A vocal minority with fingers in media and politician pies gee I wonder do they have big noses too?

The western Putinistas are a small minority in most countries, tho a vocal one. — Olivier5

Cool. Is anyone else playing cliché bingo, @Streetlight? I've just got a full line with "the silent majority agree with me...".

I'm waiting for "This is what we fought the Nazis for...", then I've got a full house.

small brain.

imo hazing reinforces the notion that rules don't matter and that might makes right; if you're in a position of power and you want to mess with your subordinates then go for it, there will be no punishment as the war institution condones it. it also reinforces the notion that one's superiors are in no way people to be relied on.



i get what you're saying just keep in mind that under dictatorships the prudent need to stay quiet for their own safety.

I don't know. Here in Italy, pro-russian feelings are stronger than elsewhere in the West -- this country has always been a reluctant atlantist, like France -- but the government is firmly pro-Ukraine. Within limits of course, ie Draghi is an economist and keeps an eye on the economy, so he keeps saying we need a way to make peace, because an economic crash is now looming. And he is right.

Oh thank God you actually wrote a post worth reading from beginning to end.

agreed, but they could be a minority and those who protested or could protest, especially from the city, were imprisoned or left the country. What is also remarkable is this perceived feeling of betrayed "brotherhood" between Ukrainians and Russians , and lots of Russians have relatives in Ukraine (and got their feedback too). So even hypocrisy or prudence has its toll and yet most Russians are ready to pay for it apparently.

trying to adapt to your mental capacity. No need to thank me.

Anyway look at this vocal minority who don't buy into...




Oh no my mistake, that is the literally the majority of the entire planet, although presumably they are 'minorities' because they are not quite white enough to count as actual people or something.

All those billions of Putinistas if only they were more enlightened by the grace of Western Reason.

yet I don't know how long it will hold up for the US, Italy (how stable are Italian governments?!) or the rest of the EU (Eastern and Western European countries have a different perception of the Russian threat, Turkey and Hungary are capable of backstabbing). Even for Biden&co it's already hard to tell if they are moving just with great prudence or lack of resolve. And if Russia will manage to get away with their territorial plunder (BTW considering the late Russian military success against the Ukrainian resistance, can we really exclude the risk of a Ukrainian resistance's collapse?), Russian may still claim a victory that could erode Western confidence or resolve.

I haven't said nor insinuated that one cannot speak about Russia's actions, of course one speaks about Russia's actions, that's part of the thread.

Ukraine would literally not be a topic of discussion here if NATO weren't a massive factor, as I posted in the OP.

People should talk about whatever they think is interesting and important.

That's a different issue from saying that by condemning Russia, we are being morally correct or righteous. That Russia is engaging in war crimes is a truism.

That I think my governments (US and Spain) are doing much to improve the situation, I don't think is the case.

you are not allowed to do so — Olivier5

You can do it and you get arrested. Those protesting in Russia are very brave and deserve moral praise.

when it's legal, then it's immoral. — Olivier5

I am impressed by your reading comprehension skills, given how creative you can be extrapolating words I never said.

I enjoy speaking to someone like @SophistiCat, even if we may disagree. You simply distort meanings to a remarkable degree.

Yes, it has a very long, ugly history, curiously supporting the more radical elements of Islam, which often coincide (not always) with Western economic and military interests.

Nevertheless, that's a topic deserving of its own thread. — Manuel

Indeed.

I think it's obvious that either the Saudi's are either supporting the Sunni extremists (Al Qaeda) or at least not opposing them. In the Middle East you have strange bedfellows.

'Empire', 'domination'... Rhetorical drivel. — creativesoul

Yep. Empire and domination is "rhetorical drivel" when talking about America but "gospel truth" when talking about Russia. Well done, you can congratulate yourself on your impeccable objectivity! :lol:

Meantime, the facts on the ground show that it's NATO that is constantly expanding (from 12 countries in 1949 to currently 30!), not Russia ....

Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia

I don't think it's even possible to have a modern day war, without committing war crimes. It comes with the territory. — Manuel

Above all, war comes with dead civilians, flattened cities and villages, and destroyed infrastructure. America showed how it's done in Japan, Germany, and Iraq, especially Fallujah.

