What does Putin want (and whatabout it)
Regarding Ukrainians who are Russian-speaking, this is from nearly two years ago on this thread.
nohero said:
Speaking of history and Russia and Crimea -
I finished reading the novel "Grey Bees", by Andrey Kurkov, the other day. The protagonist Sergey Sergeyich lives in a village in the "grey zone" in the Donbas, between the separatists and the Ukrainian army. He keeps bees, and he travels into Ukraine with his hives to find an orchard for them to spend the summer near, so that they can make honey. After spending time in one town, he has to leave and so travels to find a beekeeper he met years ago, who lives in Crimea.
The beekeeper he knew is a Crimean Tartar, and Sergeyich finds out that he had been taken away by the Russian police a couple of years earlier. After spending some time there with the remaining family, he prepares to head home at the end of the summer. He has a conversation with a shopkeeper about the family.
“Those Tartars of yours, they’re getting kicked out,” the woman said, suddenly changing the topic. “They don’t like us, you know.”
“What do you mean, they don’t like us? They’ve been helping me.”
Well, you’re not us. We’re Russian. And they don’t respect Russian authority. So the people in charge will probably make’em go back to their Uzbekistans and such … That’s where they should of stayed, anyway … What did they have to come down here for?”
“Well, this is their land,” the beekeeper offered timidly.
“The hell it is!” the woman said indignantly, but without malice. This land’s been Russian Orthodox since time immemorial! Russians brought Orthodoxy from Turkey, brought it to Chersonesus, back before there were any Muslims. It was later that the Turks sent in the Tatars, along with their Islam. When Putin was here, he told the whole story – this is sacred Russian land.”
Well, I haven’t looked into the history,” Sergeyich shrugged. “Who knows what happened?”
“What happened is what Putin says happened,” she insisted. "Putin doesn’t lie.”It reminded me of discussions here on the MOL.
[Edited to add] In the interest of full disclosure, and in anticipation of a possible comment, Kurkov is a Ukrainian author, who writes in Russian. He's been displaced by the war, as many Ukrainians have. A recent interview - Ukrainian novelist Andrey Kurkov on preserving his country’s culture during war | PBS NewsHour
nan said:
Again, before the war, half of Ukraine spoke Russian and Identified with Russia.
What is your source for that? According to the only national Ukrainian census, in 2001, 63% spoke Ukrainian as their native language and 35% spoke Russian.
http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/language/
Here’s a 2021 (before the war) poll that found “78% of the Ukrainian citizens believe that their native language is Ukrainian, and 18% of the respondents identify Russian as a native language.” Even in the eastern and southern regions, the breakdown was 56% Ukrainian language and 41% Russian language.
I think you guys should stop attacking nan with history books and solid evidence… some of those things are quite heavy, and could possibly inflict more damage…
nan said:
When was the last time you actually posted about the topic in this thread and not some petty attack on me?
I find talking with you about issues is useless, as this thread more than readily attests. One really can't have useful discussions with such wildly divergent fact bases. The sides have to agree on certain fundamental things before you can productively disagree. Otherwise all you get are two separate narratives that don't have much to do with each other. Again, like this thread.
However, for some reason I irrationally cling to the hope that I might give you a glimmer of light to lead you out of your epistemological darkness.
yeah. no. nagahappen
nohero said:
nan said:
nohero said:
nan said:
PVW said:
I suppose the Holodomor is a small incident of little importance in your understanding of Ukrainian history.
Yeah, I figured you were going to bring that up. As I said, that was a different country. Putin is not Stalin.
It's relevant if you're discussing the views of the Ukrainian people about Russia.
As we discussed before, Ukraine is a divided country and at least half of the country identified with Russia. Winning presidential candidates have campaigned on better relationships with Russia. We know the Nazi element considers Russian's subhuman, but what is the percentage of non-nazi Ukrainians that have a legit beef with Russia? Do you think that is a majority? And how are Ukrainians feeling these days now that a good number of their men have been fed into a meat grinder. Do you think they want to continue this war which they are not going to win.
"Ukraine is a divided country and at least half of the country identified with Russia." Just because a Ukrainian is a Russian-speaker does not mean they "identify with Russia". You're ignoring a lot of facts to make that unsupported allegation.
