He was not elected for comedy, but because of the personality and promises. It's all about did they keep their promises. He failed to do so. Whose fault is that? — FreeEmotion

It would be nice if literally anything I said contradicted this. Thanks for the useless post though I guess.

Saw an interview where Putin said the Soviet collapse was his defining moment. The interview took place at a school I think, and a young pupil asked him about the most important thing that happened.

... → KGB → Soviet collapse → Yeltsin → cozying up with oligarchs → ousting some oligarchs → ...

Allan Little muses:

Ukraine war: Putin has redrawn the world - but not the way he wanted (Mar 18, 2022)

Ukraine's defenders are fighting for Helsinki. Putin has sent his troops in to impose a modern version of Yalta - which would kill off Ukraine's independence and leave it under Russian domination. — paraphrasing Timothy Garton Ash

Plus, Russia does have a parliament, Putin’s approval ratings went up after the annexation of Crimea and he’s still got the backing of the majority of voters. There is some opposition, but there are many who are 100% behind him on Ukraine. — Apollodorus

I see nothing 'morally wrong' in carrying out the wishes of the people. It is citizens that support war as a means of foreign policy that are morally wrong. Aggressive war, that is. Then there are pre-emptive strikes, the kind that Israel has done.

I will say that the quips about Zelensky being an ex-comedian somehow a bad thing is dumb and classist. I want more comedians, baristas, garbage people, dance teachers and brick layers in positions of power, as a general rule. If anything Zelensky's sense for the dramatic has been an absolute boon to Ukraine in this war, even if people are really so thick as to take it at sheer face value. But that's not Zelensky's fault. — StreetlightX

Ukraine is winning at least in the West the information war. It was totally different in the confusion of 2014. And it has to be said that a lot of things were different then. And you can see how much better Zelensky is in his role compared to the mayor of Kiev or the former president Poroshenko, who also is frequently interviewed by Western media.

Comedians have to smart, they have to understand their crowd and quickly respond. So likely Charles Chaplin would have made a better wartime Prime Minister of UK than WInston Churchill. Totally possible, if pure hypothetical. Chaplin likely would have let the generals fight the war and likely would have given far more inspiring speeches against Hitler. At least he was against Hitler just like Churchill. No Lindberg. And likely would have been less of an old-school imperialist.

And Zelensky is also living proof that Ukrainians were totally and absolutely disgusted with their political class and it's corruption.

And when you never, ever utter anything negative or critical about someone, it tells who you are. — ssu

Yep. That accurately describes your position on NATO.

As for me, I don't think there is any need to criticize Putin seeing that you have made it your life's mission (or obsession) to do that 24/7, possibly under multiple user names .... :smile:

And Zelensky is also living proof that Ukrainians were totally and absolutely disgusted with their political class and it's corruption. — ssu

Which is funny because before Zelensky got elevated to Western liberal Saint, he wasn't seen - even by the West - as a squeaky clean guy either. To say nothing of his being sponsored by billionares like Kolomoisky - who, as it happens, also funds neo-Nazi battalions.

Point being that there are perfectly good reasons to be critical about Zelensky. His being an ex-comedian is not one of them.

And Zelensky is also living proof that Ukrainians were totally and absolutely disgusted with their political class and it's corruption. — ssu

Yeah, right. Zelensky's approval ratings were down to 30% before the war!

How President Zelensky’s approval ratings have surged - The New Statesman

It is citizens that support war as a means of foreign policy that are morally wrong. Aggressive war, that is. — FreeEmotion

Well, that's right. Britain declared war on Germany in 1914 on the false pretext that the Germans were "Huns" and violated "Belgian neutrality". And, of course, the whole British populace was for it especially as they were paid by America and they knew that if things got wrong, Uncle Sam (i.e., Wall Street) would come to their rescue ....

Yep. That accurately describes your position on NATO. — Apollodorus

Selective troll memory, part II.

NATO went into finding "a new mission" for itself with "peace-enforcement" and if the intervention to Bosnia was somehow tolerated by Russia, what was the end point was the Kosovo war. That broke the camel's back and you had the first direct confrontation between Russia. I think that was the time it all went south, so don't assume Russia would even want to be an ally of the US. NATO enlargement was one thing, but an active NATO not only confined to defending itself and having it's members not to fight each other, but active somewhere else was the issue (do note for example that the Gulf War wasn't a NATO mission). — ssu

And the last failure was George Bush promising something that simply couldn't be kept: that Ukraine and Georgia would become NATO members in some time. Like later. As Ukraine had, uh, a lot of problems.[/qutote]
— ssu

And as I discussed with @Isaac, yes, NATO made errors. Starting from thinking that Russia wouldn't return and that the times had changed since the Cold War and that if they in NATO saw themselves as being different from the Cold War version of the organization, leaders in the Kremlin wouldn't view them like that, but as the old NATO. Yet that's just one side of the issue. — ssu

So you go with your lies...