I agree that ideology can't always be kept out of discussions, but when it is deliberately used as a substitute for fact-based objective analysis, then it tends to suppress rather than encourage fruitful discussion.

From what I see, people like @ssu are trying to take advantage of the fact that most people, especially Americans, have no knowledge of European geography, history, or politics, in order to peddle their NATO Nazi propaganda and disinformation.

The fact is that even before the Russian Empire, Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine were simply different regions within the Land of the Russians, (Rusiskae Zemle) or short, Rus. In other words, Russia and Ukraine entered history as one people and one country.

The idea of Ukraine as a separate country was introduced by foreign powers – the Mongol Horde, Lithuania, Poland, Austria, Turkey - that occupied parts of Ukraine and encouraged separatism.

After the 1917 revolution, Ukraine came under German control, while England and France had their own plans to divide Russia into zones of influence:

As admitted by Churchill, the Franco-British Agreement stated:

The zones of influence assigned to each government shall be as follows: The English zone: The Cossack territories, the territory of the Caucasus, Armenia, Georgia, Kurdistan. The French zone: Bessarabia, the Ukraine, the Crimea … ‘

W. Churchill, The World Crisis: The Aftermath, p. 166

This divide-and-rule policy was resumed by America in the 90’s, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The 1994 "Budapest Memorandum" mentioned by @ssu as part of his straw man argument is a prime example of this policy that was obviously intended to disarm Ukraine and incorporate it into America's expanding NATO Empire.

While it may be argued that Ukraine decided to join America's NATO Empire of its own accord, we still need to take into consideration (1) financial and economic incentives that may have acted as motivating factors, (2) Ukraine's domination by an oligarchic (i.e., criminal and hence illegitimate) class, and (3) America's own intention and motives that may have conflicted with Ukraine's best interests.

We mustn't forget that Zelensky came to power only because he promised to get rid of the oligarchs. Ukraine prior to 2019 and even prior to 2022 was as much dominated by oligarchs and kleptocrats as Russia.

So, it is incorrect to say that Ukraine's increasing closeness to the West has amounted to unmitigated "progress". In fact, it was the West that facilitated the rise of the oligarchs and kleptocrats in Russia and Ukraine in the first place, by providing financial aid and by facilitating the transfer and investment of the stolen money in Western banks, businesses, and assets.



I think the inclusion of places like Australia and Canada in that map is misleading as they are very large territories with very small populations. They make the Natoist camp look much bigger than it actually is.

Essentially, it's just America and its European (EU-NATO) client-states .... :grin:

You simply distort meanings to a remarkable degree. — Manuel

Own what you say. Don't run away like this.

In lieu of that, here is one single discussion among millions of others:

https://mate.substack.com/p/by-using-ukraine-to-fight-russia?s=r

Worth noting, that, contrary to the story-tale that Ukraine 'chose' to deal with the West, the West couped Ukraine exactly at the time at which it choose to stop dealing with the West, as outlined in the article. — Streetlight

From this article (given above), just to make a comment for others.

Aaron Mate goes through what is usually now known about the Maidan revolution and what role the US did without much if anything new to give. He does acknowledge Putin is at fault, but this isn't what the article is about. Somehow he quotes some analysts (Darden and Way) who say that Yanukovich was still the most popular political figure in the country. This is highly dubious claim, because why then wouldn't the Donetsk and Luhansk republics taken their guy (Yanukovich's political base had been in the Donbas) as their leader? A democratically elected President surely would have given them credibility. Or then the reason is that you couldn't call any Ukrainian politician being popular. But that's a small issue. The real bias is in the following.

Aaron Mate sums up in this article the events in this way:

Putin has carried out a major escalation of a conflict that has raged for eight years, at the cost of more than 14,000 lives. It began with a US-backed, far-right-led 2014 coup that ousted Ukraine’s democratically elected government in Kiev. In its place came a regime chosen not by the Ukrainian people, but by Washington.

End of story.

