It voluntarily destroyed them in return of security assurances from the Russian Federation that it would, among other things, respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity -- AKA the Budapest Memorandum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrain...ss_destruction
The argument that Ukraine could possibly maybe seek nuclear weapons comes from the fact that after Russia very clearly and repeatedly violated the agreements, Ukraine might theoretically some day try to start developing nuclear weapons, since it's not really beholden to the memorandum any more. However, Ukraine has shown no indication they intend to do it, there is no significant political movement in Ukraine that supports it, and it is not really something you can start up all that easily, especially given that Ukraine never had a nuclear weapons program.
Last edited by Starker; 3rd Dec 2022 at 22:31.
Funny how we're suddenly re-addressing Soul Tear's post from back in March. Well, as long as we're here, I'd like to comment on part of it:
Every part of this is nonsense.No one has the right to be in NATO after the 1997 treaty. An agreement on non-expansion of NATO was signed. You had to keep your end of the bargain.
Here's the document Soul Tear is referring to: https://www.nato.int/cps/cn/natohq/o...exts_25468.htm
The document is not a signed treaty and carries no legal weight. It is a statement of principles and intent. Even given that, the document does not prohibit the expansion of NATO. ...In fact it specifically allows it. Instead it says things like "The member States of NATO reiterate that they have no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members..." Notice that there is no "will never" in these (and related) clauses. That is hardly some sort of binding agreement; Russia has given more than a little provocation. And yet, and yet, NATO has in fact stood by those parts of the agreement despite Russia abrogating wide swaths of the agreement (e.g. repeatedly invading Ukraine, clearly prohibited therein). And frankly, a lot of people (especially the new NATO members) are less than thrilled with NATO continuing to abide by this agreement that Russia has long since abandoned:
NATO-Russia: It’s time to suspend the Founding Act
The NATO-Russia Founding Act: A Dead Letter
https://www.dailywire.com/news/putin...oncerns-spiral
Very funny to see how poorly his posts have aged, though. Especially with the retreat from Kherson and the subsequent massive celebrations. Somehow, nothing like this happened in March when Russians took control of the city. No big crowds of people waving Russian flags, for some reason. People didn't come up to Russian soldiers to hug their liberators. In fact, there were protests with Ukrainian flags.
Yes, it's like the proverbial kid that kills his parents, and then when he goes before the judge he plays the victim card and pleads "Have mercy on me. I'm an orphan!" Putin is such a cartoon villain.
With 6000 nuclear warheads sadly there's nothing cartoonish.
That's the ONLY problem about Russia, Putin and the future russian fascism.
It's Karras' fault. Besides, I think it's good target practice.
I don't know exactly where Macron is coming from -- in playing up giving Russia security concessions in a deal despite it being the aggressor state, and despite NATO being defensive only -- but I found it interesting how history seems to be casting a long shadow. Whatever the realpolitik pros or cons of it, France's role in the Cold War was perceived to be a non-aligned "voice of reason", going at lengths to play up just how non-aligned it was, which was always maddening at least to the Anglo-sphere. I thought this was kind of a replay of that old dynamic.
Kyiv Independent published the second part of its investigation into corruption and abuse of power in the Ukrainian International Legion: https://kyivindependent.com/investig...sappropriation
Perhaps Macron is staring at a rough winter, a bad recession, and a renewed Cold War, and not liking the prospects. Besides, somebody has to try to make the Russian people believe there is still a way out of the hole they dug themselves into.
I'm sure everyone has seen this but I thought it should be here anyway. Besides, it pisses off Russians and Republicans as a plus.
Slava Ukrani.
Slava heroyam!
Timothy Snyder's last class on Ukrainian history in the context of the present war was released today. Man, what an amazing lecture series it's been, and it ends on a high note. More specifically, it ends with a nod to an unlikely Ukrainian revolutionary anthem right now for the holiday season.
I recommend anyone interested in not just Ukrainian history but European / Western history full stop watch these lectures. Now that it's all out, you have a good chance to binge it straight through.