Yep. "Criticizing NATO" but calling others "Putin trolls" when they make some real criticism of NATO. I would call that propaganda and dissimulation .... :smile:

BTW I still haven't seen you criticizing Turkey (a NATO member!) for invading Cyprus and Kurdish territories in Syria.

And you forget the criminal and genocidal activities of the Ottoman Empire of which you're so proud and which you're trying to justify.

Armenian genocide - Wikipedia

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire – Wikipedia

Which is funny because before Zelensky got elevated to Western liberal Saint, he wasn't seen - even by the West - as a squeaky clean guy either. — StreetlightX

I think that if Zelensky worked in Ukrainian media making films, there likely was an oligarch owning the media. Hence that part is the usual mudslinging as Ukrainians hate oligarchs: Just look at how our forum troll never forgets to repeat the name of the oligarch when mentioning Zelensky.

I think the real critique of Zelensky is how he went after the former president Poroshenko and also the closures of opposition parties. It's one of the oldest trick in the book: to go after your political opponents on corruption charges, hence it really has to be done really carefully. Closing opposition parties is even more problematic. Some can indeed be militant (as we now from the case of the Svoboda etc). Now some of those can get funding from Russia, but in a democracy you have to be really careful of authoritarianism. The fear of the "fifth column" is something that easily can lead to overreactions. Just to take for example, Mariupol has a very large ethnic Russian population, and they likely aren't so happy of their Russian "liberators" now.

but in a democracy you have to be really careful of authoritarianism. — ssu

During a war it's better to ditch democracy because it's sloppy and inefficient. Come back to it after the war is over.

The pundits are saying this is going to be a very long war, tho.

All the more reason to be critical of power, always, no matter what rock star status one might have.

-

Always fun to watch liberals get hard-ons for authoritarianism when the going gets rough.

BTW I still haven't seen you criticizing Turkey (a NATO member!) for invading Cyprus and Kurdish territories in Syria. — Apollodorus

One shouldn't feed a troll, but anyway.

Selective troll memory part III:

I'll ask you again.

Do you condemn the annexations that Russia has done concerning Georgia and Ukraine?

Do you view them equivalent to what Turkey did? Both countries (Turkey and Russia) "came to the help" of their ethnic minorities, just with Russia going past the puppet state phase and made direct annexations.

You have accused me of double standards, which is false. I don't accept Chinese annexation of Tibet or Turkish actions, but seems that for you the above is extremely hard to do when it's Russia doing similar actions. But of course I could be wrong, but I wish you would reply to this and not brush it aside again. — ssu

And that we already got your answer: you don't condemn the annexation of Crimea. In fact you think it's totally justified. And not only that:

IMO the best solution would be for Ukraine to be divided fairly between the two sister nations.

Russia should take everything east of the Dnieper, and maybe half of Kiev, and Zelensky (or Kolomoisky) can keep the rest. — Apollodorus

So enough. I won't bother with a Putin troll like you.

Always fun to watch liberals get hard-ons for authoritarianism when the going gets rough. — StreetlightX

I think all contemporary democracies allow temporary dictatorship during war. Don't you know why?

Because liberals get hard-ons for authoritarianism when the going gets rough.

During a war it's better to ditch democracy because it's sloppy and inefficient. Come back to it after the war is over.

The pundits are saying this is going to be a very long war, tho. — frank

It unfortunately looks to be a long, bloody war.

All the more reason to be critical of power, always, no matter what rock star status one might have. — StreetlightX

Yes. Democracies can stay as democracies even during the war... but it will be tough. Martial laws are never nice or very democratic. I think that here common sense can prevail: common sense just what is covert action of the enemy and what is simply opposition. But leadership is needed as war brings up very nasty emotions.

, I guess that put Voznesenks on the map, a town of some 34,050 mostly Russian-speakers.

Battle of Voznesensk (Wikipedia)


FYI, as of typing, Voznesenks' homepage takes me to a site in Japanese (sv1055·xserver·jp) entitled:
鍵がないと気付いたらとるべき行動とは？ (What action should I take if I realize I don't have the key?)

“I lost my key ... what should I do ...” It is common to lose a key in everyday life.
I was frustrated and panicked.
First of all, it is important to take a deep breath.
[...]

:)
Might be a rip off some other random sites.
Apparently, voznesensk·org is run by GMO Internet in Tokyo.

