[Potemkin]

There's nothing wrong with Russia that a proletarian revolution wouldn't solve.

Unfortunately, the counter-revolution of 1991 has made that impossible. As someone once observed in the 1990s: the objective conditions for revolution exist in Russia, but the subjective conditions do not exist. And nor are they likely to exist in the foreseeable future.

[Igor Antunov]

Putin knows what he's talking about :



Oh, and before you say Putin improved on the situation, here's the change from 2000:





You are mad for thinking both are good for their countries.

lol, western propaganda farm as a source...I'm getting deja vu....



US and its surrogates are infinitely more corrupt, hell corruption is institutionalized and legalized.

[Patrickov]

Preparedness does not account for ignorant people. In some sense, ignorant people are more responsible in the COVID-19 spreading than governments.

Hong Kong Government did a bad job in it, yet we have one of the lowest rate of infection.

And the Western traitors who are in collaboration with China will easily place the blame squarely on Trump, because he's deposed. (Remember Napoleon III)

Using this as an accusation against Western democracies is itself the worst propaganda.

[blackjack21]

Putin goes on to describe how the 1% took all the economic gains of the last few decades, in the West. That while China and Russia have taken millions of their own citizens OUT OF poverty lately, the West has pushed millions of its own citizens into poverty, and millions of foreigners into poverty as well through war and sanctions.

It's a great read to see Putin's actual words.

Now you know the real reason Washington hates him.

So virtually all of our fine legacy media has gone with Ad hom attacks on the speaker since none of them is able to address the content of his speech.

They rarely ever cover anything a Russian president actually says. During the Cold War, they always pictured Moscow with cloudy skies too.

Why pay attention to his speech when his action speaks much, much louder?

His criticisms of the West are spot on.

You really will trust a person who basically has government sponsored kill squads poisoning his opponents with chemicals weapons while at the same time he and his buddies are stealing billions every month and building useless disney princess castles?

That's pretty much what's happening in the United States, if you haven't noticed.

I guess he didn't give Trump enough tips on how to do that successfully like he has.

Proof positive that Trump was never a Russian puppet to begin with.

The only people who defend Putin are frothing anti-westerners and/or tyrant nutjobs like him.

I'm not anti-Western. I'm not even a socialist. I don't hold any political office. Putin's criticism of the West is spot on.

There's also a strong correlation between the dumbasses that support Putin, and the dumbasses that support the CCP.

I don't support the CCP at all. I'm for even more tariffs and for totally decoupling our economy from China.

The west is mad with Putin because he is effective and good for Russia.

Right. He doesn't go for woke politics at all, which is great.

They want a weak, corrupt guy that will destroy their perceived nemesis from the inside. No can do kiddo.

They've pulled it off in the United States with Biden. So they certainly think that they can pull it off elsewhere.

1) Putin is a genuine threat to the US global system

I don't think he's that much of a threat, but he will not go along with it. So they rail against him constantly.

[Patrickov]

@blackjack21, I appreciate your effort of denouncing China, but looking Russia in a positive light does not help your position.

In some sense, Russia has to bear at least half of the responsibility on China's current backwardness and oppressiveness. Their occupation of outer Manchuria and the meddling in both Xinjiang and Mongolia fueled some inferiority complex among the Chinese, some of whom see Russia as greater threat than the West. In addition, the CCP / PRC is a direct product of Stalinism, and backed by Russian resources at least in its early years.

Moreover, I am sure Putin will not agree with you in disengaging China. He and Xi Jinping are both dictators and champions against "Western Imperialism", and the only way to turn them against each other is to make the West (including your country, the United States, if you does see it as yours that is) fall, which is not a good thing at all.

Both of them need to be disengaged from the West and then defeated, although being on the same continent I understand it's very hard for European countries to follow this agenda.

[blackjack21]

@blackjack21, I appreciate your effort of denouncing China, but looking Russia in a positive light does not help your position.

Russia has less than 200M people, and is the largest country on Earth. Just holding Russia together is its biggest challenge. Ultimately, Mahan was right and Mackinder was wrong.

In some sense, Russia has to bear at least half of the responsibility on China's current backwardness and oppressiveness. Their occupation of outer Manchuria and the meddling in both Xinjiang and Mongolia fueled some inferiority complex among the Chinese, some of whom see Russia as greater threat than the West.

