That's a terrible analogy.
Russia Discussion
- Thread starter iSparky
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
That's a terrible analogy.
I bet they've killed more Russians than the Ukrainians have.
Even complete with a "You make me do this to you. If you hadn't have flirted with that NATO guy, I wouldn't have to invade you." line.
Their actions don't demonstrate a concern for the safety of the people on the ground. More a desire for control and a certain level of paranoia.
Spot on.
Are you fecking Russian?
Based on the post you quoted, he's Putin's mother.
Its all a part of the Putin propaganda machine lads. The Russians are being completely blanketed with a full on propaganda policy, which is why many Russians have fallen for the fascist hunta in Kiev nonsense.
100% true. It's an all-pervasive, sophisticated propaganda campaign run by a genius of media manipulation (Kisleyev). The worse thing about Russia (and I have now left) is the pervasive cynicism which leads to the belief that no one can be trusted, every one must be acting for venal motives and everyone is as bad as each other. The Kremlin PR machine had made a big contribution to this state of affairs and it is a large part of the reason why civil society is so weak there.
Sounds down right scary - almost a bit Goebbels like. And probably another symptom of a regime that is deeply insecure about being toppled from within.
Posted this in the newbs: Navalny seems to have sussed out Putin's motives, which is not coincidentally why the government are harassing him and his brother.
Russia’s opposition leader and anti-corruption campaigner, held under house arrest, says president is using war to stay in power
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...hy-base-his-regime-on-corruption-asks-navalny
OnPutin’s reaction to Ukraine:
“Out of nowhere, without any warning, boom: suddenly a genuine, anti-criminal revolution. This was a terrible blow for Putin, a hundred times more painful that the Georgian events, than [former president Mikheil] Saakashvili and his anti-corruption reforms. He cannot allow this in Ukraine. So I think one of his strategic goals in the coming years will be to do absolutely everything to undermine the Ukrainian state, to ensure that no reforms work, so that everything ends in failure.”
On the consequences of Russian actions in Ukraine:
“Putin likes to speak about the ‘Russian world’ but he is actually making it smaller. In Belarus, they sing anti-Putin songs at football stadiums; in Ukraine they simply hate us. In Ukraine now, there are no politicians who don’t have extreme anti-Russian positions. Being anti-Russian is the key to success now in Ukraine, and that’s our fault.”
On whathe would ask Putin
“I would be interested to understand his motivations, particularly on Ukraine. Because he is destroying our country. It will all collapse, and surely he can’t not understand that it’s all going to collapse.
“If he wants to be an authoritarian leader, then that’s one thing. But why doesn’t he want to be a Russian Lee Kuan Yew? Why does he want to base his authoritarian regime on corruption? There are other ways of doing it.”
On finding the ‘Putin account’:
“I think there are probably a number of numbered accounts in Swiss banks where money is kept that Putin considers his personal money. But in the main it is all kept by nominal holders, like [head of Russian Railways Vladimir] Yakunin or the Rotenbergs [two billionaire brothers, who are childhood friends of Putin]. The money is communal.
“If intelligence services really wanted to find Putin’s money there would be ways of doing so, but all we can do is work with open sources and the information we get from insiders. We can’t show up at a Swiss bank and seize documents or analyse transfers. Corruption in Russia is so open that even we can find a huge amount. But to find Putin’s accounts, that’s beyond our capabilities.”
Russia’s opposition leader and anti-corruption campaigner, held under house arrest, says president is using war to stay in power
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...hy-base-his-regime-on-corruption-asks-navalny
OnPutin’s reaction to Ukraine:
“Out of nowhere, without any warning, boom: suddenly a genuine, anti-criminal revolution. This was a terrible blow for Putin, a hundred times more painful that the Georgian events, than [former president Mikheil] Saakashvili and his anti-corruption reforms. He cannot allow this in Ukraine. So I think one of his strategic goals in the coming years will be to do absolutely everything to undermine the Ukrainian state, to ensure that no reforms work, so that everything ends in failure.”
On the consequences of Russian actions in Ukraine:
“Putin likes to speak about the ‘Russian world’ but he is actually making it smaller. In Belarus, they sing anti-Putin songs at football stadiums; in Ukraine they simply hate us. In Ukraine now, there are no politicians who don’t have extreme anti-Russian positions. Being anti-Russian is the key to success now in Ukraine, and that’s our fault.”
On whathe would ask Putin
“I would be interested to understand his motivations, particularly on Ukraine. Because he is destroying our country. It will all collapse, and surely he can’t not understand that it’s all going to collapse.
“If he wants to be an authoritarian leader, then that’s one thing. But why doesn’t he want to be a Russian Lee Kuan Yew? Why does he want to base his authoritarian regime on corruption? There are other ways of doing it.”
On finding the ‘Putin account’:
“I think there are probably a number of numbered accounts in Swiss banks where money is kept that Putin considers his personal money. But in the main it is all kept by nominal holders, like [head of Russian Railways Vladimir] Yakunin or the Rotenbergs [two billionaire brothers, who are childhood friends of Putin]. The money is communal.