Democracy is vastly overrated. Look what it got us: two world wars and the possibility of nuclear annihilation. Just because I criticize it does not mean I have to suggest a replacement .

Also remember that the United States started out as a one - party system. Like China today.

The United States Constitution is silent on the subject of political parties. The Founding Fathers did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan. In Federalist Papers No. 9 and No. 10, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively, wrote specifically about the dangers of domestic political factions. In addition, the first President of the United States, George Washington, was not a member of any political party at the time of his election or throughout his tenure as president.[12] Furthermore, he hoped that political parties would not be formed, fearing conflict and stagnation, as outlined in his Farewell Address.

The Wikipedia on democracy highlights several common themes: What is surprising to me is that much of what we see in the news is an illustration of some of these failings of the system.

The notion of democracy has evolved over time considerably. The original form of democracy was a direct democracy. The most common form of democracy today is a representative democracy, where the people elect government officials to govern on their behalf such as in a parliamentary or presidential democracy.[2] — Wikipedia

It gets better:

Prevalent day-to-day decision making of democracies is the majority rule,[3][4] — Wikipedia

Arrow's impossibility theorem suggests that democracy is logically incoherent.

Some economists have criticized the efficiency of democracy, citing the premise of the irrational voter, or a voter who makes decisions without all of the facts or necessary information in order to make a truly informed decision

On the other hand, Socrates believed that democracy without educated masses (educated in the broader sense of being knowledgeable and responsible) would only lead to populism being the criteria to become an elected leader and not competence.

The 20th-century Italian thinkers Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca (independently) argued that democracy was illusory, and served only to mask the reality of elite rule. Indeed, they argued that elite oligarchy is the unbendable law of human nature, due largely to the apathy and division of the masses (as opposed to the drive, initiative and unity of the elites), and that democratic institutions would do no more than shift the exercise of power from oppression to manipulation

Plato argues that only Kallipolis, an aristocracy led by the unwilling philosopher-kings (the wisest men), is a just form of government.

More recently, democracy is criticised for not offering enough political stability. As governments are frequently elected on and off there tends to be frequent changes in the policies of democratic countries both domestically and internationally. Even if a political party maintains power, vociferous, headline-grabbing protests and harsh criticism from the popular media are often enough to force sudden, unexpected political change.

Biased media has been accused of causing political instability, resulting in the obstruction of democracy, rather than its promotion

Who would have thought.

Some democratic governments have experienced sudden state collapse and regime change to an undemocratic form of government. Domestic military coups or rebellions are the most common means by which democratic governments have been overthrown

Less democratic governments rely heavily on censorship, propaganda, and misinformation in order to stay in power, while independent sources of information are able to undermine their legitimacy

Here is something that seems relevant:

Via Sputnik > https://www.wsws.org/en > Article: The US arming of Ukraine and the preparations for war
Andre Damon•16 March 2022 > US Department of State:

U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership

Emphasize unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders, including Crimea and extending to its territorial waters in the face of ongoing Russian aggression, which threatens regional peace and stability and undermines the global rules-based order.

As for the status of Crimea before the United Nations:

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 was adopted on 27 March 2014 by the sixty-eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly in response to the Russian annexation of Crimea and entitled "territorial integrity of Ukraine". The nonbinding resolution, which was supported by 100 United Nations member states, affirmed the General Assembly's commitment to the territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders and underscored the invalidity of the 2014 Crimean referendum. — Wikipedia

Again from the agreement. They agreed to do what? (My emphasis)

The United States intends to support Ukraine’s efforts to counter armed aggression, economic and energy disruptions, and malicious cyber activity by Russia, including by maintaining sanctions against or related to Russia and applying other relevant measures until restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders. — U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership

The agreement supersedes an earlier agreement in which the word "Russia" or "Russian" appears only once, to name the parties to the agreement, if I am no mistaken.

This is what we've come down to. Presidents in war-torn countries winking to their people in support.
— baker

Hmm... I thought he'd been visiting hospitals ... — jorndoe

But but but he should not have winked, you see? That was one wink too many! Now the whole universe is about to collapse, perhaps. Thank God Putin is a real man, not a winker...

“According to [NYT reporter David] Sanger, who cannot have written his piece without high-level sources, the Biden administration “seeks to help Ukraine lock Russia in a quagmire without inciting a broader conflict with a nuclear-armed adversary or cutting off potential paths to de-escalation … CIA officers are helping to ensure that crates of weapons are delivered into the hands of vetted Ukrainian military units, according to American officials. But as of now, Mr. Biden and his staff do not see the utility of an expansive covert effort to use the spy agency to ferry in arms as the United States did in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union during the 1980s.”