China was backward well before the communists came to power.

In addition, the CCP / PRC is a direct product of Stalinism, and backed by Russian resources at least in its early years.

Yes, but it's principally a fascist state today.

Moreover, I am sure Putin will not agree with you in disengaging China. He and Xi Jinping are both dictators and champions against "Western Imperialism", and the only way to turn them against each other is to make the West (including your country, the United States, if you does see it as yours that is) fall, which is not a good thing at all.

They are already rivals. Russia is in a bad spot long term in hanging on to Vladivostok and the surrounding area. Already, they use Chinese labor the way the US uses Central American labor in farming.

Both of them need to be disengaged from the West and then defeated, although being on the same continent I understand it's very hard for European countries to follow this agenda.

Western Europe depends upon Russia for oil and natural gas. They cannot decouple unless they want to embrace nuclear power, which they are moving away from for some godforsaken reason.

[Patrickov]

Just holding Russia together is its biggest challenge.

For both Russia and China's cases, if holding it together is such a challenge maybe we should re-think if "holding it together" is a good thing.

(P.S. The same applies to India and Indonesia to a lesser extent)

In contrast, the United States wins here because there's less ethnic concentration -- they have serious racial issues but the issue is in some sense uniform across the country.

China was backward well before the communists came to power.

The Commies are responsible for keeping it backwards and/or steering it backwards even worse.

Yes, but it's principally a fascist state today.

IMHO exactly how Russia has been at least after Peter the Great.

They are already rivals. Russia is in a bad spot long term in hanging on to Vladivostok and the surrounding area.

Already, they use Chinese labor the way the US uses Central American labor in farming.

I don't see it that much of a problem to Russia. For much of China's history, the north has always been posing a bigger threat than the South at least after Qin Shi Huang united the country. Russia is no exception.

They cannot decouple unless they want to embrace nuclear power, which they are moving away from for some godforsaken reason.

You know nuclear (fission) waste is not something that can be easily processed, don't you?

[blackjack21]

For both Russia and China's cases, if holding it together is such a challenge maybe we should re-think if "holding it together" is a good thing.

Well, I'm sure to those respective states, they probably think preserving it is an existential issue.

(P.S. The same applies to India and Indonesia to a lesser extent)

Sure. India is multicultural, multilingual and multi-religious. It's existence as a nation state has its roots in the British Empire.

In contrast, the United States wins here because there's less ethnic concentration -- they have serious racial issues but the issue is in some sense uniform across the country.

Yes, and that tends to make racial issues more like class issues.

The Commies are responsible for keeping it backwards and/or steering it backwards even worse.

Mao and the Great Leap Forward? Sure. I agree.

You know nuclear (fission) waste is not something that can be easily processed, don't you?

The two main problems with nuclear power are its early use and the early disregard for potential disasters leading to public fear of the technology, and the fossil fuel funded anti-nuclear political movement. The technology is pretty mature and well understood at this point. Breeder reactors can reduce waste of both plutonium and actinides considerably. That's why having such a stupid populace and stupid mass media is such a sad thing for humanity.

[QatzelOk]

Putin knows what he's talking about

Yes, he does. He inherited a similar situation from previous Russian "false Dmitris" like Yeltsin.

And he is quite aware of the social harm that income inequality and Upper Class thieving can have on a country, and on the world.

That his own nation is experiencing some of the same things actually makes him an authority in what he is describing, much like Jean-Jacques Rousseau was an authority on European Social neuroses and decadence (he exhibited these kinds of behaviors himself but knew they were a sign of sickness).

[Rugoz]

lol, western propaganda farm as a source...I'm getting deja vu....

Dumb comparison.

That his own nation is experiencing some of the same things actually makes him an authority in what he is describing, much like Jean-Jacques Rousseau was an authority on European Social neuroses and decadence (he exhibited these kinds of behaviors himself but knew they were a sign of sickness).

How can you write something like that and not realize how stupid it is?

[QatzelOk]

How can you write something like that and not realize how stupid it is?

When it's time to change something, the "problem" is often part of your own make-up as well.

Saying "I have head lice, therefore head lice are good to have" is what is brainless.

