Convince me that Putin is wrong

[Stevicus]

which is like fearing something non-existent. Something gone...in 1991.

Yeah, I know. Old habits die hard, at least for some in our government.

It's not something related to the regime.
In Saudi Arabia women are treated like third class citizens and if a woman wears miniskirt and top, they jail her. They treat her as a criminal.
Something light years away from Russia.
Yet the mainstream narrative is that Putin's regime is the worst dictatorship in the world, whereas SA is fine.

So it has nothing to do with Putin.
It's unconscious Russophobia.

I don't deny that there's still a good deal of lingering Russophobia (which somehow got intermingled and tangled with Sovietphobia and the Red Scare theology). But I was also pointing out that it's still possible to oppose the regime without opposing the nation itself or the ordinary people within it. Maybe not everyone does that, which can be a problem.

I think a lot of people have also pointed out the blatant hypocrisy regarding the U.S. favorable treatment of regimes such as in Saudi Arabia. I can't explain that. Our government gives favorable treatment to regimes which are deemed friendly to U.S. interests. So, for whatever reason, Saudi Arabia's government is considered friendly to U.S. interests and vital to U.S. national security, so they're ostensibly giving them a great deal of latitude when it comes to reports of human rights violations (or other possible misdeeds).

Another aspect of this discussion which should be mentioned is that quite a number of Americans don't really have a very firm grasp on world affairs. Case in point: Many years ago, before Ukraine was really much in the news, I was speaking with a woman at work who was telling me about a new co-worker who was from Ukraine. She had never heard of the Ukraine before. She and her friend apparently called up numerous friends of theirs to ask, and none of them had ever heard of Ukraine either. It was like some other planet or something - just some total mystery to them.

In some ways, with much of the populace largely ignorant about the state of the world, it makes it easier for the government to pull the wool over most of the people's eyes. But that's a double-edged sword. When people don't really understand the issues they're facing, whether domestic issues or foreign policy, it makes it much easier for those who would spread disinformation and sow confusion among the electorate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There's no reason to think that you are telling the truth about it.

There is zero reason to believe Putin and his cohorts tell the truth about anything in public.
Everytime they say X, they do Y.
Everytime they say Y, they do X.

They said they weren't going to attack Ukraine. They attack Ukraine.
They said they weren't going to endanger the nuke powerplant. They shell the nuke powerplant.
They said they weren't going to attack civilians. They bomb hospitals, commercial train stations, schools, apartment buildings, houses, etc.
They said they weren't going to attack civilian infrastructure. They bomb energy infrastructure, destroy heating infrastructure (at the start of the winter), etc.
They said they weren't goint to harm civilians. They execute them in droves, torture them, kidnap children, etc
They weren't going to conquer and annex land. They conquer and annex land.

Literally everything that comes out of their mouths is a lie.

There are no neo-nazi's of any consequence in Ukrainian leadership. That is just another lie. A pathetic excuse that they use to feed to the home front to justify their war to the zombie-state-television-watching average Joe Russia, whom are in a sense just as much a victim of these war criminals as Ukrainians are.

It makes me vommit to see people in western countries, who actually DO have access to free press and actually ARE able to do some fact checking, to be equally victimized by these propaganda lies.

In my experience, people in the west who buy into russian propaganda, also tend to be people who don't get their news from proper news outlets but in fact primarily get their news through "social media" channels, which are all infested with russian troll armies and whose algorithms just keep on pushing these fake news propaganda posts / articles simply because some of them were read.

It literally makes me sick to my stomach.

These Russian war criminals are literally using our free society against us. And they are actually succeeding. It makes me puke.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't deny that there's still a good deal of lingering Russophobia (which somehow got intermingled and tangled with Sovietphobia and the Red Scare theology). But I was also pointing out that it's still possible to oppose the regime without opposing the nation itself or the ordinary people within it. Maybe not everyone does that, which can be a problem.