"We know the Nazi element considers Russian's subhuman, but what is the percentage of non-nazi Ukrainians that have a legit beef with Russia?" What a contemptible thing to write about the Ukrainian people, that if they oppose Russian control they're probably Nazis.
Just to remind everyone of this once again -
I am not saying that! We don't have stats on that. From what I have read by multiple people, eastern Ukraine was more sympathetic to Russia and were more anti-NATO. They considered the 2014 coup government illegitimate.
I don't think Ukrainians in West Ukraine want to be controlled by Russia. I don't think Russia wants to take them over either. In the east, areas have expressed desire to reunite with Russia. Putin took Crimea in 2014 but he would not take the other areas.
As I keep saying the country is divided.
nan said:
I am not saying that! We don't have stats on that.
You've claimed that the biggest group opposed to Russia is Nazis. That's a pretty inflammatory claim to make without stats to back it up.
nohero said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
PVW said:
I suppose the Holodomor is a small incident of little importance in your understanding of Ukrainian history.
Yeah, I figured you were going to bring that up. As I said, that was a different country. Putin is not Stalin.
if this is a joke, it's kind of funny.
if not, then you're pretty much implying that we can simply discount all of Ukrainian/Russian history prior to Putin, because, you know, different countries.
Putin's long discourse to Tucker Carlson roots his whole rationale, for his invasion of Ukraine, on the long sweep of Russian history (including the Soviet Union). That includes this part, where Ukraine isn't really a country in his eyes, but is "an artificial state that was shaped at Stalin's will":
The Soviet Ukraine was given a great deal of territory that had never belonged to it, including the Black Sea region. At some point, when Russia received them as an outcome of the Russo-Turkish wars, they were called “New Russia,” or Novorossiya. But that does not matter. What matters is that Lenin, the founder of the Soviet State, established Ukraine that way. For decades, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic developed as part of the USSR, and for unknown reasons again, the Bolsheviks were engaged in Ukrainianization. It was not merely because the Soviet leadership was composed to a great extent of those originating from Ukraine. Rather, it was explained by the general policy of indigenization pursued by the Soviet Union. Same things were done in other Soviet republics. This involved promoting national languages and national cultures, which is not bad in principle. That is how the Soviet Ukraine was created.
After World War II, Ukraine received, in addition to the lands that had belonged to Poland before the war, part of the lands that had previously belonged to Hungary and Romania (known today as Western Ukraine). So Romania and Hungary had some of their lands taken away and given to the Ukraine and they still remain part of Ukraine. So in this sense, we have every reason to affirm that Ukraine is an artificial state that was shaped at Stalin’s will.
So what if he thinks it was an artificial state shaped at Stalin's will? He did not say ---"Sooooo that's why I have a right to and I'm going to take it! There is no logic here. He could have said Ukraine is where they make the best french fries and you would have said, "See, this is why he invaded!"
You have been listening to too many career Putin mind readers.
nan said:
nohero said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
PVW said:
I suppose the Holodomor is a small incident of little importance in your understanding of Ukrainian history.
Yeah, I figured you were going to bring that up. As I said, that was a different country. Putin is not Stalin.
if this is a joke, it's kind of funny.
if not, then you're pretty much implying that we can simply discount all of Ukrainian/Russian history prior to Putin, because, you know, different countries.
Putin's long discourse to Tucker Carlson roots his whole rationale, for his invasion of Ukraine, on the long sweep of Russian history (including the Soviet Union). That includes this part, where Ukraine isn't really a country in his eyes, but is "an artificial state that was shaped at Stalin's will":
The Soviet Ukraine was given a great deal of territory that had never belonged to it, including the Black Sea region. At some point, when Russia received them as an outcome of the Russo-Turkish wars, they were called “New Russia,” or Novorossiya. But that does not matter. What matters is that Lenin, the founder of the Soviet State, established Ukraine that way. For decades, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic developed as part of the USSR, and for unknown reasons again, the Bolsheviks were engaged in Ukrainianization. It was not merely because the Soviet leadership was composed to a great extent of those originating from Ukraine. Rather, it was explained by the general policy of indigenization pursued by the Soviet Union. Same things were done in other Soviet republics. This involved promoting national languages and national cultures, which is not bad in principle. That is how the Soviet Ukraine was created.