...I have evidence from other sources to corroborate this. “The only end game now,” a senior administration official was heard to say at a private event earlier this month, “is the end of Putin regime. Until then, all the time Putin stays, [Russia] will be a pariah state that will never be welcomed back into the community of nations. China has made a huge error in thinking Putin will get away with it. Seeing Russia get cut off will not look like a good vector and they’ll have to re-evaluate the Sino-Russia axis. All this is to say that democracy and the West may well look back on this as a pivotal strengthening moment.”

I gather that senior British figures are talking in similar terms. There is a belief that “the U.K.’s No. 1 option is for the conflict to be extended and thereby bleed Putin.” Again and again, I hear such language. It helps explain, among other things, the lack of any diplomatic effort by the U.S. to secure a cease-fire. It also explains the readiness of President Joe Biden to call Putin a war criminal.

I.e. "How can we ensure Russia continues to turn Ukrainian citizens into ash for the sake of cementing American unipolarity?"

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-03-22/niall-ferguson-putin-and-biden-misunderstand-history-in-ukraine-war?sref=xzGl1Vcx

Anyone who thinks the West gives even an iota of a damn about Ukrainians was born under a rock and has remained there ever since.

Do not be worried !!

The arms are sent to "vetted" Ukrainian military units.

You may have missed that part.

:cry:

I hope Ukraine and Russia can work out a peace deal soon and avoid this insane bloodshed.

I hope Ukraine and Russia can work out a peace deal soon and avoid this insane bloodshed. — Benkei

Seconded. Unfortunately the popular media narrative is increasingly frustrating those efforts by painting Zelensky into a corner. The more Disneyfied the conflict is allowed to become, the harder it will be for either side to sell a realistic peace deal to their respective populace.

From the US and UK government, I'd expect no less. What's surprised me on this occasion was the ease with which social media has been wielded to further that agenda. It's scary just how readily such a powerful weapon can be put to such unilateral use.

I won't bother with a Putin troll like you. — ssu

I've already explained to you that the fact that you are a NATO jihadi doesn't make others "Putin trolls".

It ought to be obvious that I was simply stating a fact, namely that Crimea has never been "Ukrainian". It isn't my fault that you are ignorant of European history.

As for dividing Ukraine between Ukrainians and Russians, I thought it was one logical way to solve the problem. Dividing territories has been done for centuries, there is nothing new about it: Germany, Cyprus, Korea, China, etc.

But, obviously, you prefer to see half of Ukraine turned into rubble ....:grin:

“According to [NYT reporter David] Sanger, who cannot have written his piece without high-level sources, the Biden administration “seeks to help Ukraine lock Russia in a quagmire without inciting a broader conflict with a nuclear-armed adversary or cutting off potential paths to de-escalation … CIA officers are helping to ensure that crates of weapons are delivered into the hands of vetted Ukrainian military units, according to American officials. But as of now, Mr. Biden and his staff do not see the utility of an expansive covert effort to use the spy agency to ferry in arms as the United States did in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union during the 1980s.” — StreetlightX

That's exactly what I've been saying. In fact, the US and UK have been arming and training the Ukrainians since 2014, obviously, anticipating Russia's reaction to EU and NATO expansionism:

Exclusive: Secret CIA training program in Ukraine helped Kyiv prepare for Russian invasion

At least some of the fierce resistance by Ukrainian forces has its roots in a now shuttered covert CIA training program run from Ukraine’s eastern frontlines.
As part of the Ukraine-based training program, CIA paramilitaries taught their Ukrainian counterparts sniper techniques; how to operate U.S.-supplied Javelin anti-tank missiles and other equipment; how to evade digital tracking the Russians used to pinpoint the location of Ukrainian troops, which had left them vulnerable to attacks by artillery; how to use covert communications tools; and how to remain undetected in the war zone while also drawing out Russian and insurgent forces from their positions, among other skills, according to former officials.
After Russia’s 2014 incursion, the U.S. military also helped run a long-standing, publicly acknowledged training program for Ukrainian troops in the country’s western region, far from the frontlines. That program also included instruction in how to use Javelin anti-tank missiles and sniper training.

Unfortunately, if you post anything aside from anti-Russian propaganda you get called "Putin troll" by the NATO jihadis on here ....

From the US and UK government, I'd expect no less. What's surprised me on this occasion was the ease with which social media has been wielded to further that agenda. It's scary just how readily such a powerful weapon can be put to such unilateral use. — Isaac

That's very strange, because the mandatory PC consensus on this thread seems to be that Putin has total control over the world's news and social media. And that he's going to invade London, New York, and Finland tonight. Though not necessarily in that order .... :smile:

To be clear, Putin should probably be set on fire before being slowly dismembered by horses, but this is no less what any leader in the West deserves either.

