Page 1 of 4 [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

24 May 2022, 11:39 am

With the hope that people have the capacity to constrain their responces to the article\its content and remain objective about this when responding...

Quote:
Western analysts begrudgingly acknowledge that Vladimir Putin is popular in Russia, but attribute this to his supposed total control of domestic media. Without this grip on information, many of them seem to seriously believe that Alexey Navalny (or some other dissident leader crafted in their own image, such as Garry Kasparov) would sweep the country and transform it into a textbook representative democracy. Whether this judgment is rooted in stupidity, dishonesty, or mere naivety, is hard to say. Listening to Western outlets since the start of the war in Ukraine, it is hard not to think the West’s view of Russia’s media environment is a case of projection.

With few exceptions, mainstream American media uniformly believes that the Russian leader bears sole responsibility for the conflict. With no other issue before could one expect to hear precisely the same opinions from NPR and the screaming brand of conservative talk radio. The only difference is the tone: NPR‘s broadcasters rarely forget to take their valium, and so are less likely to yell into their microphones that Putin is “an evil dictator,” a “vicious tyrant” or simply “a butcher.” The propaganda is as vociferous as that directed against the “bloodthirsty” German “huns,” who were supposedly lifting Belgian children on their bayonets for sport in 1914.

Speaking of Germany, its press isn’t any better. On its nightly political talk shows, politicians across the spectrum have been overusing the term “Vernichtungskrieg” (war of annihilation), which is particularly lurid given that this word is generally applied to Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union and the Holocaust. It is hard to hear such hyperbole and not think the West is committed to waging war on Russia, and is prepared to say anything to bring it about.

With this background and skeptical attitude in mind, I sat down to watch Oliver Stone’s series of interviews with Putin recorded between 2015 and 2017. My aim was to escape the Western attitude of “it is always and forever September 1938,” and simply listen to what Putin had to say. Diplomacy, after all, used to be about what Robert Wright refers to as “cognitive empathy,” an effort to see the world from your counterpart’s perspective, recognize legitimate aims and objectives, and try to reach some sort of solution that avoids conflict. What follows is my own effort to understand aspects of the Russian narrative without immediately assuming bad faith at every turn.

Source: https://im1776.com/2022/05/24/understanding-vladimir-putin/



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 85,958
Location: Queens, NYC

24 May 2022, 1:23 pm

Putin was a crafty BS artist right before the war, primarily so he could justify the war.

He probably should be given credit for "modernizing" Russia over the past 20 years. But there is the potential for his gains to be blown to smithereens, and for Soviet-type poverty and ennui to return in full force.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 57,028
Location: Stendec

24 May 2022, 1:41 pm

We do not need to understand Putin; we need only to defeat him.



shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,658

24 May 2022, 6:20 pm

I don't buy what's on the news these days about this war, either.
I also don't think Putin's justifications are all that solid.

Of course it's a tragedy for the Russians who found themselves as a minority in a foreign country, after the fall of the soviet union.

But what about the British who were living in India, after the Indoa's independence? Is there any sympathy for them? Why should there be this generalized sympathy for the people left in Russia's former colonies?

The one question in this article I find very troubling is: why does NATO still exist?
Because he is right to ask this.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


Tross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jan 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 867

24 May 2022, 7:35 pm

What's to understand? He's an evil dictator with expansionist desires who made up some BS about border concerns to justify his "crusade". Individuals like him don't care about anyone but themselves. There will be much celebrating the second he leaves this world and goes to be with Father Satan. :evil:



shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,658

24 May 2022, 7:57 pm

Tross wrote:
What's to understand? He's an evil dictator with expansionist desires who made up some BS about border concerns to justify his "crusade". Individuals like him don't care about anyone but themselves. There will be much celebrating the second he leaves this world and goes to be with Father Satan. :evil:


Have you pondered what could happen if Putin fails? - Russia splitting into a pro-Putin and an Anti-Putin faction, Chechnya and Abkhazia and regions neither of us has ever heard of engaging in civil war with lots and lots of nuclear warheads unguarded?
It could be a good time to buy one, for those interested in owning one. Like, the neighbouring Taliban for example.

Stop thinking of geopolitics as a battle of good people and evil dictators. Putin is a gangster, not the devil. He doesn't hold power over Russia through metaphysical forces, but through strategic alliances and force that might well also hold it together.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,221
Location: Australia

24 May 2022, 8:08 pm

Brictoria wrote:
With the hope that people have the capacity to constrain their responces to the article\its content and remain objective about this when responding...


