[annatar1914]

My understanding is that they actually had a free election in November, 2017. Lenin and the Bolsheviks lost badly (25% of votes), but they refused to accept the results. Lenin subsequently became USSR’s first dictator.

I was saying that if Putin does a full-scale military occupation of the whole country, there will surely be a counter-insurgency like we had in Iraq and both Russia and U.S. had in Afghanistan for many years.

The Spainish civil war was a civil war, not the military of one country against another. I know that you don’t see Ukraine as a nation with a nationalistic identity, but they do. Nearly all the men in Ukraine fighting this war were never USSR citizens. In the long run (years), Russia could end up leaving Ukraine as Russia and U.S. finally did in Afghanistan. In that case, some radical-right party could emerge in Ukraine.

@Verv , and @Potemkin :

@Hakeer :

No, the Bolsheviks had a plurality of the vote ( this was after the revolution had occurred) and the SR Party had most of the rest, it wasn't a poor showing really all things considered. After the election the Socialist Revolutionary Party split into two factions, Right and Left, and the Left SR people joined the Bolsheviks because they were essentially identical. Lenin wasn't a dictator: authoritarian and illiberal but certainly not undemocratic.

I know that seems hard to understand, I do. But " democracy" simply isn't possible under the heel of the Money Power of private wealth and power , and the exigencies of the time require the ability to not allow that same Power the means of returning to it's former position in a society.

Afghanistan and the other examples you made, are examples of countries the United States destroyed and then tried to rebuild to suit certain interests.

The Ukraine is a region of a country that seceded from it, not another nation, and has been in the process of destroying itself. Many in the Ukraine (mainly in the Eastern Ukraine)do not support the Kiev regime or the Bandera, many more follow the strongest at the moment out of fear and self interest, while a few, in Western Ukraine mainly are totally "nationalist". That is, fascist lunatics.

Much like with the " Anaconda strategy" of the American Civil War, the Russian General Staff believes that it will take longer doing things this way, but the end will be forever: there will be no Ukrainian Nationalism just as for most of history, and there will be no new Confederacy rise again from the American South. Gone and best forgotten.

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , @Verv , and @Godstud and @Hakeer :

9-11-01 stays with me as a world historical experience even 23 years later, like it was yesterday.

Some are burdened with not knowing things, others are burdened precisely because they do understand things. I knew long before that date where things were headed.

Today is the fast day of the commemoration of the beheading of the Prophet, Forerunner of Christ and Baptist St John. Official Orthodoxy commemorates those Orthodox Christian soldiers fallen in battle for the faith....

I read as much as I can, to aid me in discernment spiritually. Some quotes from the Koran:

Qur’an 98:4-6: “Nor were the people of the book divided until after the clear proof came to them. And they are not ordered to do anything else but serve Allah, keeping religion pure for him, as hanifs, and to establish prayer and to give alms. That is true religion. Indeed, the unbelievers among the people of the book and the idolaters will remain in the fire of Gehenna. They are the most vile of created beings.”

Qur’an 5:14: “And with those who say: Indeed, we are Christians, we made a covenant, but they forgot a part of what they were reminded about. Therefore we have stirred up enmity and hatred among them until the day of resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their handiwork.”

Qur’an 5:17: “They indeed have disbelieved who say, Indeed, Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say, Who then can do anything against Allah, if he had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He creates what he wills. And Allah is able to do all things.”

Qur’an 4:157: “And because of their saying, We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of Allah, they did not kill him nor crucify him, but it seemed so to them, and indeed, those who disagree about this are in doubt about it, they have no knowledge of it except pursuit of a supposition, they did not kill him for certain.

Qur’an 4:171: “O people of the book, do not exaggerate in your religion or say anything about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and his word that he conveyed to Mary, and a spirit from him. So believe in Allah and his messengers, and do not say Three, Stop, it is better for you. Allah is only one God. It is far removed from his transcendent majesty that he should have a son. Everything that is in the heavens and everything that is on the earth is his. And Allah is sufficient as defender.”

Qur’an 5:116: “And when Allah said, O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to mankind, Take me and my mother as two gods besides Allah? He said, Be glorified. It was not for me to say what I had no right to say. If I said it, then you know it. You know what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in your mind. Indeed, you, only you, are the knower of hidden things.”

