Yeah, there's no way that 97% represents a truly fair vote. I can buy that maybe a majority of Crimeans would have wanted to reunite with Russia. 97%? No.Unit2Sucks said:
I wish I had more time to debunk all of Cal88's ridiculous claims. I love that he considers the obviously invalid 2014 Crimea referendum as if it were meaningful. I believe he said "overwhelmingly" approved but didn't mention that Putin didn't take his thumb off the scale until he got to 97% and that the "alternative" in the referendum was a joke. No honest person believes that was a legitimate measure of the will of the people in Crimea and the fact that Cal88 holds it out as such tells you everything you need to know about his bias.
The Official Russian Invasion of Ukraine Thread
611,563 Views |
8723 Replies |
Last: 2 hrs ago by 169 Days Til No Joe
Cal88 would point out that the turnout was a record 83% which is conclusive evidence that Crimeans really do love Putin.sycasey said:Yeah, there's no way that 97% represents a truly fair vote. I can buy that maybe a majority of Crimeans would have wanted to reunite with Russia. 97%? No.Unit2Sucks said:
I wish I had more time to debunk all of Cal88's ridiculous claims. I love that he considers the obviously invalid 2014 Crimea referendum as if it were meaningful. I believe he said "overwhelmingly" approved but didn't mention that Putin didn't take his thumb off the scale until he got to 97% and that the "alternative" in the referendum was a joke. No honest person believes that was a legitimate measure of the will of the people in Crimea and the fact that Cal88 holds it out as such tells you everything you need to know about his bias.
Back in 2014, the great majority of Crimeans did vote to join Russia, Just because there were no truckloads of mail-in ballots barging in at 4am, or because they didn't use Dominion/Diebold machines doesn't automatically mean that this election was rigged, you know...
The peninsula is majority Russian, and has always been, it was always part of Russia until Khrushchev ceded it to Ukraine, back when it was just another state in the USSR and provincial lines had not much importance. The guy from the Brookings institute will tell you that Crimeans were forced at gunpoint to vote for Vlad lest they be sent to Siberia, and of course you will gobble it up completely because you have no idea what Crimea is really like. Even the Brookings guy admits in his piece above that the Peninsula is majority Russian.
Crimea's economy has done quite well due to large infrastructure spending, mass tourism from Russia and a lot or retirees settling there. Its large farming industry did suffer tremendously from Ukraine cutting off Dniepr water to the peninsula, doing this purely out of spite, as that water was mostly going into the Black Sea. That move further soured Crimeans' feelings towards Kiev, they already didn't like that central government imposing on them the use of a foreign language, Ukrainian, and restrictions being placed on the use of Russian.
As well, the water being cut off to Crimea was also one of the major reasons Russia went into the Kherson region and took over the Azov coast and land bridge to the Donbass. Usually in those situations where countries downstream lose access to water, as is the case in Egypt for example with Ethiopia damming the Blue Nile, it's because the upstrem country needs the water, but in Ukraine's case, they did it out of pure spite. This did not endear them to the locals.
The peninsula is majority Russian, and has always been, it was always part of Russia until Khrushchev ceded it to Ukraine, back when it was just another state in the USSR and provincial lines had not much importance. The guy from the Brookings institute will tell you that Crimeans were forced at gunpoint to vote for Vlad lest they be sent to Siberia, and of course you will gobble it up completely because you have no idea what Crimea is really like. Even the Brookings guy admits in his piece above that the Peninsula is majority Russian.
Crimea's economy has done quite well due to large infrastructure spending, mass tourism from Russia and a lot or retirees settling there. Its large farming industry did suffer tremendously from Ukraine cutting off Dniepr water to the peninsula, doing this purely out of spite, as that water was mostly going into the Black Sea. That move further soured Crimeans' feelings towards Kiev, they already didn't like that central government imposing on them the use of a foreign language, Ukrainian, and restrictions being placed on the use of Russian.
As well, the water being cut off to Crimea was also one of the major reasons Russia went into the Kherson region and took over the Azov coast and land bridge to the Donbass. Usually in those situations where countries downstream lose access to water, as is the case in Egypt for example with Ethiopia damming the Blue Nile, it's because the upstrem country needs the water, but in Ukraine's case, they did it out of pure spite. This did not endear them to the locals.
The referendum was a farce. You might as well quote hostage videos for sentiment. Russia held an illegal referendum and provided two choices: join Russia or roll back to the 1992 constitution, a de facto separation from Ukraine. Russia gave people 10 days notice and used soldiers to set up and oversee the "referendum."Cal88 said:
Back in 2014, the great majority of Crimeans did vote to join Russia,
No serious person thinks that this joke referendum is indicative of anything. You might as well cite a CPAC straw man poll or a hotornot rating.
I get what you are trying to do here - basically flood the zone with absolute BS in order to push your bizarre agenda. You use just enough factual or truthy information to fool some people into thinking you know what you are talking about and are a credible source of information but if anyone digs one layer deep they find links to bulgarianmilitary.com, fake magazine covers, references to obviously untrustworthy polls, junk science, and on and on.
The jig is up, we all see you for who you are. The only question left is why you have such a weird pro-Putin agenda. I am going to be charitable and assume that you benefit financially from these views but the more likely case is that you have actually fallen for this propaganda and you are a true believer. Sad.
This is something I've had to become a lot more wary of in recent years: outlets that purport to be left-leaning and "anti-war" or "anti-imperialist," but when you dig even a little bit into their views you'll find that they are not so much anti-imperialist as anti-America. Meaning, they think America and/or its allies in the West are the only source of imperialism in the world and all else can be dismissed. This leads them to untenable positions in which they deny or excuse wars and genocides just because they're being done by one of America's geopolitical rivals (usually Russia or China, but you can also take a look at some of the Syria/Assad denialism out there if you want a smaller example). Some of these folks are actually getting paid by those regimes in some way, but others are just disaffected lefties losing track of their principles.Unit2Sucks said:
The jig is up, we all see you for who you are. The only question left is why you have such a weird pro-Putin agenda. I am going to be charitable and assume that you benefit financially from these views but the more likely case is that you have actually fallen for this propaganda and you are a true believer. Sad.