Psychopathic murdering son of a biatch.
What? 8O :mrgreen:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Glory to Ukraine.


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,221
Location: Australia

24 May 2022, 8:14 pm

shlaifu wrote:

The one question in this article I find very troubling is: why does NATO still exist?
Because he is right to ask this.


Silly question.
It exists because of the aggression of other nations.

Eastern European counties as shite scared of Russian aggression.
Haven't you been paying attention?
Now, Sweden and Finland are requesting to be part of NATO, also.

N.B.
NATO is a *defensive* alliance. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Glory to Ukraine.


shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,658

24 May 2022, 9:35 pm

Pepe wrote:
shlaifu wrote:

The one question in this article I find very troubling is: why does NATO still exist?
Because he is right to ask this.


Silly question.
It exists because of the aggression of other nations.

Eastern European counties as shite scared of Russian aggression.
Haven't you been paying attention?
Now, Sweden and Finland are requesting to be part of NATO, also.

N.B.
NATO is a *defensive* alliance. 8)


Who was Nato defending its members against for the last 30 years? It's enemy? So... The cold war wasn't really over then, was it?

The Eastern European states, Finland and Sweden are justifiably afraid of Russia, now.
But immediately after the Fall of the SU, there was no reason for that. And no reason to keep the guard up, the enemy was defeated.
The signal to Russia looked like: no, no, you still are the enemy. Tit-for-tat.
I can understand that, without intending to accept it as an excuse to invade Ukraine.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


Tross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jan 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 867

24 May 2022, 10:04 pm

shlaifu wrote:
Stop thinking of geopolitics as a battle of good people and evil dictators. Putin is a gangster, not the devil. He doesn't hold power over Russia through metaphysical forces, but through strategic alliances and force that might well also hold it together.
I would prefer to cross any subsequent bridge when it presents itself. It seems Russia has gotten too big for its own good anyways. If it's going to fragment with the Prince of Darkness gone, it will do so regardless of how and when he goes out. If your assertions hold true, the world should be prepared for a Russian civil war regardless. I'd rather my people in Ukraine be left out of it though.

Normally, I like to see both sides of a conflict, but in this case, there really is only good and evil. He's already 100% in the wrong by attacking another country. That's not exactly how we normally handle disagreements in the modern world. One individual should not have the power to cause so much misery to so many people who don't deserve it. On top of that, he doesn't have a case. We know for a fact that he's someone who's used to getting his way, doesn't take no for an answer, and is only in it to expand his empire. NATO will never invade a sovereign nation, least of all Russia, but one thing it is problematic for is ambitions to annex territory.

If you're going to present an antithesis to the devil, I probably wouldn't recommend a gangster, as the two are pretty synonymous. Gangsters and dictators have one thing in common, which is that neither care about how many lives they have to cut short or how much misery they need to cause to realize their ambitions. We could squabble over which level of Hell they all belong in, but it's pretty clear which direction they're headed in the afterlife. :roll:



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,369
Location: temperate zone

24 May 2022, 10:09 pm

shlaifu wrote:
Pepe wrote:
shlaifu wrote:

The one question in this article I find very troubling is: why does NATO still exist?
Because he is right to ask this.


Silly question.
It exists because of the aggression of other nations.

Eastern European counties as shite scared of Russian aggression.
Haven't you been paying attention?
Now, Sweden and Finland are requesting to be part of NATO, also.

N.B.
NATO is a *defensive* alliance. 8)


Who was Nato defending its members against for the last 30 years? It's enemy? So... The cold war wasn't really over then, was it?

The Eastern European states, Finland and Sweden are justifiably afraid of Russia, now.
But immediately after the Fall of the SU, there was no reason for that. And no reason to keep the guard up, the enemy was defeated.
The signal to Russia looked like: no, no, you still are the enemy. Tit-for-tat.
I can understand that, without intending to accept it as an excuse to invade Ukraine.


There was a hiatus when NATO had no enemy to defend against. But it was only ten years long. Not 30 years long.

Its true that when the USSR fell apart, and the Warsaw Pact dissolved in 1991 there was no longer an enemy for NATO to defend against. BUT...in 2001 an enemy did appear, and ironically, for the first time NATO actually did its job of rallying all of its members to the defense of one member. The US was attacked in 9-11 by Muslim terrorist. And all of NATO contributed to the US led invasion of Afghanistan in response.

So terrorism became the new USSR type thread - to justify the existence of NATO- from 2001 until the eve of Putin's invasion of Ukraine ( which set the clock back to the pre 1990 Cold War).



