Putin´s ally Chechnya strongman Kadyrov wins 99,7 percent of vote. Moscow has to be stopped!!! - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15191220
Putin´s ally Chechnya strongman Kadyrov wins 99,7 percent of vote

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.daily-sun.com/post/577702/Chechnya-strongman-Kadyrov-wins-99-percent-of-vote[/URL]
How Putin Built a Ragtag Empire of Tyrants and Failing States

[URL unfurl="true"]https://time.com/5564173/how-putin-built-russian-empire/[/URL]


Moscow has to be stopped! We liberal order has to act , like we did to Stalinism- Marxism , IS, National - socialism , Fascism, etc,
#15191228
litwin wrote:Putin´s ally Chechnya strongman Kadyrov wins 99,7 percent of vote

"The bad news is that 0.3% of the electorate voted against us. The good news is that we have their names and addresses!" :excited:
#15191233
Potemkin wrote:"The bad news is that 0.3% of the electorate voted against us. The good news is that we have their names and addresses!" :excited:

The good news - Siberians want independence back !
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=181010
#15191236
@litwin

It is a bit more complicated then that. And it is mostly Khabarovsk. Also that banner is misleading because what it means is that they want their governer back that was illegaly arrested. So the self-rule slogan is that they kinda want their local governer back and not some Moscow stoodge.

@Potemkin

There is a technical name for these kidna region in Russia. They are called "Electoral sultanates" and mostly European Southern part of Russia fall under it like Krasnodar, Dagestan and Chechnya and so on. There are also several near the Urals but mostly it is Southern Russia.
#15191237
JohnRawls wrote:@litwin

It is a bit more complicated then that. And it is mostly Khabarovsk. Also that banner is misleading because what it means is that they want their governer back that was illegaly arrested. So the self-rule slogan is that they kinda want their local governer back and not some Moscow stoodge.

@Potemkin

There is a technical name for these kidna region in Russia. They are called "Electoral sultanates" and mostly European Southern part of Russia fall under it like Krasnodar, Dagestan and Chechnya and so on. There are also several near the Urals but mostly it is Southern Russia.

Khabarovsk? whats about Sakha, Tuva, etc? what do you know about S fight for independence ?
#15191238
litwin wrote:Khabarovsk? whats about Sakha, Tuva, etc? what do you know about S fight for independence ?


Quite a lot actually, had a relative in those regions and the people are not really anti-Russian rule of sorts in Siberian and Far East regions. Most beef people have with Putin and CO in those regions is that they send Moscow idiots to govern there instead of allowing local ones to govern themselves, hence the self-government slogan. Khabarovsk is a very good prime example.

Some regions are very pro-Russian oligarchy even which is super weird. Kamchatka and Chukotka basically worship Abramovich for the stuff he did there while being in charge.
#15191241
JohnRawls wrote:Quite a lot actually, had a relative in those regions and the people are not really anti-Russian rule of sorts in Siberian and Far East regions. Most beef people have with Putin and CO in those regions is that they send Moscow idiots to govern there instead of allowing local ones to govern themselves, hence the self-government slogan. Khabarovsk is a very good prime example.

Some regions are very pro-Russian oligarchy even which is super weird. Kamchatka and Chukotka basically worship Abramovich for the stuff he did there while being in charge.

The Kremlin continues to make mistakes, failing to recognize the most important aspect of regionalism in Siberia and the Russian Far East. It is not ethnically limited but rather encompasses various ethnic and religious groups, economic interests, and almost all political parties—as has been the case in Khabarovsk (Windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com, March 15, 2019, August 24, 2019, December 20, 2019).


Moscow is not alone in failing to recognize the power of regionalism. Like the Russian authorities, most Western analysts have overlearned the events of 1991 and continue to assume that nationalism, not regionalism, is the only real threat worth tracking. To be sure, nationalism does remain strong in the North Caucasus, Middle Volga and among the peoples of the High North, but regionalism is already more intense and, thus, will likely play a key role in the future of the Russian Federation (Svobodnaya Pressa, June 10, 2010; Rusplt.ru, June 4, 2016; Windowoneurasia.blogspot.com, September 25, 2007, June 11, 2010, June 11, 2016). As the demonstrations in the streets of Khabarovsk show, regionalism may replace the role of nationalism in the next Russian revolution (Region.expert, December 28, 2016).
https://jamestown.org/program/siberian- ... to-moscow/
#15191242
litwin wrote:The Kremlin continues to make mistakes, failing to recognize the most important aspect of regionalism in Siberia and the Russian Far East. It is not ethnically limited but rather encompasses various ethnic and religious groups, economic interests, and almost all political parties—as has been the case in Khabarovsk (Windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com, March 15, 2019, August 24, 2019, December 20, 2019).