Cal88, assuming he's not literally just working as a Russian propagandist, seems to have fallen well down this rabbit hole.
Yeah, this seems like something Cal88 would write.sycasey said:This is something I've had to become a lot more wary of in recent years: outlets that purport to be left-leaning and "anti-war" or "anti-imperialist," but when you dig even a little bit into their views you'll find that they are not so much anti-imperialist as anti-America. Meaning, they think America and/or its allies in the West are the only source of imperialism in the world and all else can be dismissed. This leads them to untenable positions in which they deny or excuse wars and genocides just because they're being done by one of America's geopolitical rivals (usually Russia or China, but you can also take a look at some of the Syria/Assad denialism out there if you want a smaller example). Some of these folks are actually getting paid by those regimes in some way, but others are just disaffected lefties losing track of their principles.Unit2Sucks said:
The jig is up, we all see you for who you are. The only question left is why you have such a weird pro-Putin agenda. I am going to be charitable and assume that you benefit financially from these views but the more likely case is that you have actually fallen for this propaganda and you are a true believer. Sad.
Cal88, assuming he's not literally just working as a Russian propagandist, seems to have fallen well down this rabbit hole.
Opinion | The only way to stop Republicans from overthrowing our government is to let them do it.
— New York Times Pitchbot (@DougJBalloon) August 17, 2022
Unit2Sucks said:The referendum was a farce. You might as well quote hostage videos for sentiment. Russia held an illegal referendum and provided two choices: join Russia or roll back to the 1992 constitution, a de facto separation from Ukraine. Russia gave people 10 days notice and used soldiers to set up and oversee the "referendum."Cal88 said:
Back in 2014, the great majority of Crimeans did vote to join Russia,
No serious person thinks that this joke referendum is indicative of anything. You might as well cite a CPAC straw man poll or a hotornot rating.
On these and other boards, in this era of partisanship, people have a tendency to believe or reject narratives according to their political, cultural or tribal affiliations, in what has become a highly polarized political climate.
The problem wrt Russia/Ukraine is that not only is this a highly polarized issue, but also it is an issue that the average American knows very little about. The fact that you would argue about the Crimean referendum, and not realize that Crimeans are overwhelmingly pro-Russian, themselves being mostly Russian, is a reflection of that ignorance.
Several polls were conducted after the annexation by western agencies have confirmed this. All you had to do is take a quick look on Wikipedia, instead of googling a NATO think tank article that confirmed your biases:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum
"Post-referendum polls:
-The results of the survey by the US government Broadcasting Board of Governors, conducted April 2129, 2014, showed that 83% of Crimeans felt that the results of the March 16 referendum on Crimea's status likely reflected the views of most people there. Whereas, this view is shared only by 30% in the rest of Ukraine.
-According to the Gallup's survey performed on April 2127, 82.8% of Crimean people consider the referendum results reflecting most Crimeans' views,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum#cite_note-Gallup-152][146][/url] and 73.9% of Crimeans say Crimea's becoming part of Russia will make life better for themselves and their families, while 5.5% disagree.
-According to survey carried out by Pew Research Center in April 2014, the majority of Crimean residents say the referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).
-According to a poll of the Crimeans by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on January 1622, 2015: "82 percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it. ... Fifty-one percent reported their well-being had improved in the past year."
Bloomberg's Leonid Bershidsky noted that "The calls were made on Jan. 1622 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages. On the other hand, no calls were placed in Sevastopol, the most pro-Russian city in Crimea. Even with these limitations, it was the most representative independent poll taken on the peninsula since its annexation."
All 4 independent western polls yielded results that are remarkably consistent with the official referendum.
IIn light of this basic, highly conclusive evidence presented above, are you willing to acknowledge that you were quite wrong on the subject of Crimea?
FYI, the Donbass region is nearly as pro-Russian as Crimea is. That has been the crux (and powderkeg) of this war, a war that could have been entirely avoided if only the Zelensky govt gave these provinces some breathing room to live their lives in their own culture, applying the cultural sovereignty norms that prevail all over the western world, including in Quebec, Wales, the Basque Country or Belgium.
Zelensky, himself a Russophone who only speaks broken Ukrainian, has likely tried to make an effort in this matter early on in his tenure, but his government is gangrened by hardcore Ukrainian nationalists on one side, and above him, US and NATO neocons who wanted to inflame the region in order to destabilize Russia.
If you're that far from the truth on the subject of Crimean sovereignty, you're going to have a very hard time understanding the situation in Ukraine, and you're going to accept the great volume of one-sided propaganda that is being disseminated in a time of war without any reservations.
Unless you can link me to something trustworthy like your favorite site bulgariamilitsry.com, just GTFO.
You spend so much time purposely spreading disinformation, I'm not going to pretend like you are here in good faith.
You spend so much time purposely spreading disinformation, I'm not going to pretend like you are here in good faith.
Unit2Sucks said:
I wish I had more time to debunk all of Cal88's ridiculous claims. I love that he considers the obviously invalid 2014 Crimea referendum as if it were meaningful. I believe he said "overwhelmingly" approved but didn't mention that Putin didn't take his thumb off the scale until he got to 97% and that the "alternative" in the referendum was a joke. No honest person believes that was a legitimate measure of the will of the people in Crimea and the fact that Cal88 holds it out as such tells you everything you need to know about his bias.
Also lol that he holds Chechnya out as some sort of friendly business combination. Chechens throughout Europe still live in fear from Putin's hit squads.
As for Russian military, they are continuing to perform far worse than Baghdad Bob gives them credit for. I am not going to claim that Ukraine is going to win the war or obtain freedom from the war crime committing oppressor, but Russia has failed miserably thus far in their attempt to quickly and easily gain control of their neighbor. Just like the long disastrous war in Afghanistan, Russia's plans for Ukraine are doomed for failure.