Qur’an 19:35: “It is not fitting for Allah that he should take to himself a son. Glory be to him, when he decrees a thing, he says to it only, Be, and it is.”

Qur’an 9:30-31: “And the Jews say, Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say, The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the statements of those who disbelieved before. May Allah curse them. How perverse they are. They have taken as lords besides Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah, the son of Mary, when they were called to worship only one God. There is no God except him. May he be glorified from all that they ascribe as partners.”

Qur’an 9:29: “Fight against those do not believe in Allah or the last day, and do not forbid what Allah and his messenger have forbidden, and do not follow the religion of truth, even if they are among the people of the book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”

Some people want to see two current conflicts as one conflict, and while I think that will eventually be quite true, I don't believe that present alliances will be the same further on as the future world war develops, the alliances that people imagine them to be.

History shows that this is often the case.

I am by no means defending or supporting Zionism on the other end of the issue in the Middle East either, but like Pilate " I have written what I have written"....

Since this too is the Dialectic at work, I shall proceed with the next few posts with illustration of how it shall happen that the BRICS framework is actually the next stage of international finance Capitalism, and that essentially it shall merge with the Muslim nations, and the West as well.

Patterns. Even single data points like Napoleon being a Muslim as I've mentioned before:

And the origins of Nazism:

Hitler's admiration for Islam is well documented. More no doubt he could not practically say

And well, the strange links between Hitler and Napoleon:

Edit:

Still, as my friend @Potemkin reminds me from time to time, it's not where things and people begin, but where they are headed, that is more important.

[Hakeer]

@Verv , and @Potemkin :

@Hakeer :

No, the Bolsheviks had a plurality of the vote ( this was after the revolution had occurred) and the SR Party had most of the rest, it wasn't a poor showing really all things considered. After the election the Socialist Revolutionary Party split into two factions, Right and Left, and the Left SR people joined the Bolsheviks because they were essentially identical. Lenin wasn't a dictator: authoritarian and illiberal but certainly not undemocratic.

I know that seems hard to understand, I do. But " democracy" simply isn't possible under the heel of the Money Power of private wealth and power , and the exigencies of the time require the ability to not allow that same Power the means of returning to it's former position in a society.

Afghanistan and the other examples you made, are examples of countries the United States destroyed and then tried to rebuild to suit certain interests.

The Ukraine is a region of a country that seceded from it, not another nation, and has been in the process of destroying itself. Many in the Ukraine (mainly in the Eastern Ukraine)do not support the Kiev regime or the Bandera, many more follow the strongest at the moment out of fear and self interest, while a few, in Western Ukraine mainly are totally "nationalist". That is, fascist lunatics.

Much like with the " Anaconda strategy" of the American Civil War, the Russian General Staff believes that it will take longer doing things this way, but the end will be forever: there will be no Ukrainian Nationalism just as for most of history, and there will be no new Confederacy rise again from the American South. Gone and best forgotten.

“ the Socialist-Revolutionary party topped the polls, winning a plurality of seats (no party won a majority) on the strength of support from the country's rural peasantry, who were for the most part one-issue voters, that issue being land reform.[1]
The elections did not produce a democratically-elected government, as the Bolsheviks subsequently disbanded the Constituent Assembly and proceeded to rule the country as a one-party state with all opposition parties banned.[3][4][5]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Russ ... y_election
I have also read that in 2018, the Bolsheviks killed many of their political opponents who opposed their one-party rule. That is not democracy. It is classic dictatorship.


I may have a slightly different definition of democracy than you. By my definition, the United States is a functioning constitutional democracy and the USSR never was. Minimal conditions for democracy includes:
*Free and fair elections.
*More than one political party with enough popular support to win elections.
*Opposing policies between the parties that are of significant relevance to the political issues people care strongly about.
* Peaceful transition of power.
* Rule of law.

There are practical conditions that must also exist to make these things possible, but this is my basic outline.