This one is doing the rounds, and anyone who does not think that the West has enabled, at every step of the way, the wholesale slaughter of Ukrainians - right up until the point at which it has become political imprudent to do so - is a propagandized shill:

I hope Ukraine and Russia can work out a peace deal soon and avoid this insane bloodshed. — Benkei

I fear this boat has sailed.

I think the offer Russia made a couple of weeks at the very start of high-intensity warfare, could have been taken.

Zelensky could have then sold it to his people as due to courageous Ukrainians, Russia couldn't just take the whole country, but peace is now needed and so on. Even easier if there was behind the scenes negotiations for Ukraine to join the EU, which Russia said it had no problem with at that time.

And Putin could have sold it to his people as just what he wanted the whole time of ending the war in the Dombas, and Putin could then withdraw his troops as he said he would and I think the whole world would have been super relieved about that.

I am totally willing to believe the Kremlin had larger ambitions, but I think the losses did make them reconsider and so offer the minimum they could accept (... essentially just the de facto status quo before the war).

As hard as it is to believe, the ant-Russian rhetoric was actually pretty tame even a couple of weeks a go and normalizing political relations was potentially possible, everyone having learned war is a bad thing and we should all try a lot harder to use our mouths to avoid it.

However, at from watching his speeches and addresses, Zelensky seems to have now rationalized why the deal would have been good to take then ... but building new rationalizations of why it can't be taken now, and banning opposition political parties and consolidating the media into one organization to double down on the war (of which ... certainly there are some Ukrainians questioning whether it's worth continuing to fight for Crimea and Dombas that can't be taken back militarily and also filled with ethnic Russians that ethnic Ukrainians don't like too much anyways ... and continuing to fight for the "constitutional" right to join NATO, even though Zelensky himself has clarified NATO told him Ukraine would never join).

So, accepting Russia's demands now would make the fighting since the offer was first made basically pointless and Zelensky would be immediately just a dangerous fool that got his citizens killed for literally no reason.

Hence, Zelensky has now chosen to "pull a Brexit" and pass the responsibility on to a referendum that is basically politically impossible to organize. There is literally zero political reason to go on television and place a referendum as a condition to any peace deal, and the whole point of martial law is that it suspends the constitution ... which Zelensky doesn't hesitate to take advantage of in banning opposition parties and opposition media.

There was a few days building up the idea of a settlement in the Western media, but the new narrative is that Ukraine is "winning" ... which, as I've explained previously, you actually have to defeat your enemy to win.

Western media points to a few areas of push back by the Ukrainians, but there is zero evidence that Russia didn't simply tactically retreat to consolidate it's current position (lot's of evidence it's doing this though).

Given all this, it seems now a diplomatic end to the war is currently off the table, and my guess is that Russia will collapse and encircle the Dombas line (accomplish militarily it's stated objectives) and then just sit on the territory it's taken.

We hear good news in the West and around Kiev ... but I don't think internet people keep in mind the Eastern front is over 1000 KM away from Poland. From Lviv to Donesk, it's 1200 KM and 17 hour drive, whereas Donesk to Russia is a 1.5 hour drive.

Not only an incredible distance ... where you may need more gas along the way, but Russia can strike anywhere along the supply chain with missiles at anytime.

Which is something all the "retired" generals and CIA folk fail to mention, is that it's a massive advantage to Russia to keep Ukrainian troops as far East as possible ,if the goal is not, and never has been, to occupy all of Ukraine, but simply wreck it's military, obliterate Azov, and lay siege to Kiev until their demands are accepted.

What seems likely now is that Russia will take the whole Dombas region and then Putin will just declare victory in that his demands were modest, he's achieved them in the field and he doesn't want more of Ukraine and forces around Kiev and elsewhere will be withdrawn as soon as the military reality is accepted diplomatically.

Russia can then just sit behind it's lines and continue to pummel Ukrainian logistics with missiles. With drone spotters, normal spotters and heavy artillery, these lines will be simply impossible to assault.

Zelensky will then be in a "what now?" position: impossible to "defeat" the Russians, and impossible to fight to any better a negotiation position and impossible to get any concessions from Russia who are already sitting on their demands and Zelensky himself has already Ukraine is never joining NATO.

Of course, still better to negotiate the only political end available, before Eastern lines collapse, and sell that as best as can be done (and accept an end to your political career), but Zelensky's ego simply can't that.