I am willing to go the distance to help you understand the Chechnya conflict, after having informed you about the real popular sentiment in Crimea, because you're not going to get to the bottom of things with an article from Voice of America (though on 2nd thought, much of the MSM today is in lockstep with that alphabet agency news/propaganda outlet).
This is a good start:
How Jihad Made Its Way to Chechnya - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/04/26/how-jihad-made-its-way-to-chechnya/5b941796-ed50-4f65-9a2b-18a90155e571/
"In the Russian government's view, Chechnya's war is nothing more or less than a terrorist enterprise, paid for by a combination of al Qaeda money and fraudulent charitable donations, commanded by Arabs trained in Afghanistan and fomented by outsider clerics such as Abdurrakhman preaching armed revolution under the theological justification of an Islamic strain known as Wahhabism.
Some terrorism experts say the West erred by dismissing Russia's claims for so long.
"Chechnya and the Pankisi Gorge in Georgia partially replaced Afghanistan as a center for terrorist training," said Rohan Gunaratna, a terrorism expert and the author of "Inside Al Qaeda." "The initial wave of terrorists who are now coming to Europe trained in Chechnya or Algeria," he said.
Money From Bin Laden
Russian intelligence officials assert that Osama bin Laden donated at least $25 million and dispatched numerous fighters to Chechnya, including Ibn Khattab, a Saudi who led one of the best-trained contingents. The United States now agrees that Khattab had al Qaeda ties, and cited those links when it added three Chechen rebel units to its list of terrorist organizations earlier this year.
American officials said that several hundred Chechen fighters were trained at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and that bin Laden sent "substantial amounts of money" to equip Chechen rebels in 1999. Some reports suggest al Qaeda urgently requested that Islamic organizations in Kuwait provide $2 million to the Chechen fighters as recently as last May, the U.S. government said in a five-page explanation of its decision to add Chechen groups to the list."
Sometime in the 2010s, groups like AQ suddenly became America's allies in the war on Syria and were weaponized against other targets in proxy wars, like Russia, where Chechen jihadis were funded and trained to foment chaos in the Russian Caucasus:
U.S., Saudi Arabia: Holding the Chechen Card
Summary
The United States is stretched too thin to get involved in conflicts in Russia's periphery at the moment. However, in the covert world, the United States could cooperate with Saudi Arabia to stir up separatist sentiments in Russia's Muslim regions including Chechnya to keep Moscow occupied.
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/us-saudi-arabia-holding-chechen-card
archive here:
https://archive.ph/aTNVO
Geopolitics is a dirty game, Chechnya was used as a pawn to destabilize Russia... The result of this policy was a brutal, savage civil war where Chechnya was devastated and cities like Grozny turned into 1945 Dresden... Sounds familiar?
In order to understand why the Chechen jihadi remnants in the West are still tracked by the Russians, you might want to look at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_siege
Unit2Sucks said:
Unless you can link me to something trustworthy like your favorite site bulgariamilitsry.com, just GTFO.
You spend so much time purposely spreading disinformation, I'm not going to pretend like you are here in good faith.
You're going through cognitive dissonance, a stage of psychological confusion so deep that it makes you think that polling services like Gallup, the Pew Research, the US Agency for Global Media and the largest market research firm in Germany all are untrustworthy sources and repositories of Putin bots, who have rigged their Crimean polls to show that 80%-90% of Crimeans approve of joining Russia.
I am not going to pretend like there isn't a lot of pro-Russian sentiment in Crimea but your starting point was the sham referendum and like everything you post, you fail to acknowledge any criticism of Putin. If anyone here has cognitive dissonance, it's you. When pointed to massive war crimes committed by Putin, you dissemble with Ukrainian wrongdoing.Cal88 said:Unit2Sucks said:
Unless you can link me to something trustworthy like your favorite site bulgariamilitsry.com, just GTFO.
You spend so much time purposely spreading disinformation, I'm not going to pretend like you are here in good faith.
You're going through cognitive dissonance, a stage of psychological confusion so deep that it makes you think that polling services like Gallup, the Pew Research, the US Agency for Global Media and the largest market research firm in Germany all are untrustworthy sources and repositories of Putin bots, who have rigged their Crimean polls to show that 80%-90% of Crimeans approve of joining Russia.
As for why polls may show that Crimeans overhwhelmingly support the annexation, like most people in actual Russia, they live in fear of reprisals. Also, much of the opposition left because they feared for their lives. Just as we saw with the massive exodus fro Ukraine of technology workers and other educated well-off people who wanted nothing to do with Russia. I don't know what the real support numbers are in Crimea and neither do you. We certainly both know they are nowhere close to 97% and that the referendum was a sham, but you still can't bring yourself to acknowledge it here because you have an obvious agenda.
Here's an interview with NPR which says much the same:
Quote:
NARIMAN DZHELALOV: (Through interpreter) Today in Crimea there's an atmosphere of fear. Only that small group of people who are completely in love with Putin feel comfortable saying what they think. Anybody with a critical viewpoint will be rather afraid.
...
OLGA SKRIPNIK: (Through interpreter) My husband and I were forced to leave Crimea, and I can't return as I face criminal charges as an extremist or a terrorist because I openly refuse to recognize the Russian occupation.
There are many reasons why it's hard to trust polling in authoritarian regimes.
sycasey said:This is something I've had to become a lot more wary of in recent years: outlets that purport to be left-leaning and "anti-war" or "anti-imperialist," but when you dig even a little bit into their views you'll find that they are not so much anti-imperialist as anti-America. Meaning, they think America and/or its allies in the West are the only source of imperialism in the world and all else can be dismissed. This leads them to untenable positions in which they deny or excuse wars and genocides just because they're being done by one of America's geopolitical rivals (usually Russia or China, but you can also take a look at some of the Syria/Assad denialism out there if you want a smaller example). Some of these folks are actually getting paid by those regimes in some way, but others are just disaffected lefties losing track of their principles.Unit2Sucks said:
The jig is up, we all see you for who you are. The only question left is why you have such a weird pro-Putin agenda. I am going to be charitable and assume that you benefit financially from these views but the more likely case is that you have actually fallen for this propaganda and you are a true believer. Sad.