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,221
Location: Australia

24 May 2022, 11:48 pm

shlaifu wrote:
Pepe wrote:
shlaifu wrote:

The one question in this article I find very troubling is: why does NATO still exist?
Because he is right to ask this.


Silly question.
It exists because of the aggression of other nations.

Eastern European counties as shite scared of Russian aggression.
Haven't you been paying attention?
Now, Sweden and Finland are requesting to be part of NATO, also.

N.B.
NATO is a *defensive* alliance. 8)


Who was Nato defending its members against for the last 30 years? It's enemy? So... The cold war wasn't really over then, was it?

The Eastern European states, Finland and Sweden are justifiably afraid of Russia, now.
But immediately after the Fall of the SU, there was no reason for that. And no reason to keep the guard up, the enemy was defeated.
The signal to Russia looked like: no, no, you still are the enemy. Tit-for-tat.
I can understand that, without intending to accept it as an excuse to invade Ukraine.



You aren't on top of this topic, are you?
pootin wanted to join NATO, but because NATO said he had to go through the usual procedures, he spat the dummy and basically said: "Don't you know who I am?"

Poor little pootin's ego was offended, so he was left out in the cold, by his own choice. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Glory to Ukraine.


Tross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jan 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 867

25 May 2022, 12:38 am

Pepe wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
Pepe wrote:
shlaifu wrote:

The one question in this article I find very troubling is: why does NATO still exist?
Because he is right to ask this.


Silly question.
It exists because of the aggression of other nations.

Eastern European counties as shite scared of Russian aggression.
Haven't you been paying attention?
Now, Sweden and Finland are requesting to be part of NATO, also.

N.B.
NATO is a *defensive* alliance. 8)


Who was Nato defending its members against for the last 30 years? It's enemy? So... The cold war wasn't really over then, was it?

The Eastern European states, Finland and Sweden are justifiably afraid of Russia, now.
But immediately after the Fall of the SU, there was no reason for that. And no reason to keep the guard up, the enemy was defeated.
The signal to Russia looked like: no, no, you still are the enemy. Tit-for-tat.
I can understand that, without intending to accept it as an excuse to invade Ukraine.



You aren't on top of this topic, are you?
pootin wanted to join NATO, but because NATO said he had to go through the usual procedures, he spat the dummy and basically said: "Don't you know who I am?"

Poor little pootin's ego was offended, so he was left out in the cold, by his own choice. 8)

To be fair, that "prince" is likely used to being handed everything else on a silver platter. He makes a move and the West capitulates, or that's how it has been for the most part up until this point. I do think the West shares part of the blame, although only in the sense that we should have knocked him down several...hundred pegs much sooner. It would have saved countless lives.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,876
Location: Poland

25 May 2022, 1:08 am

I propose a different angle of understanding Putin:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/opin ... putin.html

The only element of truth in the OP is that "good Russia, bad Putin" is indeed a simplification that goes dangerously too far.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


SpiceWolf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 784

25 May 2022, 1:29 am

Tross wrote:
Normally, I like to see both sides of a conflict, but in this case, there really is only good and evil.


From your post I take it you consider Ukraine good and Russia evil.
Well this is a high ranking member of the Ukraine Military

https://i.redd.it/60o3yjcpb9n81.png

You just called this man 'Good'.
But the Nazis in Ukraine did not become 'good' simply because Russia attacked. They did not become nice, the moment Putin turned nasty. They will not be good afterwards.

Zelentsky taking the opportunity to wipe out all opposition parties and destroy all trace of Democracy in Ukraine(in the name of Fighting Russia) has, I fear, doomed that country, at least for a time.
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/17/trai ... pposition/

Wether it is doomed to one party Nazi rule, or one party Russian rule, will depend in the end, on which one of the two horrible alternatives wins.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,876
Location: Poland

25 May 2022, 2:05 am

Yeah, sure, a guy with swastika tatoos totally justifies an invasion, mass shellings and murders of civilians, torturous "filtration" procedures, turning fluorishing (Russian-speaking!) cities to wastelands and threatning the world with global famine. Totally. It just changes everything, I guess.

This guy is Artem 'Bonov' Zalesov and he is not any prominent member of anything except for being a poster child in anti-Ukrainian propaganda.

A topic I made did not get any responses but I still recommend you read the article linked there. That's something non-East-Europeans need to learn for a fuller picture.
viewtopic.php?t=406075


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>