It's helped me understand a lot of what the Post Cold War period that we're in right now even means. Imperial thinking is still around, by Russia, by Germany, by the US, and bewilderment about what's happening in Ukraine is one of its calling cards. One gets a good dose of unlearning our own prejudices beyond understanding this part of the world in a deep way.
Last edited by demagogue; 8th Dec 2022 at 04:44.
Honestly, I'm a bit worried that much of it is going to fly straight over most people's heads, especially those who are not very familiar with this part of Europe to begin with. There's so much necessary background to know about these topics that he just flies over and I guess his students are going to get reading assignments to get a broader understanding of the topics, but I'm afraid not many people watching the series on Youtube are going to look into it deeper or read up on things or even know where to start, if they wanted to.
Like, I'm not all that familiar with Polish or Ukrainian history myself besides what we learned from school and the odd bits and pieces that dealt with mostly Soviet times, but I have some understanding of local history that I can extend to those situations. I don't need to really dig deep into the suppression of indigenous culture and language in areas under Soviet control, because I live in an area that was under Soviet control and experienced it first hand, although by the time I was born it wasn't nearly as bad as it was for my parents. Likewise, most older people here middle age and up have a mark left by Soviet terror in the form of a missing family member, a grand-parent or a grand-grand-parent, so I and most other people in my generation don't really have to imagine the terror wrought by executions and deportations of citizens, for example.
The older generation of Eastern Europe has been carrying a lot of this historical baggage and its consequences with them deep in the back of their minds and now that that the Ukrainians have been forced to go through it again, it's all brought back to the surface. And if you watched Russian TV, the rhetoric of its politicians, the events unfolding in Russia, and its acts against its neighbours in the past few decades, you already knew at least subconsciously where it was all heading. For me, the moment they did away with Куклы/Puppets, a show that made fun of politicians, including Putin, I could tell it was all going to go down a dark path. Not that, y'know, the Chechen wars or the handling of the Kursk incident or the Moscow hostage crisis were any less dark, but this kind of seemed like a point of no return where you could see only further consolidation of power and Russia was basically giving up even the pretense of being a liberal democracy.
Anyway, if anyone's interested in what some of the younger generation of Russians think, here's a podcast episode featuring someone who fled Russia and is not approving of the state or its actions. Neither the host or his guest speak English as their first language and the host is an almost stereotypically introverted Estonian, so the conversation is perhaps a bit awkward at times, but hopefully it sheds a bit of light on what's currently going on in Russia and countries next to it:
Last edited by Starker; 8th Dec 2022 at 06:01.
The problem with russian elites is simple: they think themselves as new romans. No matter the "communism", the "liberalism", the "democracy", the "republic". Those are just suits to dress ad hoc and nothing more to russian elites.
In Russia - apart from the Lenin times - the REAL ideology is cryptofascism+imperialism since ever.
They implement what US elites can't (but would if they can)
More than anything they ever taught in school, I learned about the region's history from that time the Winged Hussars arrived, coming down the mountainside. Coming down, they turned the tide:
I have watched that last episode of Snyder's lectures now, but I'm afraid I'm not convinced by him very much. This may or may not stem from not having watched the previous 22 lectures, but I think there's more I'm not buying here.
For example, there are several statements of him that, AFAIK, are incorrect. Somewhere in the second half of this lecture he says something like: "Russian culture creators have never approved (or appreciated) the war." He claims that there was no such person who did so. However, there's another YouTube video linked to some posts above here, I think, which shows russian book author Sergei Lukyanenko speaking of how to kill ukrainian children when Russians would be in control there. The Wikipedia article also mentions a publication by Lukyanenko and others on February 28th, 2022, supporting the war.