Cal88, assuming he's not literally just working as a Russian propagandist, seems to have fallen well down this rabbit hole.
Personally, I tend to be pro-USA / anti-Russia both by inclination and also by reasoned opinion. That said, I feel like too many people jump on the USA bandwagon without really considering the nuances or context. Two cases in point:
1) So, during the Cold War, the counterpart to NATO was the Warsaw Pact. Imagine if things had slid the other way and there was talk of Canada or Mexico joining the Warsaw Pact. We would have been "pooping" a brick.
2) What did we hear in February: "Outrageous: Russia is using trumped-up evidence to unilaterally militarily invade a sovereign nation, solely for the purpose of regime change! What the heck makes them think they have the right to do that?" Hmmm...
Big C said:sycasey said:This is something I've had to become a lot more wary of in recent years: outlets that purport to be left-leaning and "anti-war" or "anti-imperialist," but when you dig even a little bit into their views you'll find that they are not so much anti-imperialist as anti-America. Meaning, they think America and/or its allies in the West are the only source of imperialism in the world and all else can be dismissed. This leads them to untenable positions in which they deny or excuse wars and genocides just because they're being done by one of America's geopolitical rivals (usually Russia or China, but you can also take a look at some of the Syria/Assad denialism out there if you want a smaller example). Some of these folks are actually getting paid by those regimes in some way, but others are just disaffected lefties losing track of their principles.Unit2Sucks said:
The jig is up, we all see you for who you are. The only question left is why you have such a weird pro-Putin agenda. I am going to be charitable and assume that you benefit financially from these views but the more likely case is that you have actually fallen for this propaganda and you are a true believer. Sad.
Cal88, assuming he's not literally just working as a Russian propagandist, seems to have fallen well down this rabbit hole.
Personally, I tend to be pro-USA / anti-Russia both by inclination and also by reasoned opinion. That said, I feel like too many people jump on the USA bandwagon without really considering the nuances or context. Two cases in point:
1) So, during the Cold War, the counterpart to NATO was the Warsaw Pact. Imagine if things had slid the other way and there was talk of Canada or Mexico joining the Warsaw Pact. We would have been "pooping" a brick.
2) What did we hear in February: "Outrageous: Russia is using trumped-up evidence to unilaterally militarily invade a sovereign nation, solely for the purpose of regime change! What the heck makes them think they have the right to do that?" Hmmm...
Sometimes it's OK to use your brain instead of just us vs. them thinking.
How many countries in the Warsaw Pact were literal puppet regimes of the Soviet Union (having been militarily conquered in WWII)?
How many NATO countries were puppet regimes?
NATO and the Warsaw Pact were not the same thing. France left NATO in 1966. Nothing to be done about it. The only joint action taken by the Warsaw Pact was to attack its own member state, Czeckoslovakia, when it tried to introduce freedoms.
Looking forward to learning the Putin take on this history from Cal88.
American Vermin
Russia is really working overtime to disprove the propaganda about their military strength. I read somewhere that Putin wants to force the west to directly engage in a war with Russia so he can save face by losing to the whole world as opposed to continuing to be embarrassed by the performance in Ukraine. I don't know if I buy it, but perhaps it's not that implausible.
2/ In 15-20 minutes after the series of explosions at the Russian airbase #Belbek, locals report about the second salvo that tore the airbase apart. Most likely, many Russian pilots died on the ground in their aircrafts while attempting to flee.
— Viktor Kovalenko (@MrKovalenko) August 18, 2022
Biden needs to stop messing around and send more money to Ukraine, one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Wait, he just did!
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
Since the Ukranian war, Northrop Grumman Corporation, $NOC, has hit all time highs, up 27%.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) August 19, 2022
Dems love the American war machine!
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
dajo9 said:Big C said:sycasey said:This is something I've had to become a lot more wary of in recent years: outlets that purport to be left-leaning and "anti-war" or "anti-imperialist," but when you dig even a little bit into their views you'll find that they are not so much anti-imperialist as anti-America. Meaning, they think America and/or its allies in the West are the only source of imperialism in the world and all else can be dismissed. This leads them to untenable positions in which they deny or excuse wars and genocides just because they're being done by one of America's geopolitical rivals (usually Russia or China, but you can also take a look at some of the Syria/Assad denialism out there if you want a smaller example). Some of these folks are actually getting paid by those regimes in some way, but others are just disaffected lefties losing track of their principles.Unit2Sucks said:
The jig is up, we all see you for who you are. The only question left is why you have such a weird pro-Putin agenda. I am going to be charitable and assume that you benefit financially from these views but the more likely case is that you have actually fallen for this propaganda and you are a true believer. Sad.
Cal88, assuming he's not literally just working as a Russian propagandist, seems to have fallen well down this rabbit hole.
Personally, I tend to be pro-USA / anti-Russia both by inclination and also by reasoned opinion. That said, I feel like too many people jump on the USA bandwagon without really considering the nuances or context. Two cases in point:
1) So, during the Cold War, the counterpart to NATO was the Warsaw Pact. Imagine if things had slid the other way and there was talk of Canada or Mexico joining the Warsaw Pact. We would have been "pooping" a brick.
2) What did we hear in February: "Outrageous: Russia is using trumped-up evidence to unilaterally militarily invade a sovereign nation, solely for the purpose of regime change! What the heck makes them think they have the right to do that?" Hmmm...
Sometimes it's OK to use your brain instead of just us vs. them thinking.
How many countries in the Warsaw Pact were literal puppet regimes of the Soviet Union (having been militarily conquered in WWII)?
How many NATO countries were puppet regimes?
NATO and the Warsaw Pact were not the same thing. France left NATO in 1966. Nothing to be done about it. The only joint action taken by the Warsaw Pact was to attack its own member state, Czeckoslovakia, when it tried to introduce freedoms.
Looking forward to learning the Putin take on this history from Cal88.