After World War II, Ukraine received, in addition to the lands that had belonged to Poland before the war, part of the lands that had previously belonged to Hungary and Romania (known today as Western Ukraine). So Romania and Hungary had some of their lands taken away and given to the Ukraine and they still remain part of Ukraine. So in this sense, we have every reason to affirm that Ukraine is an artificial state that was shaped at Stalin’s will.
So what if he thinks it was an artificial state shaped at Stalin's will? He did not say ---"Sooooo that's why I have a right to and I'm going to take it! There is no logic here. He could have said Ukraine is where they make the best french fries and you would have said, "See, this is why he invaded!"
You have been listening to too many career Putin mind readers.
Nan: Putin says Ukraine was an existential threat; that's why he invaded.
Also Nan: Putin says Ukraine isn't a real state, but it doesn't matter what Putin says.
PVW said:
nan said:
I am not saying that! We don't have stats on that.
You've claimed that the biggest group opposed to Russia is Nazis. That's a pretty inflammatory claim to make without stats to back it up.
I said the Nazis AND those influenced by propaganda combined (and pissed off at corruption-and bad economy). The anti-Russian media is intense over there. I was asking you for what kind of people would be opposed to Russia without being a Nazi or propagandized (and angry about economy). You said people who were carrying a grudge from Ukrainian history. Good answer. Neither of us have numbers for any of these groups.
I think the biggest group are the Nazis because why else would a country celebrate Sephan Bandara with streets, statues and holidays? He's got his picture hanging in government offices. Where else in the world does that guy have so many fans?
PVW said:
nan said:
nohero said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
PVW said:
I suppose the Holodomor is a small incident of little importance in your understanding of Ukrainian history.
Yeah, I figured you were going to bring that up. As I said, that was a different country. Putin is not Stalin.
if this is a joke, it's kind of funny.
if not, then you're pretty much implying that we can simply discount all of Ukrainian/Russian history prior to Putin, because, you know, different countries.
Putin's long discourse to Tucker Carlson roots his whole rationale, for his invasion of Ukraine, on the long sweep of Russian history (including the Soviet Union). That includes this part, where Ukraine isn't really a country in his eyes, but is "an artificial state that was shaped at Stalin's will":
The Soviet Ukraine was given a great deal of territory that had never belonged to it, including the Black Sea region. At some point, when Russia received them as an outcome of the Russo-Turkish wars, they were called “New Russia,” or Novorossiya. But that does not matter. What matters is that Lenin, the founder of the Soviet State, established Ukraine that way. For decades, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic developed as part of the USSR, and for unknown reasons again, the Bolsheviks were engaged in Ukrainianization. It was not merely because the Soviet leadership was composed to a great extent of those originating from Ukraine. Rather, it was explained by the general policy of indigenization pursued by the Soviet Union. Same things were done in other Soviet republics. This involved promoting national languages and national cultures, which is not bad in principle. That is how the Soviet Ukraine was created.
After World War II, Ukraine received, in addition to the lands that had belonged to Poland before the war, part of the lands that had previously belonged to Hungary and Romania (known today as Western Ukraine). So Romania and Hungary had some of their lands taken away and given to the Ukraine and they still remain part of Ukraine. So in this sense, we have every reason to affirm that Ukraine is an artificial state that was shaped at Stalin’s will.
So what if he thinks it was an artificial state shaped at Stalin's will? He did not say ---"Sooooo that's why I have a right to and I'm going to take it! There is no logic here. He could have said Ukraine is where they make the best french fries and you would have said, "See, this is why he invaded!"
You have been listening to too many career Putin mind readers.
Nan: Putin says Ukraine was an existential threat; that's why he invaded.
Also Nan: Putin says Ukraine isn't a real state, but it doesn't matter what Putin says.
He's not saying it's not a real state. He's saying it was created in an artificial way. You are reading WAY to much into his words.
drummerboy said:
nan said:
When was the last time you actually posted about the topic in this thread and not some petty attack on me?
I find talking with you about issues is useless, as this thread more than readily attests. One really can't have useful discussions with such wildly divergent fact bases. The sides have to agree on certain fundamental things before you can productively disagree. Otherwise all you get are two separate narratives that don't have much to do with each other. Again, like this thread.
However, for some reason I irrationally cling to the hope that I might give you a glimmer of light to lead you out of your epistemological darkness.
yeah. no. nagahappen
So you admit you are stalking me which makes you a troll. I can't stop you from running in your little hamster wheel but remember --- the people I argue with here have moved closer to my position than I have moved to theirs. So, consider that maybe you are on the wrong side.
nan said:
PVW said:
nan said:
I am not saying that! We don't have stats on that.