Snyder also claimed that Europeans thought (from about 1970 up to now) that peace is good, and that peace would come through trade agreements, and therefore they never saw that Russia was going into a completely other direction from somewhere around 2005. He also applied that view, about trade bringing peace, to Germans, and that is where his picture is certainly incomplete. Being a German myself, I think that while this view indeed was prominent among Germans in the last decade (if you ask me, at least), there's also a view here that earning money is very, very important, and good (=profitable) economics are important, and so on. This also is an important drive here to start trade with other countries. And indeed, you will hardly find a country that completely agrees with your own on everything, so at one point you have to decide whether you want to make trade or politics. And sometimes you make the wrong decision. However, I do think that Germany should have seen earlier that the "trade brings peace and change" idea/plan did not succeed, and not only with Russia.
Snyder went on with his theory that Europeans thought trade was good and would bring changes and peace, but then, a bit later, he suddenly said that everyone else, except for the Europeans, thought that. Now what?!?
I could perhaps give more example, but then I could also write a book, and I'm currently not inclined to do so.
Another problem I have with Snyder's lecture is that there are certainly some "clusters" of thoughts I can relate to or understand, such as imperialism in the past being connected to the imperialism currently displayed by the leaders of the Russian Federation. However, these clusters are very often connected by just some thin lines which I often can't follow. Sometimes, I am just not so certain that Snyder's conclusions or the connections seen by him are correct, and on other occasions, he speaks so fast and hastily that I can not follow (or sometimes not even accoustically understand) what he's talking about.
The last about 20 minutes of that lecture were very confusing to me. Look at the end, for example. He talks about a female journalist (probably a Russian one, but I can't understand that well) being killed in a russian bombardment, then goes on to speak about a road or path someone can walk somewhere, and there's a castle there, and it may have become russian by shelling (huh? If I shoot another country's building, that building suddenly is mine, or what?!), or by something else, and Mr. Snyder visited a theater performance with his children, and there is this ukrainian (?) song he spoke about at the beginning of the lecture, and probably at the end of the last one... What the hell is his point there anyway???
I think one should be careful not to base one's view on anything on just one source, be it the Holy Wikipedia, Mr. Snyder, or whoever/whatever else. Events during the pandemic should have shown us that, but I'm not so sure.
"speaking of how to kill ukrainian children when Russians would be in control"
They're speaking of "russian" ukrainian children of "russian speaking" regions. They think they'll be traitors to "motherland" (showing solidarity with non-russian speaking ukrainian children) when adults so it's better to eliminate them.
I repeat, the so-called elites think themselves as romans, literally, so they think "pragmatically" as romans would think in these scenarios. Tipically "TABULA RASA".
If you prefer, it's "plain fascism" againt "nationalists" (=separatists) refusing the "rule of Rome" they can conveniently call "nazis" because of Bandera seen as national hero.
There's no "wellness through trade" you can use there (classic stupid american strategy), far right ideology is a heavy stimulant drug bypassing all reasons just like cocaine giving confidence and sense of greatness to a demented beggar: he will see himself as the hand of god and god shows no compromise and being the hand of god Russia can of course go nuclear because god is by her side. And you can't buy god with money or wellness.
It's why here in Italy all far right conservative people are by Putin side. Dogmatically, no need to ask nothing: he's the hand of god againt "satanic - jewish driven - west" so of course he has the right to use the "saint" nuclear fire and kill&destroy whatever he thinks must be killed and destroyed "to save us" from "evil".
People have this "dreaming dimension" that can be massively MASSIVELY dangerous when someone is good enough to feed it (and Putin is feeding it since 2010 through far right conservative / "euro-skeptical" parties in Europe).
The difference between USA and Russia, as I've said, it's Russian elites implement what US elites want implement but they can't: real dominion through consensus manipulation and not only at home.
And this time the damage would be ETERNAL, 'cause we can't use againt russian elites the tools used against nazi elites and eradicate all human sympathy to nazi ideology. Russia is here to stay and be what the Third Reich was meant to be.
This is the real damage apart the Ukraine destruction, if nowdays Hitler-lovers are fringe deranged elements the "putinists" are million and perfectly "socially integrated". And this thing can't be undone.
Last edited by lowenz; 8th Dec 2022 at 21:24.
Posting Permissions