Notice I said we have democracy. I didn’t say it is perfect. To your point, money is needed to win elections, but it doesn’t decide elections. The side that spends the most money on a candidate or a bill in Congress, or a referendum on an issue does not always prevail. The Republican party is the party of Money Power, and they fight like hell against some of the most expensive programs in our federal budget that mostly benefit poor people, sick people, and old people. They call them “entitlements” (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and, more recently, Obamacare). They only want to give trillions in tax cuts to billionaires. Republicans are formidable opponents, but they can be beaten and have been many times.
There are a number of laws, legislative procedures, gerrymandering Congressional districts, the allocation of Senate seats, the damn electoral college, campaign finance (Citizens United), and more I could list that make our democracy imperfect. But I prefer to work democratically to change and improve them, rather than become cynical and fatalistic.


I have to ask, “What do you think the average Ukrainian thinks about Russia and Russians today?” They are a nation with nationalistic spirit that is inspiring them to fight so bravely against Russia. At the beginning of the war Putin underestimated their resolve. We had the same thing in Iraq, and the Bushies predicted “We will be welcomed as liberators.” Russia experienced counter-insurgency in Afghanistan just as we did. That should be expected. It defeated the strongest military in the world three times – Vietman, Iraq, Afghanistan. If Putin does a full-scale military occupation of Ukraine, it will happen. Lesson learned.

This article suggests other reasons why Ukraine has moved in ways contrary to Russia…

“In Russia’s ideological fog, only one label has real staying power: fascist. In the Russian context, the word conjures the armies that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler sent to invade the Soviet Union and has taken on the meaning of a monstrous enemy hellbent on annihilation. That’s why many Russians barely noticed as Putin’s Russia became more and more fascistic because Russians, by definition, could not be fascists—only their worst adversaries could.
The Kremlin’s branding of Ukrainians as fascists sounds absurd to Westerners because it so blatantly contradicts reality: The Ukrainian far right consistently performs much worse electorally than nationalists in established European democracies; Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a Jew whose family suffered in—and resisted—the Nazi invasion of Soviet Ukraine; and, perhaps most significantly, Ukraine holds regular, competitive elections with often unpredictable outcomes. But Putin’s use of the word “neo-Nazi” for Ukrainians is intended for a domestic audience that understands its Soviet context. Ukrainians are one people with Russians, according to Putin, except for the “traitors” who are turning Ukraine into an “anti-Russia.”
Ukraine is, in fact, losing any resemblance to Russia. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, Russia and Ukraine remained closely bound through family ties and friendships as well as supply chains and pipelines. But even as older Ukrainians could look back on a common Soviet past with Russia, a new generation began to see Ukraine’s future as a European democracy. The country’s strong regional centers and competing oligarchs prevented the rise of an omnipotent ruler as in Russia. In comparison to Russians, Ukrainians were poor but free. The Kremlin had no problem with Ukraine being a nominally independent country as long as its government could be bought with cheap energy. But when a Kremlin-backed president fled anti-government protests in Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, in 2014, Putin started seizing territory to stop Ukraine from slipping out of his control. The violence he unleashed on the country made Ukrainians turn against Russia and view NATO as a potential protector.
Ukraine’s success as a democracy is a danger to Putin’s regime because of the example it sets for Russians. Independent Ukraine started in a very similar place as Russia and has struggled with many of the same challenges: widespread corruption, an archaic judicial system, and overbearing security services. What has distinguished Ukraine from Russia is the development of a strong civil society, forged during two pro-democracy street revolutions. In their belated process of de-Sovietization, Ukrainians became citizens of their own country, while in Russia, Russians remained subjects of their ruler.”
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/10/30/ru ... -cold-war/

[annatar1914]

“ the Socialist-Revolutionary party topped the polls, winning a plurality of seats (no party won a majority) on the strength of support from the country's rural peasantry, who were for the most part one-issue voters, that issue being land reform.[1]
The elections did not produce a democratically-elected government, as the Bolsheviks subsequently disbanded the Constituent Assembly and proceeded to rule the country as a one-party state with all opposition parties banned.[3][4][5]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Russ ... y_election
I have also read that in 2018, the Bolsheviks killed many of their political opponents who opposed their one-party rule. That is not democracy. It is classic dictatorship.


I may have a slightly different definition of democracy than you. By my definition, the United States is a functioning constitutional democracy and the USSR never was. Minimal conditions for democracy includes:
*Free and fair elections.
*More than one political party with enough popular support to win elections.
*Opposing policies between the parties that are of significant relevance to the political issues people care strongly about.
* Peaceful transition of power.
* Rule of law.