Moscow is not alone in failing to recognize the power of regionalism. Like the Russian authorities, most Western analysts have overlearned the events of 1991 and continue to assume that nationalism, not regionalism, is the only real threat worth tracking. To be sure, nationalism does remain strong in the North Caucasus, Middle Volga and among the peoples of the High North, but regionalism is already more intense and, thus, will likely play a key role in the future of the Russian Federation (Svobodnaya Pressa, June 10, 2010; Rusplt.ru, June 4, 2016; Windowoneurasia.blogspot.com, September 25, 2007, June 11, 2010, June 11, 2016). As the demonstrations in the streets of Khabarovsk show, regionalism may replace the role of nationalism in the next Russian revolution (Region.expert, December 28, 2016).
https://jamestown.org/program/siberian- ... to-moscow/


You are correct at saying that Putin and CO do not recognise regionalism in sense that they send their own loyal governors. Nationalism is almost non-existent since most of the population are Russian or consider themselves Russian long ago even if they are classified as some cultural group. Siberia and Far East has been historically very unhospitable region so majority of the people are clustered in small cities of sorts who are falling apart nowadays but majority basically assimilated because of this. They blame the central power for monopolizing the profits from natural resources due to taxation centralisation and also obviously the governers sent from Moscow for that.
#15191243
litwin wrote:Moscow has to be stopped! We liberal order has to act , like we did to Stalinism- Marxism , IS, National - socialism , Fascism, etc,

Stalin's Soviet Union did almost all the heavy lifting against the Nazis, my dear. Without Moscow, your country would be nothing more than Lebensraum for a Greater German Reich.
Last edited by Heisenberg on 20 Sep 2021 14:34, edited 1 time in total.
#15191244
Heisenberg wrote:Stalin's Soviet Union did almost all the heavy lifting against the Nazis, my dear. ;)


Stalin was as evil in the pure sense of the word as Hitler. His policies killed a lot of people but perhaps not as much as Hitlers. You just somehow are okay with Stalins reasoning for killing people and not okay with Hitlers. This is very disturbing.
#15191246
JohnRawls wrote:Stalin was as evil in the pure sense of the word as Hitler. His policies killed a lot of people but perhaps not as much as Hitlers. You just somehow are okay with Stalins reasoning for killing people and not okay with Hitlers. This is very disturbing.

Stalin didn't kill anyone. His shining moral example simply caused many class traitors to realise that they couldn't bear to live any more. :excited:
#15191250
Rancid wrote:There is a theory (supposedly backed by data), the the more lopsided a rigged election appears (like 100% of the vote versus say 80%), the more in fear the current authoritarian dick faces are scared of losing their power.

Sounds about right. Didn't Saddam Hussein win an election with more than 100% of the vote just before the Iraq War? :lol:
#15191251
Heisenberg wrote:Stalin didn't kill anyone. His shining moral example simply caused many class traitors to realise that they couldn't bear to live any more. :excited:


In a sense you are correct. I would advise to read Stephen Kotkins books on Stalin to understand the situation and why he is a monster and much more than that. For example, the Xolodomor was expected by most of the USSR leadership and nobody wanted to start it due to being afraid that it might not destroy the markets fully or might destabilize the country. Stalin had other ideas on the matter and actually succeeded in destroying the markets in the villages and so on by killing millions of people, well starving them to death. The funny thing is that perhaps that is his greatest achievement in the eyes of true communist believers, he did something that nobody believed is possible.
#15191257
@JohnRawls To be serious for a second, Churchill and the British Empire caused an equally deadly famine in India just 10 years after the Holodomor, and almost no one in the western world even knows, let alone cares.

When asked what he planned to do to alleviate the famine, Churchill said simply that he hated Indians and the famine was their own fault for "breeding like rabbits". If that isn't enough for people to consider Churchill a world-historic figure of evil, why should a different standard apply to the Gentle Father of Nations and Gardener of Human Happiness? :)
#15191260
Heisenberg wrote:@JohnRawls To be serious for a second, Churchill and the British Empire caused an equally deadly famine in India just 10 years after the Holodomor, and almost no one in the western world even knows, let alone cares.