Vladimir Putin is very familiar with the harm that unequal income and a lying dictatorship can bring. So his words carry weight.

In much the same way, a person with head lice can talk about how nasty it is to have them.

(Do you get this yet?)

[Rugoz]

When it's time to change something, the "problem" is often part of your own make-up as well.

Saying "I have head lice, therefore head lice are good to have" is what is brainless.

Vladimir Putin is very familiar with the harm that unequal income and a lying dictatorship can bring. So his words carry weight.

In much the same way, a person with head lice can talk about how nasty it is to have them.

(Do you get this yet?)

Yes and I suppose Stalin is an expert on Gulags, hence we should listen to what Stalin has to say about them. Truly an enlightening perspective.

[Patrickov]

In much the same way, a person with head lice can talk about how nasty it is to have them.

That's a very good argument: "Taking the words rather than the person"

Admittedly, it's not something that can be easily listened, and the effectiveness of invoking this heavily depends on the usual trait of the speaker in concern, which is the reason why "only a Nixon could go to China".

[QatzelOk]

That's a very good argument: "Taking the words rather than the person"

Ibn Khaldun figured this out in the 14th Century. He made a list of "errors in thinking" that result in loyalty to one tribe or ruling elite. Two of these "errors of thought" include:

1. Partisanship towards a creed or opinion.

2. Over-confidence in one's sources..

In order to "think," one has to set aside ones loyalties to money, normality, social recognition, etc. because these are all examples of "the exalted sources that can do no wrong."

In the 14th Century, people listened to hear "what they had always heard before" from guest speakers, and they evaluated the reputation of the speaker more than his words. Loyalty to creeds and opinions lead to stagnation, and social collapse.

Yes and I suppose Stalin is an expert on Gulags, hence we should listen to what Stalin has to say about them. Truly an enlightening perspective.

Here, Rugoz does exactly what Ibn Khaldun cautioned against. Because Putin is Russian, he "belongs" in the same outside world as Stalin, and thus shouldn't be listened to. Reputation and loyalty to creed are all that Rugoz can identify in the words that were delivered.

(This isn't rally a problem as long as Rugoz limits himself to 13th Century technologies)

[Rugoz]

Here, Rugoz does exactly what Ibn Khaldun cautioned against. Because Putin is Russian, he "belongs" in the same outside world as Stalin, and thus shouldn't be listened to. Reputation and loyalty to creed are all that Rugoz can identify in the words that were delivered.

(This isn't rally a problem as long as Rugoz limits himself to 13th Century technologies)

Oh dear.

Putin is responsible for the economic situation in Russia. His lamentations about inequality in the West are hypocritical as fuck, since he literally rules over the country with the highest wealth inequality on this planet*. During his 2-decade long rule inequality increased dramatically.

Rousseau wasn't the freaking president of France.

*In all fairness, wealth inequality decreased somewhat since 2016. It's not the most unequal anymore.

[QatzelOk]

Putin is responsible for the economic situation in Russia.
...hypocritical as fuck
...he literally rules over the country with the highest wealth inequality on this planet*.
...During his 2-decade long rule inequality increased dramatically.
...Rousseau wasn't the freaking president of France.

These are all *descriptions of the speakers of words*, with no comment from you on *the words themselves.*

This means that if someone wants to manipulate you, they just need to have "a good reputation," which can be manufactured using mass media.

And it means that your mind is closed from the ideas that mass media brands as "unworthy of your ears."

Your leash is too tight for complex ideas to frolic.

[Rugoz]

These are all *descriptions of the speakers of words*, with no comment from you on *the words themselves.*

This means that if someone wants to manipulate you, they just need to have "a good reputation," which can be manufactured using mass media.

And it means that your mind is closed from the ideas that mass media brands as "unworthy of your ears."

Your leash is too tight for complex ideas to frolic.

If you think the annual Credit Suisse Wealth Report is untrustworthy and rigged against your beloved authoritarian assholes, just say so and spare us your pretentious garbage.

[Rancid]

If you think the annual Credit Suisse Wealth Report is untrustworthy and rigged against your beloved authoritarian assholes, just say so and spare us your pretentious garbage.

Yes, he does. Remember he's Qatz.... He's nuts.