[Rancid]

@Rich is all over the place. He often his very relevant, insightful, and interesting points. Other times, he's so off base that it appears like maybe his account was hacked by a complete nut job.

What is going on between these moments of wonderful lucidity and astonishing lunacy?

[Rugoz]

@Rich is all over the place. He often his very relevant, insightful, and interesting points. Other times, he's so off base that it appears like maybe his account was hacked by a complete nut job.

What is going on between these moments of wonderful lucidity and astonishing lunacy?

Enfant terrible.

[Rich]

Let us examine this remarkable statement by DeLee again.

All of this misery is ALL Russia's fault. Every citizen who is not in revolt is responsible. There are no innocent Russians. The losses they are taken were bought and paid for with cowardice and apathy.

He states there are no innocent Russians. Really not one? Is there not a single Russian who has done enough to satisfy Drlee's demand for action? Is there not some lower age limit below which Russians are absolved of responsibility? Are Russian five year olds not absolved for responsibility for these actions?

If you ask me are a large percentage of Russians complicit in actions that I consider wrong or bad? My answer is yes. Are a large percentage of Russians biased, bigoted and engaged in nationalist narcissism? Again my answer is undoubtedly yes. Where there seems to be such a guilt between my self and DrLee is that I find such facts utterly unremarkable. What percentage of the world population really try to hold their governments to account? What percentage of the world's population make any kind of concerted effort to follow foreign policy and thoroughly investigate and read up on the history and background to current events let alone enter into open rebellion.

@Rich is all over the place.

Its not me that's all over the place, its the political mainstream. After 9/11 people fell over themselves to excuse Muslims. After 9/11 people fell over themselves in denying that Muslims had any responsibility for anything bad what so ever? The so called terrorist groups - not responsible. The lack of democracy in Muslim countries not responsible? The appalling state of human rights in Muslim countries - not responsible. The terrible economic record of so many Muslim countries again Muslims bore no responsibility what so ever? How dare anyone insult Muslims? Yet Russians must engage in open rebellion. 50% of Americans don't even bother to vote? No don't try and blame me for your inconsistency.

Why this incredible difference in the response to Muslims and the response to Russians? God forbid that anyone should refer to Muslims as orcs. Can you imagine it the Liberals would be apoplectic. The difference is westerners are not afraid of the Russians. People might be afraid of the Russian regime and its nuclear weapons, but they are not afraid of Russians. Our leaders and public figures on the other hand are very afraid of Muslims and with good reason. A public figure in the West insults Muslims and Islam at his peril. So we dress up our cowardice as tolerance and anyone who points out this cowardice is denounced as a White supremacist and a Nazi.

[Rancid]

Where's @Igor Antunov?

[Drlee]

Where's @Igor Antunov?

Some mosque somewhere.

[JohnRawls]

All of this misery is ALL Russia's fault. Every citizen who is not in revolt is responsible. There are no innocent Russians. The losses they are taken were bought and paid for with cowardice and apathy.

As much as I want to say that you are right but the logical side of me says it is Eu/US narcissism indeed. It is easy to say that people can change things from EU or US since we really can change things but for Russia, it is more problematic like in any other hardcore totalitarian regime. At the end of the day, what are you against tanks, soldiers and cannons without your own?

You might say that come on, he can't kill everyone but reality is that people just won't risk charging machine guns and tanks, this never really properly worked in modern history and hence we have places like Venezuela, North Korea and now Russia. Utter shitholes that decimate the wellbeing of their populations but the dictators are still in power. The reason is kinda simple, you don't need 100% support, you don't even need 50%. 20-30% will do as long as you have all the weapons. And sadly this is the case for all 3 of those countries. A minority which is armed to the teeth and controls all institutions is holding power. As long as Putin has belief from those 20-30% then his rule is now totalitarian but is not going to go away. The only way they will reconsider is 1) Things get really bad economically 2) Putin runs out of money 3) He stops serving their interest which is unlikely since straight up bribery usually works.

[litwin]

Where's @Igor Antunov?

[Rugoz]

You might say that come on, he can't kill everyone but reality is that people just won't risk charging machine guns and tanks, this never really properly worked in modern history and hence we have places like Venezuela, North Korea and now Russia.

Somebody has to order to shoot civilians and somebody has to execute that order. In reality that's more difficult than it sounds.

Putin's regime never had do anything of the sort, at least not at the center of its power.

I think it lacks the ideological cohesion to successfully put down mass protests in that manner.

The color revolutions in Ukraine/Georgia are therefore a very scary prospect for Putin. Months of mass protests could probably bring him down.

[JohnRawls]

Somebody has to order to shoot civilians and somebody has to execute that order. In reality that's more difficult than it sounds.

Putin's regime never had do anything of the sort, at least not at the center of its power.

I think it lacks the ideological cohesion to successfully put down mass protests in that manner.

The color revolutions in Ukraine/Georgia are therefore a very scary prospect for Putin. Months of mass protests could probably bring him down.