You've claimed that the biggest group opposed to Russia is Nazis. That's a pretty inflammatory claim to make without stats to back it up.
I said the Nazis AND those influenced by propaganda combined (and pissed off at corruption-and bad economy). The anti-Russian media is intense over there. I was asking you for what kind of people would be opposed to Russia without being a Nazi or propagandized (and angry about economy). You said people who were carrying a grudge from Ukrainian history. Good answer. Neither of us have numbers for any of these groups.
I think the biggest group are the Nazis because why else would a country celebrate Sephan Bandara with streets, statues and holidays? He's got his picture hanging in government offices. Where else in the world does that guy have so many fans?
If you want numbers, one place to look at would be election results. This has been pointed out to you in the past -- the far right does very poorly in elections. You always dismiss this, claiming that their influence is great and so even people who aren't themselves Nazis are under their influence. How can we tell they are under Nazi influence? Because they oppose Russia. Circular logic, predicated upon a proud ignorance and contempt of Ukrainian history and culture. Despite your indignant response to nohero, you are in fact claiming that all Ukrainians who oppose Russia must be Nazis or under their influence.
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
nan said:
I am not saying that! We don't have stats on that.
You've claimed that the biggest group opposed to Russia is Nazis. That's a pretty inflammatory claim to make without stats to back it up.
I said the Nazis AND those influenced by propaganda combined (and pissed off at corruption-and bad economy). The anti-Russian media is intense over there. I was asking you for what kind of people would be opposed to Russia without being a Nazi or propagandized (and angry about economy). You said people who were carrying a grudge from Ukrainian history. Good answer. Neither of us have numbers for any of these groups.
I think the biggest group are the Nazis because why else would a country celebrate Sephan Bandara with streets, statues and holidays? He's got his picture hanging in government offices. Where else in the world does that guy have so many fans?
If you want numbers, one place to look at would be election results. This has been pointed out to you in the past -- the far right does very poorly in elections. You always dismiss this, claiming that their influence is great and so even people who aren't themselves Nazis are under their influence. How can we tell they are under Nazi influence? Because they oppose Russia. Circular logic, predicated upon a proud ignorance and contempt of Ukrainian history and culture. Despite your indignant response to nohero, you are in fact claiming that all Ukrainians who oppose Russia must be Nazis or under their influence.
Right, they get 3% and yet wield great influence. I'm still waiting for you to answer my question? Why would a country celebrate Sephan Bandara with streets, statues and holidays? He's got his picture hanging in government offices. Where else in the world does that guy have so many fans?
How do you explain that?
Russia also has Partisans and Underground Fighters Day, again commemorating those who fought against the Germans. And again, many of those partisans committed gruesome murders on a large scale. I'm sure at least a few streets, parks, etc are named after various partisans who committed atrocities, yet I don't see you asking what kind of country would celebrate them -- you seem to be able to make allowances for historical context. But again, with Ukraine, you don't.
We could go on. You can see the same in other countries. Plenty of national heroes in all the countries that were pulled into that maelstrom of murder in the 20th century who, if you look closely, are also objectively villains. Hell, here in the U.S. until recently we had army bases named after far-right secessionist slavers. In the Rose Garden thread, there was a post showing FDR praising Robert E Lee!
How many people really are on the far-right in Ukraine? You have no numbers, but that doesn't stop you from smearing the majority of Ukrainians as Nazis.
PVW said:
In Russia they celebrate Victory Day -- the day the Soviet Union defeated Germany. Defeating Germany was certainly a good thing, but the Soviet Union was also a murderous regime that killed millions, and their triumph was the victory of one mass murdering state over another. Somehow, this doesn't discomfit you in the slightest -- you seem able to understand that celebrating a victory over Germany doesn't mean all Russians are also celebrating the crimes of the USSR.
Russia also has Partisans and Underground Fighters Day, again commemorating those who fought against the Germans. And again, many of those partisans committed gruesome murders on a large scale. I'm sure at least a few streets, parks, etc are named after various partisans who committed atrocities, yet I don't see you asking what kind of country would celebrate them -- you seem to be able to make allowances for historical context. But again, with Ukraine, you don't.