“If intelligence services really wanted to find Putin’s money there would be ways of doing so, but all we can do is work with open sources and the information we get from insiders. We can’t show up at a Swiss bank and seize documents or analyse transfers. Corruption in Russia is so open that even we can find a huge amount. But to find Putin’s accounts, that’s beyond our capabilities.”
It will be interesting to see who takes over from Putin when, as is inevitable, he is no longer in power.
If it's his son or his wife then I'll know Russia's democracy is a sham.
If it's his son or his wife then I'll know Russia's democracy is a sham.
Think depends on who you ask - Have the 100,000's civilians in Iraq, Libya, Afganistan been asked to give their obvious answer?
Take a world view of who has killed the most Woman and children in the last few decades and I wonder who that might be?
Was funny a week or two ago when someone mentioned some Facist Political Party in Ukraine as proof, a political party that had all of ONE seat in the Parliament.
Willful ignorance on display.
How about you ask the Tatars presently being persecuted in Russian occupied Crimea? Or the families of those people found in mass graves following the withdrawal of rebel forces?
Putin barely gives a damn about those who actually vote for him, let alone Russian speakers in Ukraine.
Do you have any idea how many civilians the Soviets killed in Afghanistan? Even RT admits that it is north of 1 million civilians. Add up everything the US/the West has done since 1980 and it won't come close to that number.
Last edited:
Hundreds of thousands?
I am not advocating for Russia or Putin, the idea that he alone kills and the world would be sweetness and light if he was defeated is crazy - it is about time as a mature 'civilisation' we move past wilfull and continual warmongering - this is all it is and if Russia was somehow defeated and then the 'terrorists' there would be someone soon shunted into the void.
You do realise that was a proxy war waged with billions of USA dollars don't you? You think all the deaths were down to Russia? I mean nice Osama and them talabany telebubies would never hurt woman and children with Uncle Sams rockets.....
You do realise that was a proxy war waged with billions of USA dollars don't you? You think all the deaths were down to Russia? I mean nice Osama and them talabany telebubies would never hurt woman and children with Uncle Sams rockets.....
This thread is quite informing, there are many on here who used the you broke it its all your fault argument who now find nuance when it is Russia who broke it in Ukraine.
You do realise that was a proxy war waged with billions of USA dollars don't you? You think all the deaths were down to Russia? I mean nice Osama and them talabany telebubies would never hurt woman and children with Uncle Sams rockets.....
In response to the Soviets invading Afghanistan and setting up a puppet government, like they did across Eastern Europe during and after World War II, like they are trying to do in Ukraine. The Mujahideen received support from the US, China, Pakistan, UK, and virtually every Islamic country. A small part of the mujahideen became AQ, while the vast majority just wanted to expel the Soviets. Given that the Soviets were the aggressors, invaders, and root cause of the war, the deaths are at their feet. They are the ones who destroyed whole villages to combat the mujahideen. The US may have provided weapons but no American trained the mujahideen or was in Afghanistan, and only 10 were in the region.
So should I go ahead and add all of the proxy wars the Soviets funded as well? Everyone ever killed with a Kalashnikov? Or the tens of millions of mines the Soviets put down in Afghanistan? How effective are Stinger SAM against civilians again?
Yes your comprehension skills are quite embarassing. Read what I wrote again and respond to that not your fantasies.
applause
If that's all you know perhaps leave the discussion to others with more knowledge of the facts.
Sending in tanks, troops and artillery is how I ususally express my concerns too.
Don't hurt him with inconvenient facts when they already have their anti-american/west talking points.
Yes but there was a referendum and the majority of people of Crimea voted for joining Russia. I remember how the U.S. invaded Iraq a few years back and I haven't seen anything similar happening in Crimea, have you?
The referendum was obviously little more than part of the military operation to legitimize what was a Sudetenland style land grab of territory belonging to another country. Putin himself has admitted Russian troops were in Crimea after the annexation was completed, which is probably the only true statement that has come out of his mouth during this entire conflict. His admission about Crimea is also more or less tantamount to a tacit admission that he has deployed Russian troops and weapons in Donbass.
I too am against proxy wars, whoever is waging them, and escalating wars, and unnecessary and disastrous economic wars.
I am for fair and managed referendums to find out what people actually want, before doing any of those things.
I expect arguments about how to manage the fairness of referendums, but when people argue against the principle I can only assume they are afraid of the 'wrong' results.
I never, nor does it sound like any of the others in the thread, argued against the principle of referendums or plebiscites. You just can't expect the Russians to implement a fair one in a country they've invaded and want to annex. It was about as legitimate as the plebiscite in Austria about the Anschluss.
Because all invasions look the same......
Putin said that his troops supported the local defense forces. For all Russians of Crimea and for those local defense forces this must have been a relief and a much appreciated support. Otherwise who know what could have happened. Falling into the hands of the Kyev mob and getting slaughtered isn't such a pretty alternative.
Good so you finally admit they were there invading Ukrainian territory. Now the next project will be for you to do the same in Donbass.