There are practical conditions that must also exist to make these things possible, but this is my basic outline.

Notice I said we have democracy. I didn’t say it is perfect. To your point, money is needed to win elections, but it doesn’t decide elections. The side that spends the most money on a candidate or a bill in Congress, or a referendum on an issue does not always prevail. The Republican party is the party of Money Power, and they fight like hell against some of the most expensive programs in our federal budget that mostly benefit poor people, sick people, and old people. They call them “entitlements” (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and, more recently, Obamacare). They only want to give trillions in tax cuts to billionaires. Republicans are formidable opponents, but they can be beaten and have been many times.
There are a number of laws, legislative procedures, gerrymandering Congressional districts, the allocation of Senate seats, the damn electoral college, campaign finance (Citizens United), and more I could list that make our democracy imperfect. But I prefer to work democratically to change and improve them, rather than become cynical and fatalistic.


I have to ask, “What do you think the average Ukrainian thinks about Russia and Russians today?” They are a nation with nationalistic spirit that is inspiring them to fight so bravely against Russia. At the beginning of the war Putin underestimated their resolve. We had the same thing in Iraq, and the Bushies predicted “We will be welcomed as liberators.” Russia experienced counter-insurgency in Afghanistan just as we did. That should be expected. It defeated the strongest military in the world three times – Vietman, Iraq, Afghanistan. If Putin does a full-scale military occupation of Ukraine, it will happen. Lesson learned.

This article suggests other reasons why Ukraine has moved in ways contrary to Russia…

“In Russia’s ideological fog, only one label has real staying power: fascist. In the Russian context, the word conjures the armies that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler sent to invade the Soviet Union and has taken on the meaning of a monstrous enemy hellbent on annihilation. That’s why many Russians barely noticed as Putin’s Russia became more and more fascistic because Russians, by definition, could not be fascists—only their worst adversaries could.
The Kremlin’s branding of Ukrainians as fascists sounds absurd to Westerners because it so blatantly contradicts reality: The Ukrainian far right consistently performs much worse electorally than nationalists in established European democracies; Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a Jew whose family suffered in—and resisted—the Nazi invasion of Soviet Ukraine; and, perhaps most significantly, Ukraine holds regular, competitive elections with often unpredictable outcomes. But Putin’s use of the word “neo-Nazi” for Ukrainians is intended for a domestic audience that understands its Soviet context. Ukrainians are one people with Russians, according to Putin, except for the “traitors” who are turning Ukraine into an “anti-Russia.”
Ukraine is, in fact, losing any resemblance to Russia. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, Russia and Ukraine remained closely bound through family ties and friendships as well as supply chains and pipelines. But even as older Ukrainians could look back on a common Soviet past with Russia, a new generation began to see Ukraine’s future as a European democracy. The country’s strong regional centers and competing oligarchs prevented the rise of an omnipotent ruler as in Russia. In comparison to Russians, Ukrainians were poor but free. The Kremlin had no problem with Ukraine being a nominally independent country as long as its government could be bought with cheap energy. But when a Kremlin-backed president fled anti-government protests in Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, in 2014, Putin started seizing territory to stop Ukraine from slipping out of his control. The violence he unleashed on the country made Ukrainians turn against Russia and view NATO as a potential protector.
Ukraine’s success as a democracy is a danger to Putin’s regime because of the example it sets for Russians. Independent Ukraine started in a very similar place as Russia and has struggled with many of the same challenges: widespread corruption, an archaic judicial system, and overbearing security services. What has distinguished Ukraine from Russia is the development of a strong civil society, forged during two pro-democracy street revolutions. In their belated process of de-Sovietization, Ukrainians became citizens of their own country, while in Russia, Russians remained subjects of their ruler.”
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/10/30/ru ... -cold-war/

@Hakeer :

Your source is complete Western elites propaganda, total shit. And a complete mischarecterization of the Ukrainian conflict. It's like you didn't read or ignored everything I wrote the past couple pages of the thread, videos and links and all.

" Strongmen?" (But not Zelensky, who has outlasted his constitutional term)

" Ukrainian democracy?" (Except for Orthodox Christians, Socialists, pro-Russians and people who identify as Russian/Soviet).