We could go on. You can see the same in other countries. Plenty of national heroes in all the countries that were pulled into that maelstrom of murder in the 20th century who, if you look closely, are also objectively villains. Hell, here in the U.S. until recently we had army bases named after far-right secessionist slavers. In the Rose Garden thread, there was a post showing FDR praising Robert E Lee!
How many people really are on the far-right in Ukraine? You have no numbers, but that doesn't stop you from smearing the majority of Ukrainians as Nazis.
No, you are not getting off by say look at Russia or the US. Bandara is a huge deal there and they make excuses for him.
Before this war, there were lots of articles like this:
Ukrainian marchers in Kiev chant ‘Jews out’
https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukrainian-marchers-in-kiev-chant-jews-out/
Excerpt:
Thousands attended the event in the center of the Ukrainian capital celebrating Stepan Bandera, a leader of Ukraine’s nationalist movement in the 1930s and ’40s. They held up his portrait while an unidentified person shouted the anti-Semitic slogan on a loudspeaker, prompting many participants to repeat it, a video published by the Federal News Agency showed.
Bandera’s movement included an insurgent army which fought alongside Nazi soldiers during part of World War II. Supporters of Bandera claim they sided with the Nazis against the Soviet army, believing that Adolf Hitler would grant Ukraine independence. Bandera was assassinated in 1959 by Russia’s KGB in West Germany.
Once the war started the denials began (the video for this was deleted), but this is way beyond what you find in other countries. This is not the "normal" amount of Nazis.
nohero said:
nan said:
Ivan the Terrible with Ivan. Here is some great Russian painting that we will never get to see because we don't know how to play nice with other countries.
Great choice. It's representative of Russian historical revisionism about cruelty in its past.
"The canvas – Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan on November 16, 1581 – was completed by the Russian realist Ilya Repin in 1885 and portrays a grief-stricken tsar holding his son in his arms after dealing him a mortal blow, a historical incident the veracity of which some Russian nationalists dispute. ... Ivan the Terrible is regarded as one of the cruellest rulers in Russia’s long history: a bloodthirsty and paranoid tyrant who killed his own son. But the figure of the 16th-century tsar recently has undergone something of a rehabilitation in modern Russia, with some nationalists arguing that the painting in question was actually part of a foreign smear campaign."
It's an amazing painting that does not deserve your blast of Russophobia. I'm a Repin fan. I would love to visit the museums in Russia. Is there nothing in Russia's vast cultural history that you can appreciate without a venomous jab?
And also, your claim isn’t that there is a far right in Ukraine, your claim is that the far right is the largest and most important element and that anyone who opposes Russian intervention is part of or under its influence.
Showing that the far right exists is a long way from showing the latter claim.
ETA -- for the classic form of Nan's argument:
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, all men are Socrates.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
When was the last time you actually posted about the topic in this thread and not some petty attack on me?
I find talking with you about issues is useless, as this thread more than readily attests. One really can't have useful discussions with such wildly divergent fact bases. The sides have to agree on certain fundamental things before you can productively disagree. Otherwise all you get are two separate narratives that don't have much to do with each other. Again, like this thread.
However, for some reason I irrationally cling to the hope that I might give you a glimmer of light to lead you out of your epistemological darkness.
yeah. no. nagahappen
So you admit you are stalking me which makes you a troll. I can't stop you from running in your little hamster wheel but remember --- the people I argue with here have moved closer to my position than I have moved to theirs. So, consider that maybe you are on the wrong side.
well, I'm either a stalker or a troll. they're not similar or connected, so your use of the word "which" is incorrect. definitely not a troll though. troll has a definition and I don't fit it. you could possibly make a case for stalking I guess, but it wouldn't be a very strong one.
I haven't noticed anyone moving closer to your position, because your basic position is ludicrous, and the other people posting here are not prone to being ludicrous. I can't imagine why you think they've moved closer to your position.
And, I don't base the position I take on what other people say or do, unless what they say provides evidence that convinces me to change that position.
As usual, almost every fact claim you make is wrong.
nan said:
Right, they get 3% and yet wield great influence. I'm still waiting for you to answer my question? Why would a country celebrate Sephan Bandara with streets, statues and holidays? He's got his picture hanging in government offices. Where else in the world does that guy have so many fans?
How do you explain that?
I remembered PVW’s answer from a couple of years ago. Didn’t you?