The political élites sow the seed of Russophobia because they still see Russia as the emblem of Socialism, and worse, of Communism.
Meaning that they are terrified that the Russian way (like nationalization of strategic infrastructures, banks and raw materials) can be taught in the US too.
American economists come here to Europe and try to convince us that the Russian way is very bad, and that the US economy should be the role model for European countries.
So it's a politically motivated Russophobia, strategically inculcated in people.

I think a lot of people have also pointed out the blatant hypocrisy regarding the U.S. favorable treatment of regimes such as in Saudi Arabia. I can't explain that. Our government gives favorable treatment to regimes which are deemed friendly to U.S. interests. So, for whatever reason, Saudi Arabia's government is considered friendly to U.S. interests and vital to U.S. national security, so they're ostensibly giving them a great deal of latitude when it comes to reports of human rights violations (or other possible misdeeds).

Which is absolutely weird. Stockholm Syndrome at its best. With all due respect.
What was Nine Eleven hijackers' nationality?

Another aspect of this discussion which should be mentioned is that quite a number of Americans don't really have a very firm grasp on world affairs. Case in point: Many years ago, before Ukraine was really much in the news, I was speaking with a woman at work who was telling me about a new co-worker who was from Ukraine. She had never heard of the Ukraine before. She and her friend apparently called up numerous friends of theirs to ask, and none of them had ever heard of Ukraine either. It was like some other planet or something - just some total mystery to them.

I have studied Russian...but I can't understand the difference between Ukrainian and Russian.
I do understand what Ukrainians say (once understood the context).
It deals with two brotherly people who fight each other.

It's like we fought with the Spanish. We would never do that.

In some ways, with much of the populace largely ignorant about the state of the world, it makes it easier for the government to pull the wool over most of the people's eyes. But that's a double-edged sword. When people don't really understand the issues they're facing, whether domestic issues or foreign policy, it makes it much easier for those who would spread disinformation and sow confusion among the electorate.

Orwell would have said that people need an enemy to hate.
But they ignore why they hate Putin.
Feminists hate him because he compliments beautiful women, and liberals hate him because he is for the nationalization of economic sectors.

 

[Stevicus]

The political élites sow the seed of Russophobia because they still see Russia as the emblem of Socialism, and worse, of Communism.
Meaning that they are terrified that the Russian way (like nationalization of strategic infrastructures, banks and raw materials) can be taught in the US too.
American economists come here to Europe and try to convince us that the Russian way is very bad, and that the US economy should be the role model for European countries.
So it's a politically motivated Russophobia, strategically inculcated in people.

I recall back in the Cold War era, I knew some Christians who were big believers in Bible prophecy and perceived Russia as evil, "Gog and Magog." Something along those lines. I never put much stock in that kind of talk so I didn't pay it much mind. But it seemed to feed into Reagan's "evil empire" idea. It also relates to certain ideas around American exceptionalism, such as America being blessed by God and having some sort of crusade or mission from God to fulfill.

I don't think Russia is a symbol of socialism or communism anymore. They were never really that for very long anyway, not since the early days after the Bolshevik Revolution, when a lot of people in other countries were briefly inspired and thought they could have a worldwide workers' revolt. Didn't really pan out that way, but the West still liked to use Russia as some kind of symbolic "enemy" as a way of stoking nationalistic fear among their citizenry.

Plus, since the threat was also ideological, it gave the government a certain degree of license to target any kind of dissenters. Nowadays, it's viewed differently, since the threat of some worldwide socialist revolution never really came to pass. Russia has ostensibly turned more nationalist than anything else, and that seems to be the case for quite a few nations these days.

That seems to be the main threat to global security and stability, if more nations start to entrench into their own nationalistic fortresses and reverse the last century of global treaties and agreements. (Admittedly, that sounds like a worst-case scenario, but it could be where we're headed if we're not careful about how we proceed.)

Which is absolutely weird. Stockholm Syndrome at its best. With all due respect.
What was Nine Eleven hijackers' nationality?