I certainly can't disagree with any of that (especially your suggestion for one to use one's brain). Good post! My point, however, was not about comparing the sovereignty of the NATO nations to those in the Warsaw Pact, but rather to note how any nation might feel / react, if a group of countries (even puppet regimes) militarily aligned against it, were to expand right to its borders. I know we would be alarmed, perhaps even to the point of taking military action. And while I believe in my heart of hearts that Russia under Putin is the bad guy here, my point stands.
Well, this kind of happened when the Soviets put some nuclear warheads in Cuba, and thankfully we did not attempt any invasions at the time (prior attempts at overthrowing Castro did not go well).Big C said:dajo9 said:Big C said:sycasey said:This is something I've had to become a lot more wary of in recent years: outlets that purport to be left-leaning and "anti-war" or "anti-imperialist," but when you dig even a little bit into their views you'll find that they are not so much anti-imperialist as anti-America. Meaning, they think America and/or its allies in the West are the only source of imperialism in the world and all else can be dismissed. This leads them to untenable positions in which they deny or excuse wars and genocides just because they're being done by one of America's geopolitical rivals (usually Russia or China, but you can also take a look at some of the Syria/Assad denialism out there if you want a smaller example). Some of these folks are actually getting paid by those regimes in some way, but others are just disaffected lefties losing track of their principles.Unit2Sucks said:
The jig is up, we all see you for who you are. The only question left is why you have such a weird pro-Putin agenda. I am going to be charitable and assume that you benefit financially from these views but the more likely case is that you have actually fallen for this propaganda and you are a true believer. Sad.
Cal88, assuming he's not literally just working as a Russian propagandist, seems to have fallen well down this rabbit hole.
Personally, I tend to be pro-USA / anti-Russia both by inclination and also by reasoned opinion. That said, I feel like too many people jump on the USA bandwagon without really considering the nuances or context. Two cases in point:
1) So, during the Cold War, the counterpart to NATO was the Warsaw Pact. Imagine if things had slid the other way and there was talk of Canada or Mexico joining the Warsaw Pact. We would have been "pooping" a brick.
2) What did we hear in February: "Outrageous: Russia is using trumped-up evidence to unilaterally militarily invade a sovereign nation, solely for the purpose of regime change! What the heck makes them think they have the right to do that?" Hmmm...
Sometimes it's OK to use your brain instead of just us vs. them thinking.
How many countries in the Warsaw Pact were literal puppet regimes of the Soviet Union (having been militarily conquered in WWII)?
How many NATO countries were puppet regimes?
NATO and the Warsaw Pact were not the same thing. France left NATO in 1966. Nothing to be done about it. The only joint action taken by the Warsaw Pact was to attack its own member state, Czeckoslovakia, when it tried to introduce freedoms.
Looking forward to learning the Putin take on this history from Cal88.
I certainly can't disagree with any of that (especially your suggestion for one to use one's brain). Good post! My point, however, was not about comparing the sovereignty of the NATO nations to those in the Warsaw Pact, but rather to note how any nation might feel / react, if a group of countries (even puppet regimes) militarily aligned against it, were to expand right to its borders. I know we would be alarmed, perhaps even to the point of taking military action. And while I believe in my heart of hearts that Russia under Putin is the bad guy here, my point stands.
sycasey said:Well, this kind of happened when the Soviets put some nuclear warheads in Cuba, and thankfully we did not attempt any invasions at the time (prior attempts at overthrowing Castro did not go well).Big C said:dajo9 said:Big C said:sycasey said:This is something I've had to become a lot more wary of in recent years: outlets that purport to be left-leaning and "anti-war" or "anti-imperialist," but when you dig even a little bit into their views you'll find that they are not so much anti-imperialist as anti-America. Meaning, they think America and/or its allies in the West are the only source of imperialism in the world and all else can be dismissed. This leads them to untenable positions in which they deny or excuse wars and genocides just because they're being done by one of America's geopolitical rivals (usually Russia or China, but you can also take a look at some of the Syria/Assad denialism out there if you want a smaller example). Some of these folks are actually getting paid by those regimes in some way, but others are just disaffected lefties losing track of their principles.Unit2Sucks said:
The jig is up, we all see you for who you are. The only question left is why you have such a weird pro-Putin agenda. I am going to be charitable and assume that you benefit financially from these views but the more likely case is that you have actually fallen for this propaganda and you are a true believer. Sad.
Cal88, assuming he's not literally just working as a Russian propagandist, seems to have fallen well down this rabbit hole.
Personally, I tend to be pro-USA / anti-Russia both by inclination and also by reasoned opinion. That said, I feel like too many people jump on the USA bandwagon without really considering the nuances or context. Two cases in point:
1) So, during the Cold War, the counterpart to NATO was the Warsaw Pact. Imagine if things had slid the other way and there was talk of Canada or Mexico joining the Warsaw Pact. We would have been "pooping" a brick.
2) What did we hear in February: "Outrageous: Russia is using trumped-up evidence to unilaterally militarily invade a sovereign nation, solely for the purpose of regime change! What the heck makes them think they have the right to do that?" Hmmm...
Sometimes it's OK to use your brain instead of just us vs. them thinking.
How many countries in the Warsaw Pact were literal puppet regimes of the Soviet Union (having been militarily conquered in WWII)?
How many NATO countries were puppet regimes?
NATO and the Warsaw Pact were not the same thing. France left NATO in 1966. Nothing to be done about it. The only joint action taken by the Warsaw Pact was to attack its own member state, Czeckoslovakia, when it tried to introduce freedoms.
Looking forward to learning the Putin take on this history from Cal88.
I certainly can't disagree with any of that (especially your suggestion for one to use one's brain). Good post! My point, however, was not about comparing the sovereignty of the NATO nations to those in the Warsaw Pact, but rather to note how any nation might feel / react, if a group of countries (even puppet regimes) militarily aligned against it, were to expand right to its borders. I know we would be alarmed, perhaps even to the point of taking military action. And while I believe in my heart of hearts that Russia under Putin is the bad guy here, my point stands.