But it did attack the right target at least: the fear to this day in the West of a new "Soviet Communism 2.0. " hatred, fear, and lies.

A new kind of Soviet and Russian Communism, Orthodox Christian Communism, was born in 1941 after gestating for a generation, and forged in the fires of the Donbass and her working and fighting sons, still fighting the fascists as they and their forefathers have since 1917. From Donbass it will set fire to the world, to heal or to burn away, heal the whole of Russia:

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer :

Your source is complete Western elites propaganda, total shit. And a complete mischarecterization of the Ukrainian conflict. It's like you didn't read or ignored everything I wrote the past couple pages of the thread, videos and links and all.

" Strongmen?" (But not Zelensky, who has outlasted his constitutional term)

" Ukrainian democracy?" (Except for Orthodox Christians, Socialists, pro-Russians and people who identify as Russian/Soviet).

But it did attack the right target at least: the fear to this day in the West of a new "Soviet Communism 2.0. " hatred, fear, and lies.

A new kind of Soviet and Russian Communism, Orthodox Christian Communism, was born in 1941 after gestating for a generation, and forged in the fires of the Donbass and her working and fighting sons, still fighting the fascists as they and their forefathers have since 1917. From Donbass it will set fire to the world, to heal or to burn away, heal the whole of Russia:

You have cited several articles from Wikipedia for me to read. I have read ALL of them, and responded.

But then, when I cite a Wikipedia article for you to read that doesn’t fit your narrative, you dismiss it as Western propaganda….

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_o ... y_election

I wonder whether the Bolsheviks would have disbanded the Constitutional Assembly and banned other political parties, if they won the election.

I watched your Dombas video. I believe Ukraine has some fascist groups active in that area. We have some fascist neo-Nazi in our country, and the white supremacists have flocked to Trump. None of that establishes that the governments of Ukraine or the U.S. are fascist. I also do not doubt that there have been some fascists – you showed me -- in the Ukrainian government and military, or that fascism is a threat in their country, as it is in ours.

There are both legal and practical reasons why Zelensky will be president until the end of the war. You should blame Putin, not Zelensky, for the delay of the next election…
https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/an ... e-extended

Prior to the war, all sorts of Russia-friendly and socialist political parties participated in Ukrainian elections, including Zelensky’s election in 2019 and for years previously.

“On 24 February 2022, Russia launched an invasion into Ukraine. On 6 March, Kyva was charged with high treason after making a number of statements justifying the invasion and blaming it on Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.[111] He had fled to Russia a month prior to the invasion.[112] The SPU was one of several political parties suspended by the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine as a result of the invasion, along with Derzhava, Left Opposition, Nashi, Opposition Bloc, Opposition Platform — For Life, Party of Shariy, Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, Union of Leftists, and the Volodymyr Saldo Bloc.[113]””

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist ... of_Ukraine

Ukraine is a democracy. You can’t accept that.

[annatar1914]

You have cited several articles from Wikipedia for me to read. I have read ALL of them, and responded.

But then, when I cite a Wikipedia article for you to read that doesn’t fit your narrative, you dismiss it as Western propaganda….

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_o ... y_election

I wonder whether the Bolsheviks would have disbanded the Constitutional Assembly and banned other political parties, if they won the election.

I watched your Dombas video. I believe Russia has some fascist groups active in that area. We have some fascist neo-Nazi in our country, and the white supremacists have flocked to Trump. None of that establishes that the governments of Ukraine or the U.S. are fascist. I also do not doubt that there have been some fascists – you showed me -- in the Ukrainian government and military, or that fascism is a threat in their country, as it is in ours.

There are both legal and practical reasons why Zelensky will be president until the end of the war. You should blame Putin, not Zelensky, for the delay of the next election…
https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/an ... e-extended

Prior to the war, all sorts of Russia-friendly and socialist political parties participated in Ukrainian elections, including Zelensky’s election in 2019 and for years previously.