What Aaron Mate fails to mention, even if he does mention that Yanukovich was democratically elected, are both the October 2014 parliamentary elections, where the far right that had such a major role in the rioting during the revolution lost it's seats in the administration, and also the presidential elections that were held in May that year too. Indeed without these elections I would talk about a coup too and Ukraine would be obviously quite undemocratic, as portrayed in the article. To leave the elections following the revolution totally out of the article shows the bias of this piece, which is telling, even if otherwise it tells the story how we know it today. And how we know it today is the focus on the US actions, not on what Russia did. That Ukrainians have shown their anger also in the election booth and demanded change in elections should be noted, but isn't. And of course there have been many administrations and elections since then and that now there is in charge in Ukraine a totally new political party that wasn't even around in 2014 doesn't matter at all. Nope, once you get the nazi card, you have the nazi card and people will use it at anything how ever long they want.

But of course, the reason why these articles that have the anti-US bias don't give any credit to Ukrainians themselves or have nothing to do with Ukraine or the Ukrainians is obvious. Ukrainians are not what they are interested in. It's all just about how bad the US is and nothing else. US is bad and everything evolves around the US and hence the US is at fault in everything. The blatant self-centeredness is quite numbing.

And how could this be put more clearly than here with one of our active members:

Literally every US decision or policy has a hidden agenda and dishonest means. — Streetlight

That's all we need to know, I guess.

It's all just about how bad the US is and nothing else. US is bad and everything evolves around the US and hence the US is at fault in everything. — ssu

Literally no one is saying this, and the only people keen to force a choice between waving one flag or the other - as if this were a soccer match - are people who cannot stand to see their "team" being spoken badly of.

You know you can make your personality more than just about coming to the defense of your favorite genocidal state. It's OK to do that.

It should be added explicitly that it's true that the US was not entirely responsible for demanding a Ukrainian blood sacrifice for its own purposes. There really were forces internal to Ukraine that also helped precipitate war and the masses of Ukrainian dead - the famous Ukrainian 'agency' that liberals like to harp on about. Those internal forces were fucking Nazis.

That Ukrainians have shown their anger also in the election booth and demanded change in elections should be noted, but isn't. And of course there have been many administrations and elections since then and that now there is in charge in Ukraine a totally new political party that wasn't even around in 2014 doesn't matter at all. Nope, once you get the nazi card, you have the nazi card and people will use it at anything how ever long they want. — ssu

Ah, yes. That'll be why Amnesty International wrote in 2017

Ukraine is sinking into a chaos of uncontrolled violence posed by radical groups and their total impunity. Practically no one in the country can feel safe under these conditions — Amnesty

...and why Human Rights Watch warned about...

a veneer of patriotism and traditional values were allowed to operate under an atmosphere of near total impunity that cannot but embolden these groups to commit more attacks.

...and the Atlantic Council warned in 2018...

Far-right impunity...represents a dangerous threat to Ukraine’s statehood.

...all because there's absolutely no far-right problem in Ukraine, it all just went away and Ukrainians voted and campaigned with free abandon.

I'm sure the "uncontrolled violence" by the anti-Russian far right groups had absolutely no influence at all. Maybe they all just stayed home.

This thread is eclectic. 30% information, 70% sarcasm and insults.

Kudos for those continuing to try after 265 pages.

Indeed without these elections I would talk about a coup too and Ukraine would be obviously quite undemocratic, as portrayed in the article. — ssu

This is a return of a well-worn classic, the old "It's just a coincidence that everything is going exactly as America wants it to"

"America did interfere with the democratic parliament of a foreign country, but it's OK, everything was going to go that way anyway! What luck!"

Same pattern as...

"The exact same arms dealers who both control the media narrative and government policy are making a fortune from the continued war they're promoting, but that's OK, it just happens to be the best policy anyway! What luck!"

"America wants nothing more than to drive Russia into the ground, remove Chinese alliances and regain control of Eastern oil supplies, but it didn't provoke the one situation which would bring this about, it all just happened anyway. What luck!"

America really should put it's next spending round on the roulette wheels, with the luck it's having lately it's bound to win a fortune.