Yes, but we were ready to, which was my point.
Guys, I know I have been beating a dead horse, with regards to the NATO thing. I can't seem to help myself. Will be looking for a support group. Remember though: I agree that Putin's responsible for this war!
Big C said:sycasey said:Well, this kind of happened when the Soviets put some nuclear warheads in Cuba, and thankfully we did not attempt any invasions at the time (prior attempts at overthrowing Castro did not go well).Big C said:dajo9 said:Big C said:sycasey said:This is something I've had to become a lot more wary of in recent years: outlets that purport to be left-leaning and "anti-war" or "anti-imperialist," but when you dig even a little bit into their views you'll find that they are not so much anti-imperialist as anti-America. Meaning, they think America and/or its allies in the West are the only source of imperialism in the world and all else can be dismissed. This leads them to untenable positions in which they deny or excuse wars and genocides just because they're being done by one of America's geopolitical rivals (usually Russia or China, but you can also take a look at some of the Syria/Assad denialism out there if you want a smaller example). Some of these folks are actually getting paid by those regimes in some way, but others are just disaffected lefties losing track of their principles.Unit2Sucks said:
The jig is up, we all see you for who you are. The only question left is why you have such a weird pro-Putin agenda. I am going to be charitable and assume that you benefit financially from these views but the more likely case is that you have actually fallen for this propaganda and you are a true believer. Sad.
Cal88, assuming he's not literally just working as a Russian propagandist, seems to have fallen well down this rabbit hole.
Personally, I tend to be pro-USA / anti-Russia both by inclination and also by reasoned opinion. That said, I feel like too many people jump on the USA bandwagon without really considering the nuances or context. Two cases in point:
1) So, during the Cold War, the counterpart to NATO was the Warsaw Pact. Imagine if things had slid the other way and there was talk of Canada or Mexico joining the Warsaw Pact. We would have been "pooping" a brick.
2) What did we hear in February: "Outrageous: Russia is using trumped-up evidence to unilaterally militarily invade a sovereign nation, solely for the purpose of regime change! What the heck makes them think they have the right to do that?" Hmmm...
Sometimes it's OK to use your brain instead of just us vs. them thinking.
How many countries in the Warsaw Pact were literal puppet regimes of the Soviet Union (having been militarily conquered in WWII)?
How many NATO countries were puppet regimes?
NATO and the Warsaw Pact were not the same thing. France left NATO in 1966. Nothing to be done about it. The only joint action taken by the Warsaw Pact was to attack its own member state, Czeckoslovakia, when it tried to introduce freedoms.
Looking forward to learning the Putin take on this history from Cal88.
I certainly can't disagree with any of that (especially your suggestion for one to use one's brain). Good post! My point, however, was not about comparing the sovereignty of the NATO nations to those in the Warsaw Pact, but rather to note how any nation might feel / react, if a group of countries (even puppet regimes) militarily aligned against it, were to expand right to its borders. I know we would be alarmed, perhaps even to the point of taking military action. And while I believe in my heart of hearts that Russia under Putin is the bad guy here, my point stands.
Yes, but we were ready to, which was my point.
Guys, I know I have been beating a dead horse, with regards to the NATO thing. I can't seem to help myself. Will be looking for a support group. Remember though: I agree that Putin's responsible for this war!
If the US put nukes in Ukraine then maybe Putin would have a point.
Big C said:dajo9 said:Big C said:sycasey said:This is something I've had to become a lot more wary of in recent years: outlets that purport to be left-leaning and "anti-war" or "anti-imperialist," but when you dig even a little bit into their views you'll find that they are not so much anti-imperialist as anti-America. Meaning, they think America and/or its allies in the West are the only source of imperialism in the world and all else can be dismissed. This leads them to untenable positions in which they deny or excuse wars and genocides just because they're being done by one of America's geopolitical rivals (usually Russia or China, but you can also take a look at some of the Syria/Assad denialism out there if you want a smaller example). Some of these folks are actually getting paid by those regimes in some way, but others are just disaffected lefties losing track of their principles.Unit2Sucks said:
The jig is up, we all see you for who you are. The only question left is why you have such a weird pro-Putin agenda. I am going to be charitable and assume that you benefit financially from these views but the more likely case is that you have actually fallen for this propaganda and you are a true believer. Sad.
Cal88, assuming he's not literally just working as a Russian propagandist, seems to have fallen well down this rabbit hole.
Personally, I tend to be pro-USA / anti-Russia both by inclination and also by reasoned opinion. That said, I feel like too many people jump on the USA bandwagon without really considering the nuances or context. Two cases in point:
1) So, during the Cold War, the counterpart to NATO was the Warsaw Pact. Imagine if things had slid the other way and there was talk of Canada or Mexico joining the Warsaw Pact. We would have been "pooping" a brick.
2) What did we hear in February: "Outrageous: Russia is using trumped-up evidence to unilaterally militarily invade a sovereign nation, solely for the purpose of regime change! What the heck makes them think they have the right to do that?" Hmmm...
Sometimes it's OK to use your brain instead of just us vs. them thinking.
How many countries in the Warsaw Pact were literal puppet regimes of the Soviet Union (having been militarily conquered in WWII)?
How many NATO countries were puppet regimes?
NATO and the Warsaw Pact were not the same thing. France left NATO in 1966. Nothing to be done about it. The only joint action taken by the Warsaw Pact was to attack its own member state, Czeckoslovakia, when it tried to introduce freedoms.
Looking forward to learning the Putin take on this history from Cal88.
I certainly can't disagree with any of that (especially your suggestion for one to use one's brain). Good post! My point, however, was not about comparing the sovereignty of the NATO nations to those in the Warsaw Pact, but rather to note how any nation might feel / react, if a group of countries (even puppet regimes) militarily aligned against it, were to expand right to its borders. I know we would be alarmed, perhaps even to the point of taking military action. And while I believe in my heart of hearts that Russia under Putin is the bad guy here, my point stands.