PVW said:
As Ridski notes, nations often (always?) have problematic heroes. In the Eastern European context, specifically, I get the sense that Nan isn't very familiar with the region's history in WWII and afterward, when peoples and states were being crushed by either the Nazi or the Soviets, sometime serially, sometimes simultaneously. And in that context, heroes of national liberation were often aligning themselves with the Germans against the Russians, or the Russians against the Germans. She seems truly baffled by why post-Soviet and post-Communist states may have been so eager to join NATO and the EU, unable to conceive of any motivation beyond American machinations.
Russia itself is actually a great example of this complicated history -- look at how central Putin has sought to make the fight against Germany to Russian national identity, and how he's explicitly tied that history to his current war against Ukraine, and how that's required elevating Stalin, one of history's great moral monsters.
Nan also doesn't seem to have a good understanding of the cultural and legal landscape within Russia if she thinks the force of the state isn't being brought to bear against ethnic groups there. Ask the Chechens, the Tatars, the Dagestanis, or any of the many other ethnic groups within Russia where they fit in Putin's vision of a Russian, Orthodox civilization.
Someone on these threads frequently reminds us to avoid turning the news into Disney fairy tales. That's good advice -- an attempt to grapple with the actual history of the region would be a good start.
drummerboy said:
nan said:
I can't stop you from running in your little hamster wheel but remember --- the people I argue with here have moved closer to my position than I have moved to theirs. So, consider that maybe you are on the wrong side.
I haven't noticed anyone moving closer to your position, because your basic position is ludicrous, and the other people posting here are not prone to being ludicrous. I can't imagine why you think they've moved closer to your position.
I have no idea if I'm included in the "people" who have moved closer to Nan's position, but I feel I've been pretty consistent with my very first post on this thread. If Nan is including me, I'd certainly be interested in seeing her quote that first post and contrasting with later posts showing a difference.
PVW said:
And also, your claim isn’t that there is a far right in Ukraine, your claim is that the far right is the largest and most important element and that anyone who opposes Russian intervention is part of or under its influence.
Showing that the far right exists is a long way from showing the latter claim.
ETA -- for the classic form of Nan's argument:
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, all men are Socrates.
Your claim seems to be that the typical Ukrainian is not a Nazi, dislikes Russia (because Russians are historically brutal--unlike the nazis next door), and just wants to align with the west. I've just been pointing out six ways from Sunday that Ukraine is a divided country and there is no such majority support. Also, that a, perhaps large, percentage of people there are Russia hating Nazis.
SO, if you are counting Ukrainian people who don't want relations (or did not want prior to the war) with Russians, you should subtract the Nazis from the total.
nan said:
PVW said:
And also, your claim isn’t that there is a far right in Ukraine, your claim is that the far right is the largest and most important element and that anyone who opposes Russian intervention is part of or under its influence.
Showing that the far right exists is a long way from showing the latter claim.
ETA -- for the classic form of Nan's argument:
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, all men are Socrates.
Your claim seems to be that the typical Ukrainian is not a Nazi, dislikes Russia (because Russians are historically brutal--unlike the nazis next door), and just wants to align with the west. I've just been pointing out six ways from Sunday that Ukraine is a divided country and there is no such majority support. Also, that a, perhaps large, percentage of people there are Russia hating Nazis.
SO, if you are counting Ukrainian people who don't want relations (or did not want prior to the war) with Russians, you should subtract the Nazis from the total.
My claim is that, given Ukraine's history, it makes perfect sense -- in fact one would expect -- that many Ukrainians would like to keep their distance from Russia, and that your insistence Ukraine is dominated by the far right has no grounding in history or facts.
If you want to be more generic about this (since you are so allergic to getting into the actual details), it's really a classic post-colonial dynamic. Of course, in saying this I presume you understand Russia's history as an imperial power, which is probably a mistake on my part.
PVW said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
I can't stop you from running in your little hamster wheel but remember --- the people I argue with here have moved closer to my position than I have moved to theirs. So, consider that maybe you are on the wrong side.
I haven't noticed anyone moving closer to your position, because your basic position is ludicrous, and the other people posting here are not prone to being ludicrous. I can't imagine why you think they've moved closer to your position.