When asked what he planned to do to alleviate the famine, Churchill said simply that he hated Indians and the famine was their own fault for "breeding like rabbits". If that isn't enough for people to consider Churchill a world-historic figure of evil, why should a different standard apply to the Gentle Father of Nations and Gardener of Human Happiness? :)


This is what aboutism. I am not that educated about the Indian famine that you are talking about but what I can tell you about Xolodomor is that it was intentional and affected all of the USSR. The higher leadership knew exactly what will happen and Stalin proceeded anyways since he viewed it as the only way to destroy the market economy in the villages while industrializing the country to some degree at the same time. Industrialization wasn't even the main goal.
#15191268
JohnRawls wrote:This is what aboutism.

:roll: I don't care. "Whataboutism" is one of the stupidest terms ever coined in political discussion. It was invented by the Americans purely so they could avoid annoying questions about their appalling treatment of black people.

JohnRawls wrote: I am not that educated about the Indian famine that you are talking about but what I can tell you about Xolodomor is that it was intentional and affected all of the USSR.

Whether Holodomor was intentional is not a settled question. It was certainly a man-made famine, but that isn't the same thing.

My point is that the Bengal famine of 1943 was also a man-made famine, exacerbated by the incompetence and callousness of the colonial government, and it had a similar death toll (around three million). And Churchill's attitude towards it was basically that it was a good thing because the Indians were "a beastly people with a beastly religion".

But - and this is the important point! - in the western imagination, Churchill's wartime leadership outweighs the famine. All I'm saying is the same is true of Stalin's wartime leadership (which was actually far more important than Churchill's in defeating the Nazis) and the Holodomor. If you want to say Stalin was evil in an absolute sense for Holodomor, the same has to apply to Churchill over the Bengal famine. It isn't "whataboutism" to say so. :|
#15191271
Heisenberg wrote::roll: I don't care. "Whataboutism" is one of the stupidest terms ever coined in political discussion. It was invented by the Americans purely so they could avoid annoying questions about their appalling treatment of black people.


Whether Holodomor was intentional is not a settled question. It was certainly a man-made famine, but that isn't the same thing.

My point is that the Bengal famine of 1943 was also a man-made famine, exacerbated by the incompetence and callousness of the colonial government, and it had a similar death toll (around three million). And Churchill's attitude towards it was basically that it was a good thing because the Indians were "a beastly people with a beastly religion".

But - and this is the important point! - in the western imagination, Churchill's wartime leadership outweighs the famine. All I'm saying is the same is true of Stalin's wartime leadership (which was actually far more important than Churchill's in defeating the Nazis) and the Holodomor. If you want to say Stalin was evil in an absolute sense for Holodomor, the same has to apply to Churchill over the Bengal famine. It isn't "whataboutism" to say so. :|


Xolodomor was intentional and everybody knew what was going to happen. Read Stephen Kotkins books and this is not just his opinion but direct quotes from stenograms of the politbureu and other meetings held by Stalin and others stored in the KGB/FSB archives.
#15191282
JohnRawls wrote:You are correct at saying that Putin and CO do not recognise regionalism in sense that they send their own loyal governors. Nationalism is almost non-existent since most of the population are Russian or consider themselves Russian long ago even if they are classified as some cultural group. Siberia and Far East has been historically very unhospitable region so majority of the people are clustered in small cities of sorts who are falling apart nowadays but majority basically assimilated because of this. They blame the central power for monopolizing the profits from natural resources due to taxation centralisation and also obviously the governers sent from Moscow for that.

occupied Siberian states hate Moscow and even the czar can´t challenge anti - Moscow narrative of Siberians


#15191284
JohnRawls wrote:This is what aboutism. I am not that educated about the Indian famine that you are talking about but what I can tell you about Xolodomor is that it was intentional and affected all of the USSR. The higher leadership knew exactly what will happen and Stalin proceeded anyways since he viewed it as the only way to destroy the market economy in the villages while industrializing the country to some degree at the same time. Industrialization wasn't even the main goal.

a bunch of Moscow lies, "affected all of the USSR." why mortality rate was so high in Ukraine ?

Most of the planet is warming, glaciers are meltin[…]

I loved Starkey's 'Monarchy' series which I cannot[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

Well now I'm never getting vaccinated for the mem[…]

I repeat: I just got through identifying the re[…]