It is odd, I'll admit. I still remember those pictures of George Bush kissing a Saudi prince. That was even more embarrassing and awkward than Michael Dukakis on a tank.

I have studied Russian...but I can't understand the difference between Ukrainian and Russian.
I do understand what Ukrainians say (once understood the context).
It deals with two brotherly people who fight each other.

It's like we fought with the Spanish. We would never do that.

People fight other people for any number of reasons. Americans have fought against other Americans. Civil wars do happen.

There are some linguistic differences between Ukrainian and Russian, although they both share a common root language. As for why they're fighting, it appears to be the result of centuries of resentment. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire for centuries, and then made part of the Soviet Union.

Orwell would have said that people need an enemy to hate.
But they ignore why they hate Putin.
Feminists hate him because he compliments beautiful women, and liberals hate him because he is for the nationalization of economic sectors.

Well, Putin has earned quite a bit of wrath as of late. He's in a power game, too, making his own gambit. All part of the "great game," I guess, but who knows if we'll survive the outcome?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So, after extraordinary and absolutely historic interview with Putin (made by T. Carlson), I have understood that:

- In 2000 Putin had asked Clinton to join in the NATO, because he wanted perpetual peace between the West and Eastern Europe after 50 years of cold war.
But Clinton replied him that it was not possible, meaning: that Russia was not welcomed. So, as a consequence, the US are to blame for this new cold war, because they did anything to isolate, boycott and antagonize the Russian Federation.

- An array of elitist people coming from the US has wanted to colonize Ukraine and to turn it into a anti-Russian military base. They funded the Maidan coup in 2014, and they pushed the Kiev government to persecute the Russian-speaking people of Donbas in order to provoke Putin and to lure him into a trap.
That is, forcing him to invade Donbas to rescue the Donbas civilians, mercilessly attacked by the government in Kiev.

- Putin wasn't fooled by that trap, and signed the two Minsk agreements instead, which were meant to force Germany and France to be guarantors and Ukraine to respect the two self-proclaimed Donbas republics, Luhansk and Donetsk. In the meantime, Russia funded the separatists of Donbas, so they could at least defend themselves; and annexed Crimea, which had made a referendum to get out of that Inferno called Ukraine. As a consequence, the Obama administration antagonized Putin and Russia was excluded from the G8 and the Council of Europe. As a punishment.

- Despite the restless efforts of France and Germany to convince Zelenskyy to respect the Minsk agreements, Zelenskyy was expected to obey the elites of the United States, who ordered him to deceive Europeans, and not to respect the Minsk agreements. Macron went to Kiev in 2022 to be reassured, but after he returned to France, Zelenskyy surely obeying his masters overseas, said that he would not respect the Minsk agreements.

-Putin, seeing that Zelenskyy was against the Minsk agreements, had no other option than to invade. In this war, he reached Kiev to denazify it as they say, but he was persuaded to withdraw the troops to start the peace negotiations in Istanbul.
The text of the peace agreement had already been drafted: at the last moment, British PM Johnson ordered Zelenskyy not to sign it. That is why in 2022, the war continued, even if it could have been ended in Summer 2022.

- Of course the CIA blew up the two Nordstream Pipelines to boycott Putin, and to prevent him from getting money from the sale of natural gas to Germany. Money that he would have spent on the war.


This is a very, very, very serious thread, so I will be as strict as possible, by not allowing:
1) name calling towards Carlson or Putin
2) speaking of Trump . This is about Europe.
3) changing subject, going off topic
4) ad hominems

Merci beaucoup...mes chers.

You are drinking the Russian kool-aid.
I find the statement 'Putin, seeing that Zelenskyy was against the Minsk agreements, had no other option than to invade.' particularly troublesome, both because it was Putin who discarded the Minsk Agreements, and because suggesting that a sovereign nation has no option but to invade another is troublesome on a number of other levels.
I would suggest that both yourself and Tucker Carlson are not paying enough attention to Russian attempts to create buffer states, whilst simultaneously decrying NATO for doing the same thing, albeit in a different way.
Unless you don't think there was any Russian collusion or planning regarding Novorossiya? Or that Putin's statements around it have been consistent, and historically accurate?