I have no idea if I'm included in the "people" who have moved closer to Nan's position, but I feel I've been pretty consistent with my very first post on this thread. If Nan is including me, I'd certainly be interested in seeing her quote that first post and contrasting with later posts showing a difference.
I'm thinking about agreements on the status of the war. I would hope, by now, you would understand that Ukaine is losing. I would hope you would accept that there were peace talks at the beginning which the Ukrainians rejected. Stuff like that. You can't be where you were at the beginning because some of these things have even reached the mainstream news.
I suppose what I keep coming back to is why it is so difficult for you to imagine that ordinary Ukrainians demonstrated for months on the Maidan. What is it about that you find so threatening that you feel the need to erase them, and substitute CIA Nazis in their place?
nan said:
PVW said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
I can't stop you from running in your little hamster wheel but remember --- the people I argue with here have moved closer to my position than I have moved to theirs. So, consider that maybe you are on the wrong side.
I haven't noticed anyone moving closer to your position, because your basic position is ludicrous, and the other people posting here are not prone to being ludicrous. I can't imagine why you think they've moved closer to your position.
I have no idea if I'm included in the "people" who have moved closer to Nan's position, but I feel I've been pretty consistent with my very first post on this thread. If Nan is including me, I'd certainly be interested in seeing her quote that first post and contrasting with later posts showing a difference.
I'm thinking about agreements on the status of the war. I would hope, by now, you would understand that Ukaine is losing. I would hope you would accept that there were peace talks at the beginning which the Ukrainians rejected. Stuff like that. You can't be where you were at the beginning because some of these things have even reached the mainstream news.
Well, you're free to find the posts you think I said what you think I did, and the posts where you now think I'm saying something different.
nan said:
I've just been pointing out six ways from Sunday that Ukraine is a divided country and there is no such majority support.
When you pointed out your source for one of those ways — the half-and-half split of the Russian and Ukrainian languages in Ukraine — did I miss it? I’d like to see how it compares with the two primary sources I found that contradict it.
PVW said:
I suppose what I keep coming back to is why it is so difficult for you to imagine that ordinary Ukrainians demonstrated for months on the Maidan. What is it about that you find so threatening that you feel the need to erase them, and substitute CIA Nazis in their place?
I never said the protesters were Nazis. The Nazis were the ones that killed the ordinary Ukrainians. I've said before that there were ordinary Ukrainians there. They were upset because the economy was a mess and the government was corrupt. However, thinking that turning against Russia and embracing the EU was a manufactured conclusion for many. The NGOs were there spreading propaganda through the media and training. Why do you seem to think that it was OK for the National Endowment for Democracy to help put the pieces in place for a color revolution? These people were, in some cases, sent to their deaths, to further the western regime change. So, yeah, there were plenty of ordinary Ukrainians there--that was the plan. They were used without consent to take part in the false flag regime change operation.
nan said:
I don't know. I'm thinking maybe these guys:
Meet Centuria, Ukraine’s Western-trained neo-Nazi army
A uniquely Ukrainian strain of Neo-Nazism is spreading throughout Europe, which openly advocates violence against minorities while seeking new recruits. With Kiev’s army collapsing and a narrative of Western betrayal gaining currency, the horror inflicted on residents of Donbas for a decade could very soon be coming to a city near you.
https://thegrayzone.com/2024/04/07/centuria-ukraines-western-neo-nazi-army/
I can pin point other neo nazi movemnts in russia - europe and the US. Should we give vlad the green light to decimate any land they may be close to?
I love the "Western trained" angle - no russian propaganda there -right?
As I've asked countless times - who is their current leader and where is their base. Have you written your senator outlining that we should join forces with Putin in eliminating this nazi scourge. Perhaps you could share this letter in case you wish others to do the same.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
-
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info -
REVO luggage $100
More info
Great choice. It's representative of Russian historical revisionism about cruelty in its past.
"The canvas – Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan on November 16, 1581 – was completed by the Russian realist Ilya Repin in 1885 and portrays a grief-stricken tsar holding his son in his arms after dealing him a mortal blow, a historical incident the veracity of which some Russian nationalists dispute. ... Ivan the Terrible is regarded as one of the cruellest rulers in Russia’s long history: a bloodthirsty and paranoid tyrant who killed his own son. But the figure of the 16th-century tsar recently has undergone something of a rehabilitation in modern Russia, with some nationalists arguing that the painting in question was actually part of a foreign smear campaign."
Link