Instead of asking why is NATO trying to expand to my borders, maybe the better is question is:
Why are all my neighboring countries afraid of me and are seeking to join a rival military alliance?
golden sloth said:Big C said:dajo9 said:Big C said:sycasey said:This is something I've had to become a lot more wary of in recent years: outlets that purport to be left-leaning and "anti-war" or "anti-imperialist," but when you dig even a little bit into their views you'll find that they are not so much anti-imperialist as anti-America. Meaning, they think America and/or its allies in the West are the only source of imperialism in the world and all else can be dismissed. This leads them to untenable positions in which they deny or excuse wars and genocides just because they're being done by one of America's geopolitical rivals (usually Russia or China, but you can also take a look at some of the Syria/Assad denialism out there if you want a smaller example). Some of these folks are actually getting paid by those regimes in some way, but others are just disaffected lefties losing track of their principles.Unit2Sucks said:
The jig is up, we all see you for who you are. The only question left is why you have such a weird pro-Putin agenda. I am going to be charitable and assume that you benefit financially from these views but the more likely case is that you have actually fallen for this propaganda and you are a true believer. Sad.
Cal88, assuming he's not literally just working as a Russian propagandist, seems to have fallen well down this rabbit hole.
Personally, I tend to be pro-USA / anti-Russia both by inclination and also by reasoned opinion. That said, I feel like too many people jump on the USA bandwagon without really considering the nuances or context. Two cases in point:
1) So, during the Cold War, the counterpart to NATO was the Warsaw Pact. Imagine if things had slid the other way and there was talk of Canada or Mexico joining the Warsaw Pact. We would have been "pooping" a brick.
2) What did we hear in February: "Outrageous: Russia is using trumped-up evidence to unilaterally militarily invade a sovereign nation, solely for the purpose of regime change! What the heck makes them think they have the right to do that?" Hmmm...
Sometimes it's OK to use your brain instead of just us vs. them thinking.
How many countries in the Warsaw Pact were literal puppet regimes of the Soviet Union (having been militarily conquered in WWII)?
How many NATO countries were puppet regimes?
NATO and the Warsaw Pact were not the same thing. France left NATO in 1966. Nothing to be done about it. The only joint action taken by the Warsaw Pact was to attack its own member state, Czeckoslovakia, when it tried to introduce freedoms.
Looking forward to learning the Putin take on this history from Cal88.
I certainly can't disagree with any of that (especially your suggestion for one to use one's brain). Good post! My point, however, was not about comparing the sovereignty of the NATO nations to those in the Warsaw Pact, but rather to note how any nation might feel / react, if a group of countries (even puppet regimes) militarily aligned against it, were to expand right to its borders. I know we would be alarmed, perhaps even to the point of taking military action. And while I believe in my heart of hearts that Russia under Putin is the bad guy here, my point stands.
Instead of asking why is NATO trying to expand to my borders, maybe the better is question is:
Why are all my neighboring countries afraid of me and are seeking to join a rival military alliance?
Well, I agree. Russia seems to be pretty much failing as a nation (considering their potential) and, if they are curious as to why, they need only take a long, honest look in the mirror.
Weird story about the killing of a prominent Russian neo nazi whose father was considered the brains behind Putin's propaganda. There is debate as to whether the father was the intended victim of the car bombing that killed the Nazi.
This has nothing to do with Ukraine other than to remind everyone that Russia is still crawling with nazis.
And this tweeter supposes the father could be behind the bombing of his daughter.
More on the bombing here for anyone who hasn't heard about it.
Ooh, anti-Putin group claims responsibility. Weird, Cal88 always saying how popular Putin is.
Also Russian air defense is still sh?t like the rest of their garbage military, despite what Cal88 would like to pretend. Easily defeated by a drone purchased of Alibaba lol. What a joke.
This has nothing to do with Ukraine other than to remind everyone that Russia is still crawling with nazis.
2) Her father Alexandr was way more famous. But he was not as important as he wanted us to believe. His ideas were taken, stolen, appropriated, used by the Kremlin, but he personally was never allowed to belong to Kremlin's inner circle. He was always a 3rd class starlet; 2/x
— Sergej Sumlenny (@sumlenny) August 21, 2022
And this tweeter supposes the father could be behind the bombing of his daughter.
UPDATE2: On his esotheric far-right esotericweb-page "Arctogaea" Alexandr Dugin literally had a huge article about the ancient mystical tradition to sacrifice children, including a case of a father sacrificing his daughter's life: : https://t.co/FKInI4rVxI pic.twitter.com/eVJAdyMBsr
— Sergej Sumlenny (@sumlenny) August 21, 2022
More on the bombing here for anyone who hasn't heard about it.
Ooh, anti-Putin group claims responsibility. Weird, Cal88 always saying how popular Putin is.
IT BEGINS: JJ Smart @officejjsmart is first to report that Ilya Ponomarev @iponomarev has claimed that the National Republican Army, an armed anti-Putin organization, was responsible for yesterday’s assassination attempt on Alexander Dugin. His daughter, Daria Dugina was killed. https://t.co/UM2tezbCj6
— Chuck Pfarrer (@ChuckPfarrer) August 21, 2022
Also Russian air defense is still sh?t like the rest of their garbage military, despite what Cal88 would like to pretend. Easily defeated by a drone purchased of Alibaba lol. What a joke.
KAMIKAZE: Today’s attack on RU’s Black Sea Fleet HQ in Sevastopol was made using a drone purchased from Alibaba for $8,000. Reconfigured with a substantial warhead, the UAV was piloted by Ukrainian SOF and made a direct hit on the building’s roof. https://t.co/dWfV8EMGCY pic.twitter.com/bkxd9K5kio
— Chuck Pfarrer (@ChuckPfarrer) August 21, 2022
so hardware costs something like a 10k$ for a slow-poke 40 pound payload
# boom
https://www.muginuav.com/product/mugin-5-pro-5000mm-carbon-fiber-uav-platform/
> The maximum flight time is supposed to be over 7 hours. The maximum take-off weight can be up to 85kg and and the payload can be up to 15~20kg.