The Ukraine has plenty of issues. As do many countries, but some of the Ukrainian political issues were pretty substantive. At no point did that justify a Russian invasion. However, you clearly stated that you think a Russian invasion was not only justified, but was forced upon the Russians. That's bunkum.

 

[Estro Felino]

You are drinking the Russian kool-aid.

Russia never stabbed my country in the back.
I have read Assange's Wikileaks...
Assange is a compatriot of yours, right?
It turns out I exclusively trust him. Not the CIA. Not the WH.
Because they all plead the fifth.

I find the statement 'Putin, seeing that Zelenskyy was against the Minsk agreements, had no other option than to invade.' particularly troublesome, both because it was Putin who discarded the Minsk Agreements, and because suggesting that a sovereign nation has no option but to invade another is troublesome on a number of other levels.

I do understand this point. Nevertheless, there are tons of evidence that show how the Kiev government did prevent Donbas people from speaking Russia. A young Zelensky that said that Russians should be allowed to speak Russian, in Ukraine. This is evidence. Imagine if that video enters an international courtroom.

I would suggest that both yourself and Tucker Carlson are not paying enough attention to Russian attempts to create buffer states, whilst simultaneously decrying NATO for doing the same thing, albeit in a different way.

The Baltics were considered buffer states by Russia; yet they are now in the EU and in the NATO.
So...Ukraine can join the EU as well.
There is no need of buffer states, because Europeans will never attack Russia.

The Ukraine has plenty of issues. As do many countries, but some of the Ukrainian political issues were pretty substantive. At no point did that justify a Russian invasion. However, you clearly stated that you think a Russian invasion was not only justified, but was forced upon the Russians. That's bunkum.

The Russian invasion is justified because Donbas people want to be in the Russian Federation, not in Ukraine.
It is Ukraine that is imposing its own tyrannical will on the Russians of Crimea and Donbas.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Russia never stabbed my country in the back.
I have read Assange's Wikileaks...
Assange is a compatriot of yours, right?
It turns out I exclusively trust him. Not the CIA. Not the WH.
Because they all plead the fifth.

Trusting ANYONE exclusively would seem problematic. Even Australians.

I do understand this point. Nevertheless, there are tons of evidence that show how the Kiev government did prevent Donbas people from speaking Russia. A young Zelensky that said that Russians should be allowed to speak Russian, in Ukraine. This is evidence. Imagine if that video enters an international courtroom.

As I said, Ukraine has plenty of substantive political issues.

The Baltics were considered buffer states by Russia; yet they are now in the EU and in the NATO.
So...Ukraine can join the EU as well.
There is no need of buffer states, because Europeans will never attack Russia.

You're suggesting Putin doesn't believe there is value in buffer states between Russia and NATO? That would seem quite contrary to his previous statements, and your suggestion that NATO membership of states close to Russia is problematic. If Europe will never attack Russia, what is his issue with NATO membership for sovereign nations bordering Russia?

The Russian invasion is justified because Donbas people want to be in the Russian Federation, not in Ukraine.
It is Ukraine that is imposing its own tyrannical will on the Russians of Crimea and Donbas.

The agreements placing those regions within Ukranian control date back to Soviet times (as you know, I think), and international law is not on the Russian 'side'. I'm okay with admitting there is some noise amongst the claims, but I think it's worth remembering that it's not as clear as what you are suggesting. Settlement of Russian civillians after largescale de-population events in the 20th century obviously changed the cultural mix here, but did nothing to change the legal borders.

I think it's also worth noting that the attempts to portray the Ukraine as a bunch of Nazis is tenuous, to say the least, and a red flag in terms of intent.