Your assuming Putin has no support whatsoever. His support is around 20-30% percent. That is more than enough to crush any opposition with violence and weapons if the other side has none and Putins side has all of it. One sides leadership is in jail or prosecutod and the other sides leadership is in charge of all institutions within the country.

[Rich]

The color revolutions in Ukraine/Georgia are therefore a very scary prospect for Putin. Months of mass protests could probably bring him down.

The Colour Revolutions were nationalist revolutions. I thought your problem with Putin was that he was too Nationalist not that he was not nationalist enough. Putin is Russia's Colour Revolution. As Ukraine's Orange revolution and Maidan revived the vision of Bandera, so Putin's internal revolution revived the vision of Kolchak and Denikin.

Nicholas II was not a Russian nationalist he was a an absolutist monarchist.
Lenin was not a Russian nationalist, He loathed Russianess.
Stalin was not a Russian nationalist he was a Georgian
Beria was not a Russian nationalist he was a Georgian
Khrushchev was not a Russian nationalist he gave away Crimea.
Brezhnev was not a Russian nationalist, he was a defender of Soviet Orthodoxy
Same for Andropov and Chernenko
Gorbachev was not a Russian nationalist he was a Euro Communist
Yeltsin was an alcoholic

The United States had its colour revolution in 1775. Americans, or at least Yankees have had a long, long time, a lot of opportunities to get bored of winning. In fact many Americans have long gone beyond the bored of winning stage. They hate winning. Many Americans loath American nationalism. The fact that there's no Russian equivalents to the Cuban Solidarity campaign or Black Lives matter, there's no movement in Russia demanding reparations for Kazakhs there's no Russian Elizabeth Warren trumpeting her phony Siberian tribal heritage shouldn't surprise us.

[Rancid]

Maybe Russia needs to finally address it's own politics.

[Rugoz]

The Colour Revolutions were nationalist revolutions.

Like every revolution in the past 200 years?

I thought your problem with Putin was that he was too Nationalist not that he was not nationalist enough.

Why would you think that? Nationalism doesn't imply annexing neighboring countries. Putin's ethnic nationalism, a particular variant of nationalism, is mostly fake anyway. All the charade about Russian-speaking people being oppressed in neighboring ex-Soviet countries, it's merely a propaganda tool for him. He invaded Ukraine because he thought it would bring him a popularity boost and would allow Russia to increase its de facto territory and sphere of influence. Good old imperialism.

Putin is Russia's Colour Revolution. As Ukraine's Orange revolution and Maidan revived the vision of Bandera, so Putin's internal revolution revived the vision of Kolchak and Denikin.

Putin was appointed by Jelzin. Silly.

[Potemkin]

Putin was appointed by Jelzin. Silly.

Indeed he was, but once he was safely ensconced in power, he took the opportunity to launch a revolution from above, which revived Russian nationalism and restored a quasi-Tsarist absolutist system. The Soviet-era “brotherhood of republics” is now a thing of the past. Which is why the non-Russian republics are currently drawing away from Putin’s Russia.

[Rugoz]

Your assuming Putin has no support whatsoever. His support is around 20-30% percent. That is more than enough to crush any opposition with violence and weapons if the other side has none and Putins side has all of it. One sides leadership is in jail or prosecutod and the other sides leadership is in charge of all institutions within the country.

But the support is not based on ideological alignment. If a new regime offers similar material benefits, they might not be willing to kill people for the old regime, which comes with its own risks. What if the revolution succeeds and they're being prosecuted for their crimes? I mean sure, the top 100 in the regime are probaby fucked anyway, but the rest might be better off doing nothing or delay orders or stay home sick.

[ingliz]

if the revolution succeeds

What revolution?

[MadMonk]

What revolution?

None so far but if this war goes against Russia, if heaven forbid Crimea is lost (!), Putin will not survive that. Someone close to him will sense the shifting winds and turn on him to save himself, and after that all bets are off. I read today that Russia has spent a quarter of its entire state budget on this war in 2022. Every month is 10 billion $ down the drain. The Americans squandered that much in an afternoon in their misguided foreign 'adventures' in Afghanistan and Iraq yet their government still stands. Russia's might not.

[Rancid]

If Melitipol goes for Russia. Crimea will next.

[litwin]

If Melitipol goes for Russia. Crimea will next.

+1

Ukrainian sniper shoots group of putin´s pigs (occupiers) down but spares rabbit with marksmen skill

It wasnt a sniper killing putin´s pigs , it was a "Special Rabbit Rescue Operation"

 - Volodymyr Zelenskyi

[litwin]

Good on him. That rabbit is far more valuable

[Rugoz]

Indeed he was, but once he was safely ensconced in power, he took the opportunity to launch a revolution from above, which revived Russian nationalism and restored a quasi-Tsarist absolutist system. The Soviet-era “brotherhood of republics” is now a thing of the past. Which is why the non-Russian republics are currently drawing away from Putin’s Russia.

The "brotherhood of republics" was never a thing. The SU crushed uprisings in those republics throughout its entire history.

Russian chauvinism was always a thing though.

Silly Stalinist.