Putin's offer of support is hardly an invasion. Invading is what the U.S. Army did by marching into a foreign country with tanks and thousands of troops, bombing Baghdad into oblivion, murdering and raping civilians (all well documented), and creating Abu-Ghraib style torture facilities.
Nice deflection. Putin sending Russian troops into Crimea, a part of Ukraine, is indeed an invasion of a neighboring country. He has since admitted it so there's little to argue about here.
It was literally an invasion.
So, literally what the Russians have done in Donbass. Artillery barrages from within Russia, shooting down MH17, supplying the rebels with tanks, missiles, etc. But because Putin won't put badges on them it's not an invasion.
Obviously. It would have to be the implemented and monitored by the UN. My post did nicely predict your reply though, don't you think?
Last edited:
The invasion took place before the election, so it can't be justified by it, unless you accept that the US invasion of Iraq is justified by the subsequent elections there.
If you think about it the whole basis of this conflict is about Russia deciding that it wanted to change it's mind about where the Russian border was. Unlike the US which hasn't annexed any part of Iraq, Russia has annexed part of Ukraine. It means to keep it forever and never give it back. That is an invasion by any definition.
If you think about it the whole basis of this conflict is about Russia deciding that it wanted to change it's mind about where the Russian border was. Unlike the US which hasn't annexed any part of Iraq, Russia has annexed part of Ukraine. It means to keep it forever and never give it back. That is an invasion by any definition.
True. I suppose the critical flaw Putin's apologists are making is that this conflict has something to do with western interference in Ukraine. If one takes such a position, every subsequent conclusion leads to a rampant misdiagnosis of what is truly happening, which is Putin attempting to consolidate his domestic popularity by foreign conquest, as a device to cover up his regime's increasingly authoritarian flaws, including rampant systemic corruption, crackdowns on human rights, media freedoms, the rights of minorities, and other things most of us in the free world would reject. Once one takes Putin's corrupt practices into account, his actions immediately become easy to explain.
This conflict has most certainly something to do with the U.S. attempts to destabilise the country and install a U.S. friendly regime. The U.S. has been active in Ukraine since who knows when, at least 10-15 years. And ever since Yanukowich decided against the EU association agreement in 2013 the U.S. has been aggressively interfering into the internal affairs of Ukraine. Apart from all the money the U.S. has been pouring into the various NGO's and opposition groups, Nuland in her call with ambassador Pyatt had openly discussed who the next leader of Ukraine should be. She literally said it should not be Klitschko (for several reasons). The U.S. supported the ousting of an elected president and handpicked the replacement. So this is the level of arrogance we're dealing with, the sort of disregard for anyone else but themselves which was probably best exemplified by Nuland's profound 'feck the EU' rant. That's the attitude that even got Merkel disgusted. But then again, why should she be surprised when her best friends the Americans are tapping her mobile phone. Embarrassing.
The best thing is I have to take it from an American who wants to lecture the world on corruption, the rights of minorities, and human rights issues.
You've got it ass backwards once again. The US being active in Ukraine means no more than the US being active in any other country - promoting things like freedom of speech, womens rights, media freedoms, student exchange programs etc. It is Russia who treat Ukraine as it is their property and Putin's obsession with controlling former Soviet states to prevent them from making their own decisions that is the true crux of the problem. Putin saw Yanukovich as his man in Kiev who could preserve Putin's preferred system of corrupt governance - it was his ticket towards preserving Russian influence in Ukraine. If Ukrainian citizens had it their way, as they do now, its quite clear they want nothing to do with the corrupt Russian system.
Rolling in the tanks to annex part of an existing nation state which you have previously guaranteed the borders of is OK, supporting pro-democracy parties in a newly democratic nation is aggressive interference.
Stating a preference about who you want to see as president in a phone call to an ambassador is aggressive interference whereas attempting to poisoning a presidential candidate and almost killing him because he is a rival to and more popular than your hand picked lackey is OK.
I don't see how any disinterested party could look at the history of Ukraine and decide that the US has behaved intolerably while Russia is just an innocent bystander drawn into the mess to save Ukrainians of whatever decent. That is nonsense, there are always two sides but sometimes one of them is clearly wrong and it doesn't get much clearer than it is right now in this conflict.
American or not Raoul is correct on this.
Stating a preference about who you want to see as president in a phone call to an ambassador is aggressive interference whereas attempting to poisoning a presidential candidate and almost killing him because he is a rival to and more popular than your hand picked lackey is OK.
I don't see how any disinterested party could look at the history of Ukraine and decide that the US has behaved intolerably while Russia is just an innocent bystander drawn into the mess to save Ukrainians of whatever decent. That is nonsense, there are always two sides but sometimes one of them is clearly wrong and it doesn't get much clearer than it is right now in this conflict.
American or not Raoul is correct on this.
No I was talking about that part where the U.S. pours loads of cash into a country with a plan to influence it and turn it against Russia and how an U.S. government representative was shiting on the EU and deciding who is going to be the next president of a foreign country.