 

[InChrist]

So, after extraordinary and absolutely historic interview with Putin (made by T. Carlson), I have understood that:

- In 2000 Putin had asked Clinton to join in the NATO, because he wanted perpetual peace between the West and Eastern Europe after 50 years of cold war.
But Clinton replied him that it was not possible, meaning: that Russia was not welcomed. So, as a consequence, the US are to blame for this new cold war, because they did anything to isolate, boycott and antagonize the Russian Federation.

- An array of elitist people coming from the US has wanted to colonize Ukraine and to turn it into a anti-Russian military base. They funded the Maidan coup in 2014, and they pushed the Kiev government to persecute the Russian-speaking people of Donbas in order to provoke Putin and to lure him into a trap.
That is, forcing him to invade Donbas to rescue the Donbas civilians, mercilessly attacked by the government in Kiev.

- Putin wasn't fooled by that trap, and signed the two Minsk agreements instead, which were meant to force Germany and France to be guarantors and Ukraine to respect the two self-proclaimed Donbas republics, Luhansk and Donetsk. In the meantime, Russia funded the separatists of Donbas, so they could at least defend themselves; and annexed Crimea, which had made a referendum to get out of that Inferno called Ukraine. As a consequence, the Obama administration antagonized Putin and Russia was excluded from the G8 and the Council of Europe. As a punishment.

- Despite the restless efforts of France and Germany to convince Zelenskyy to respect the Minsk agreements, Zelenskyy was expected to obey the elites of the United States, who ordered him to deceive Europeans, and not to respect the Minsk agreements. Macron went to Kiev in 2022 to be reassured, but after he returned to France, Zelenskyy surely obeying his masters overseas, said that he would not respect the Minsk agreements.

-Putin, seeing that Zelenskyy was against the Minsk agreements, had no other option than to invade. In this war, he reached Kiev to denazify it as they say, but he was persuaded to withdraw the troops to start the peace negotiations in Istanbul.
The text of the peace agreement had already been drafted: at the last moment, British PM Johnson ordered Zelenskyy not to sign it. That is why in 2022, the war continued, even if it could have been ended in Summer 2022.

- Of course the CIA blew up the two Nordstream Pipelines to boycott Putin, and to prevent him from getting money from the sale of natural gas to Germany. Money that he would have spent on the war.


This is a very, very, very serious thread, so I will be as strict as possible, by not allowing:
1) name calling towards Carlson or Putin
2) speaking of Trump . This is about Europe.
3) changing subject, going off topic
4) ad hominems

Merci beaucoup...mes chers.

Ultimately, I really don’t know who is right or wrong because I think, as with most people, so much goes on that the public is not aware of…


“The Cold War might have ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but cold warfare between the United States and Russia did not. And proof of this can be found in a new story from the New York Times.

The story, which is based on more than 200 interviews conducted by reporters Adam Entous and Michael Schwirtz, explains that the CIA currently operates a dozen secret bases in Ukraine along the Russian border, and were doing so well before Putin’s 2022 invasion.

The reporters recently toured one base and offered a detailed description.

“Nestled in a dense forest, the Ukrainian military base appears abandoned and destroyed, its command center a burned-out husk, a casualty of a Russian missile barrage early in the war.
But that is above ground.
Not far away, a discreet passageway descends to a subterranean bunker where teams of Ukrainian soldiers track Russian spy satellites and eavesdrop on conversations between Russian commanders. On one screen, a red line followed the route of an explosive drone threading through Russian air defenses from a point in central Ukraine to a target in the Russian city of Rostov. The underground bunker, built to replace the destroyed command center in the months after Russia’s invasion, is a secret nerve center of Ukraine’s military.
There is also one more secret: The base is almost fully financed, and partly equipped, by the C.I.A.”

Many Americans naively believe the Ukraine war began in February 2022 when Vladmir Putin invaded the country. It didn’t.

In fact, fighting in Ukraine goes back nearly a decade earlier—to February 2014.”

The CIA Was Waging a (Cold) War Against Russia Way Before the Ukraine Invasion

The 2014 coup against Viktor Yanukovych wasn't as bloodless as it seemed.

jjmilt.substack.com