# boom
https://www.muginuav.com/product/mugin-5-pro-5000mm-carbon-fiber-uav-platform/
> The maximum flight time is supposed to be over 7 hours. The maximum take-off weight can be up to 85kg and and the payload can be up to 15~20kg.
smh said:
so hardware costs something like a 10k$ for a slow-poke 40 pound payload
# boom
https://www.muginuav.com/product/mugin-5-pro-5000mm-carbon-fiber-uav-platform/
> The maximum flight time is supposed to be over 7 hours. The maximum take-off weight can be up to 85kg and and the payload can be up to 15~20kg.
Yes and Russia is powerless to stop it. Unless they can find a Ukrainian to scramble another $8k consumer drone for them.
Seriously though, hard to imagine a worse showing for the vaunted Russian military than what we've seen from them the last 6 month. All of the sudden every spy movie that makes the Kremlin seem impenetrable is now obsolete. You probably just need a $10 fake ID, a mustache and a fake Russian accent like from Rocky and Bulwinkle and you can waltz right in.
Unit2Sucks said:smh said:
so hardware costs something like a 10k$ for a slow-poke 40 pound payload
# boom
https://www.muginuav.com/product/mugin-5-pro-5000mm-carbon-fiber-uav-platform/
> The maximum flight time is supposed to be over 7 hours. The maximum take-off weight can be up to 85kg and and the payload can be up to 15~20kg.
Yes and Russia is powerless to stop it. Unless they can find a Ukrainian to scramble another $8k consumer drone for them.
Seriously though, hard to imagine a worse showing for the vaunted Russian military than what we've seen from them the last 6 month. All of the sudden every spy movie that makes the Kremlin seem impenetrable is now obsolete. You probably just need a $10 fake ID, a mustache and a fake Russian accent like from Rocky and Bulwinkle and you can waltz right in.
Cal88 will be in shortly to remind us that indiscriminate artillery fire - a WW2 tactic that leads to horrific civilian casualties - is Russia's best chance at winning a war in 2022.
Precision guided munitions, drones, cruise missiles, air defenses, electronic warfare, stealth technologies, special forces? Who needs 'em when you can just fire away at range and hope the other guy can't return fire? Brilliant!
Russia is screwed if they ever fight against a modern military. Mind you, they share a freaking border with Ukraine.
Rolling Stone article written by a reporter who spent time near the front:
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/ukrainian-military-unit-russia-artillery-1365021/
> A trip to the front lines reveal Putin's 'scorched earth' strategy and the Ukrainian troops trying to hold ondimitrig said:
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/ukrainian-military-unit-russia-artillery-1365021/
> June 12, 2022
Perspective from a Russian deserter who Cal88 will claim is a false flag since it doesn't support Cal88's propaganda.
Weird that this guy doesn't blame the US, amirite?
Quote:
I survived, unlike many others. My conscience tells me that I must try to stop this madness. … We did not have the moral right to attack another country, especially the people closest to us.
This is an army that bullies its own soldiers, those who have already been in the war, those who do not want to return there and die for something they don't even understand.
I will tell you a secret. The majority in the army, they are dissatisfied with what is happening there, they are dissatisfied with the government and their command, they are dissatisfied with Putin and his policies, they are dissatisfied with the Minister of Defense who did not serve in the army.
The main enemy of all Russians and Ukrainians is propaganda, which just further fuels hatred in people.
I can no longer watch all this happen and remain silent.
Weird that this guy doesn't blame the US, amirite?
I'm actually somewhat surprised that Russian morale (both in the military and among its citizenry) isn't even worse than it is, although surely Putin is desperately working to suppress any outward signs of dissent, while at the same time pouring on the propaganda.
Top to bottom, why in the hell would they want to be fighting this war? Goes to show, we self-criticize, but those darn Rooskies are even more gullible than a lot of Americans!
Big C said:
I'm actually somewhat surprised that Russian morale (both in the military and among its citizenry) isn't even worse than it is, although surely Putin is desperately working to suppress any outward signs of dissent, while at the same time pouring on the propaganda.
Top to bottom, why in the hell would they want to be fighting this war? Goes to show, we self-criticize, but those darn Rooskies are even more gullible than a lot of Americans!
They don't have the freedom of information that we have.
dimitrig said:Big C said:
I'm actually somewhat surprised that Russian morale (both in the military and among its citizenry) isn't even worse than it is, although surely Putin is desperately working to suppress any outward signs of dissent, while at the same time pouring on the propaganda.
Top to bottom, why in the hell would they want to be fighting this war? Goes to show, we self-criticize, but those darn Rooskies are even more gullible than a lot of Americans!
They don't have the freedom of information that we have.
True. We have too much free information though. Everybody goes to their own echo chamber and that's a major problem that's dividing us (IMO). Heck, we were better off in the old days with three TV networks, all pushing "moderation". Well, maybe not, as a lot of truth got swept under the table.
You know, sometimes I think the world is a complicated place!
Unit2Sucks said:
Perspective from a Russian deserter who Cal88 will claim is a false flag since it doesn't support Cal88's propaganda.Quote:
I survived, unlike many others. My conscience tells me that I must try to stop this madness. … We did not have the moral right to attack another country, especially the people closest to us.
This is an army that bullies its own soldiers, those who have already been in the war, those who do not want to return there and die for something they don't even understand.
I will tell you a secret. The majority in the army, they are dissatisfied with what is happening there, they are dissatisfied with the government and their command, they are dissatisfied with Putin and his policies, they are dissatisfied with the Minister of Defense who did not serve in the army.
The main enemy of all Russians and Ukrainians is propaganda, which just further fuels hatred in people.
I can no longer watch all this happen and remain silent.
Weird that this guy doesn't blame the US, amirite?
Methinks it must be related to the raid at Mar a Lago.
Trump strikes again!!
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Add All-Conference Interior OL Will McDonald
by Jim McGill
Bears Complete Sweep of Washington On Senior Day
by Cal Athletics
Bears Defeat Cardinal To Take Season Series
by Cal Athletics