“On 24 February 2022, Russia launched an invasion into Ukraine. On 6 March, Kyva was charged with high treason after making a number of statements justifying the invasion and blaming it on Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.[111] He had fled to Russia a month prior to the invasion.[112] The SPU was one of several political parties suspended by the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine as a result of the invasion, along with Derzhava, Left Opposition, Nashi, Opposition Bloc, Opposition Platform — For Life, Party of Shariy, Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, Union of Leftists, and the Volodymyr Saldo Bloc.[113]””

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist ... of_Ukraine

Ukraine is a democracy. You can’t accept that.

@Hakeer :

What a joke, are you seriously going to say that after posting an article snippet about the Ukraine junta getting rid of the opposition parties? The Ukraine has Democracy like Israel does, or Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa had.

It's not surprising that a regime does this sort of thing, some may even see it as necessary, but the hypocrisy and the gaslighting involved are too much for me.

This is why I prefer that real democracy include workplace democracy, free from the constraints of private capital. Will it happen? It has before, and can do so again, better than before after absorbing new lessons and learning from the times.

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer :

What a joke, are you seriously going to say that after posting an article snippet about the Ukraine junta getting rid of the opposition parties? The Ukraine has Democracy like Israel does, or Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa had.

It's not surprising that a regime does this sort of thing, some may even see it as necessary, but the hypocrisy and the gaslighting involved are too much for me.

This is why I prefer that real democracy include workplace democracy, free from the constraints of private capital. Will it happen? It has before, and can do so again, better than before after absorbing new lessons and learning from the times.

I am not suggesting that Ukraine banning those political parties was necessary or justified. My point, which you may have missed, is that prior to the war, they were all free to participate in elections. Outside observers have studied Ukraine’s elections and concluded that they are overall free and fair.

Your phrase “free from private capital” is just another way of saying you want communism in Ukraine instead of capitalism. Fine. Have whatever political and economic system you want in your own country. Just don’t try to impose it on other countries by military force. As I have said, I am ASHAMED that my country did that in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. I support national self-determination around the globe and oppose military imperialism of all forms — capitalist, communist, Nazi, theocratic, or anything else you can name. That’s my creed as a “dumb fuck liberal”.

[annatar1914]

I am not suggesting that Ukraine banning those political parties was necessary or justified. My point, which you may have missed, is that prior to the war, they were all free to participate in elections. Outside observers have studied Ukraine’s elections and concluded that they are overall free and fair.

Your phrase “free from private capital” is just another way of saying you want communism in Ukraine instead of capitalism. Fine. Have whatever political and economic system you want in your own country. Just don’t try to impose it on other countries by military force. As I have said, I am ASHAMED that my country did that in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. I support national self-determination around the globe and oppose military imperialism of all forms — capitalist, communist, Nazi, theocratic, or anything else you can name. That’s my creed as a “dumb fuck liberal”.

@Hakeer :

It's that " own country" part that is a bone in the Western throat.

Twenty or so foreign countries including the USA intervened after the Russian Revolution, many sent troops to support the White Guard proto fascists against the Red Army.

With a large butchers bill, they were defeated and driven out.

Then the West aided in the rise of Fascism, and did not mind as long as the target was the USSR and it's people.

Again, horrible cost.

Despite that, despite all the foreign meddling and the traitors and the wars, the Soviet Union carried on, at least for a time. But the real example of the new step in world human progress faltered and was all but demolished.

Now the armies (hybrid and otherwise, ngo's and military) of the foreigners are back, and so too the traitorous fascist types.

The West has never followed it's own rhetoric, and tries to put down any revolt of anyone fighting for a better way.

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer :

It's that " own country" part that is a bone in the Western throat.

Twenty or so foreign countries including the USA intervened after the Russian Revolution, many sent troops to support the White Guard proto fascists against the Red Army.

With a large butchers bill, they were defeated and driven out.

Then the West aided in the rise of Fascism, and did not mind as long as the target was the USSR and it's people.

Again, horrible cost.

Despite that, despite all the foreign meddling and the traitors and the wars, the Soviet Union carried on, at least for a time. But the real example of the new step in world human progress faltered and was all but demolished.

Now the armies (hybrid and otherwise, ngo's and military) of the foreigners are back, and so too the traitorous fascist types.

The West has never followed it's own rhetoric, and tries to put down any revolt of anyone fighting for a better way.

I agree with most of that. The USSR also did its share of military interference with other countries in Europe and elsewhere after WW2, but I will be surprised if you ever admit that.