Literally no one is saying this, and the only people keen to force a choice between waving one flag or the other - as if this were a soccer match - are people who cannot stand to see their "team" being spoken badly of. — Streetlight

Literally every US decision or policy has a hidden agenda and dishonest means. — Streetlight

It's you who are waving the "US is bad" flag. You simply don't perhaps notice it.

And for you it's enough that someone says that Russia's actions are deplorable. What your response is "but US does deplorable things too". And nobody has denied that.

Literally every US decision or policy has a hidden agenda and dishonest means. — Streetlight

This was literally a response to someone saying that "not every US decision or policy has a hidden agenda and dishonest means".

But your kindergarten reading ability has been remarked upon before, and it would be unnecessary to bring it up again.

waving the "US is bad" flag. — ssu

The US government has a terrible history. Terrible. You acknowledge this.

You also acknowledge that the US, just by being the worlds largest economy (and most powerful militarily), has real influence over nearly all major events around the globe.

It’s also true that Putin’s invasion was and is immoral and stupid, and that the deaths of civilians is beyond words.

So why the characterization as “US bad”? The US isn’t bad— the choices powerful people have made (and continue to make) within the government of the United States is “bad.”

I’m still not seeing where the major disagreement lies. A matter of emphasis?

It's so wild to me that Americans always like to half-heartedly acknowledge "the US has a bad history...". No, it does not have a bad history. It sucks in the present tense.

No one says "China has a bad history" or "Russia has a bad history". They simply say - correctly - "China fucking sucks" and "Russia fucking sucks". Guess what? America, currently, presently fucking sucks.

It's happened twice now in the space of the last two pages. "History" is not a storage space for America's bad shit, to be sequestered and lopped off as an academic's concern.

I own things I say and have retracted if relevant information arises, as I did at the start of this invasion.

But I will not retract things I did not say.

And yes, I think one has to asses who merits continued engagement, and who does not. My reading of your comments suggest that you extrapolate what you want to hear, so you attack something somebody did not say.

I think it doesn't make sense to discuss imaginary statements.

If you call that running away or cowardly, fine. I don't care.

The US government has a terrible history. Terrible. You acknowledge this. — Xtrix

Yes.

I’m still not seeing where the major disagreement lies. — Xtrix

Ask yourself. How much in the thread are following issues being debated:

- According to (UNHCR) over 6 million Ukrainians have fled Ukraine, 90% of them women and children.

- Over 200 000 Russians have fled Russia after the war started with the largest group to Georgia.

- Over 3 500 civilians have been killed.

- Ukrainian authorities are already investigating more than 11,000 potential Russian war crimes since the invasion began.

And how much is it about:

- Ukraine's Nazis.

- The US made Putin to invade Ukraine because NATO enlargement.

- The war is the fault of the US is because it's actions.

- If the actions of Russia in a thread about the Ukraine war are mentioned, it means that those who write such things somehow are in favour of the actions of the US... and they should write about the bad things the US is doing. So let's talk here about something else.

Of course the latter topics should be discussed. But that they would be everything that we discuss on a thread about the Ukrainian war is ummm...

No one says "China has a bad history" or "Russia has a bad history". They simply say "China fucking sucks" and "Russia fucking sucks". — Streetlight

Compared to the Maoist China of the Great Leap / Culture Revolution or the Russia of Stalin's Soviet Union, both countries have improved a lot! Even in the current configuration.

Killing less of your own people is an improvement.

Ask yourself. How much in the thread is following issues being debated: — ssu

This is a discussion forum, not a newspaper. Unless there's some interesting issue or disagreement about any of that list, I can't for the life of me think why they'd make an appearance.

But for your benefit...

According to (UNHCR) over 6 million Ukrainians have fled Ukraine, 90% of them women and children.

Now what? We all congratulate ourselves for correctly identifying that this is a 'bad' thing?

Well you apologize for Nazis so I suppose I can trust you to apologize for tyrannical regimes.

Have you considered just like, not apologizing for bad things? Or do you just have like some kind of externally-directed Catholic guilt about the world?

When do I apologize for Nazis?

Or is saying that the far right lost in the 2014 elections in Ukraine "an apology"? It isn't.