[annatar1914]

I agree with most of that. The USSR also did its share of military interference with other countries in Europe and elsewhere after WW2, but I will be surprised if you ever admit that.

@Hakeer :

Sure, generally in a reactive manner, like with the 1979 occupation of Afghanistan. Afghanistan was becoming a hotbed of Islamic extremism, bankrolled by the CIA as ZBig admitted.

It wasn't a perfect regime. It's anti spiritual and anti religious/anti clerical ways in fact are what doomed it.

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer :

Sure, generally in a reactive manner, like with the 1979 occupation of Afghanistan. Afghanistan was becoming a hotbed of Islamic extremism, bankrolled by the CIA as ZBig admitted.

It wasn't a perfect regime. It's anti spiritual and anti religious/anti clerical ways in fact are what doomed it.

And 15,000 Soviet soldiers died in a failed effort to cram communism down the throats of these Muslims. The U.S. also tried and failed for 20 years to cram capitalism and democracy down their throats. How about we all just leave them alone to run their own country?

And what about USSR military interference with European countries after WW2?

[annatar1914]

And 15,000 Soviet soldiers died in a failed effort to cram communism down the throats of these Muslims. The U.S. also tried and failed for 20 years to cram capitalism and democracy down their throats. How about we all just leave them alone to run their own country?

And what about USSR military interference with European countries after WW2?

@Hakeer :

" Never Again".

Soviet forces went where they did for 27.6 million reasons. Eastern Europe was a defensive buffer against further invasions-of which there have been many -from the West.

The 1979 invasion of Afghanistan was done to avoid a repeat of the Basmachi Rebellion in Central Asia

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer :

" Never Again".

Soviet forces went where they did for 27.6 million reasons. Eastern Europe was a defensive buffer against further invasions-of which there have been many -from the West.

The 1979 invasion of Afghanistan was done to avoid a repeat of the Basmachi Rebellion in Central Asia

Germany was crippled and divided in East (communist) and West after WW2 and posed no threat to USSR. Nor could any other European country threaten the massive Soviet military — on the contrary in Hungary 1956, for example.

I had to read up on Basmachi. It seems Russia did a military invasion of this region in 1865. So I guess Muslims rebelled against Russian invasion then as they did in 1979.

[annatar1914]

Germany was crippled and divided in East (communist) and West after WW2 and posed no threat to USSR. Nor could any other European country threaten the massive Soviet military — on the contrary in Hungary 1956, for example.

I had to read up on Basmachi. It seems Russia did a military invasion of this region in 1865. So I guess Muslims rebelled against Russian invasion then as they did in 1979.

@Hakeer :

And look where we've gotten ourselves to, NATO and a reunited Germany, ever eastwards. I fucking rejoiced when someone blew up Nordstream 2.

The Germans? They elected the Nazis, then they fucked around and found out. Boo fucking hoo on a divided Germany. DDR wasn't so bad really.

And Central Asia was the source of countless raids and invasions of Russian lands for centuries: Khazars, Cumans, Pechenegs, Polovsty, and then the Tatars and Mongols.

You don't live in a rough neighborhood. Russian people do. It's easy to judge from safety while not having to deal with such peoples. And that includes those to the West:

Edit: you might like this

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer :

And look where we've gotten ourselves to, NATO and a reunited Germany, ever eastwards. I fucking rejoiced when someone blew up Nordstream 2.

The Germans? They elected the Nazis, then they fucked around and found out. Boo fucking hoo on a divided Germany. DDR wasn't so bad really.

And Central Asia was the source of countless raids and invasions of Russian lands for centuries: Khazars, Cumans, Pechenegs, Polovsty, and then the Tatars and Mongols.

You don't live in a rough neighborhood. Russian people do. It's easy to judge from safety while not having to deal with such peoples. And that includes those to the West:

Edit: you might like this

If you use your military for territorial expansion, you won’t be very popular in the neighborhood.

The neighbors might even join together in a defensive pact.

P.S. I'd bet the movie video you sent me would not be very popular in Arab countries like Afghanistan.

[annatar1914]

If you use your military for territorial expansion, you won’t be very popular in the neighborhood.

The neighbors might even join together in a defensive pact.

P.S. I'd bet the movie video you sent me would not be very popular in Arab countries like Afghanistan.

@Hakeer :

You still don't want to understand. Invade Russia, and don't be surprised when you lose that you also lose some land to provide a defensive distance barrier, to dissuade you from doing it again.

And it's NEVER a " defensive pact" despite hypocritical words to the contrary. Napoleon invaded Russia with his Grand Armee, composed of the armies of 14 Western nations. Hitler had many Axis allies and volunteers to bolster his invasion forces. The Poles and Swedes occupying Russia during the Time of Troubles had many mercenaries and Russian traitors to keep us under the Papist yoke.

How did that turn out?

Your attitude on aggression and war is a luxury albeit a noble one, but makes the similar attitude of many other Americans who have no problems with aggression and invasion appear all the more grotesque and immoral.

Afghanistan isn't Arab. Movie is a good " Eastern".

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer :

You still don't want to understand. Invade Russia, and don't be surprised when you lose that you also lose some land to provide a defensive distance barrier, to dissuade you from doing it again.

And it's NEVER a " defensive pact" despite hypocritical words to the contrary. Napoleon invaded Russia with his Grand Armee, composed of the armies of 14 Western nations. Hitler had many Axis allies and volunteers to bolster his invasion forces. The Poles and Swedes occupying Russia during the Time of Troubles had many mercenaries and Russian traitors to keep us under the Papist yoke.

How did that turn out?

Your attitude on aggression and war is a luxury albeit a noble one, but makes the similar attitude of many other Americans who have no problems with aggression and invasion appear all the more grotesque and immoral.

Afghanistan isn't Arab. Movie is a good " Eastern".

Yeah, Russia has at times crossed swords with guys like Napolean, Hitler, and Sigismund III who are also expansionist. However, you seem to imply that in all its foreign wars Russia has been the innocent victim and never the aggressor.

But limiting this to the NATO discussion, did Hungary militarily invade Russia in 1956? Or did Czechoslovakia invade Russia in 1968? Or earlier planned to invade Yugoslavia?

Whenever countries appeared to Russia as if they were drifting in an anti-communist direction, the Soviet military rolled in to suppress insurgencies all over the place --in Ukraine, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Romania, Germany, and Hungary.

It is perfectly understandable why European countries wanted to join together to stop the USSR from continuing to invade every time the Soviets didn't like something going on and, for the most part, it has worked very well.

I don’t think the Taliban would appreciate that movie, either.

[annatar1914]

Yeah, Russia has at times crossed swords with guys like Napolean, Hitler, and Sigismund III who are also expansionist. However, you seem to imply that in all its foreign wars Russia has been the innocent victim and never the aggressor.

But limiting this to the NATO discussion, did Hungary militarily invade Russia in 1956? Or did Czechoslovakia invade Russia in 1968? Or earlier planned to invade Yugoslavia?

Whenever countries appeared to Russia as if they were drifting in an anti-communist direction, the Soviet military rolled in to suppress insurgencies all over the place --in Ukraine, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Romania, Germany, and Hungary.

It is perfectly understandable why European countries wanted to join together to stop the USSR from continuing to invade every time the Soviets didn't like something going on and, for the most part, it has worked very well.

I don’t think the Taliban would appreciate that movie, either.

@Hakeer :

The Romanovs did from time to time engage in Western power politics, being German princes of the House of Oldenburg Holstein-Gottorp und Anhalt-Zerbst after all, without a ny Russian ancestry whatsoever.

We got rid of them.

And again, you miss the point of a defensive buffer. These lands had all been occupied by the Nazis and/or were full of local fascists and collaborators with the Germans in the period 1914-1945. There was an attempt at Denazification during and after the war. It's that kind of Europe that invades Russia, and if we have to march to Paris or Berlin to put the latest invading Monster down, so be it.

To the Devil with the Taliban if they don't like things like " White Sun of the Desert": they certainly have learned to respect fellow warriors if not like them.

[annatar1914]

@Hakeer , @Potemkin , @Verv , and others on this thread:

For all my posting replete with various modern media works, movies and so on, I have to say that I've never seen this movie these guys are talking about until recently, and the parallels are disturbing on a number of levels:

Comments?

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer :

The Romanovs did from time to time engage in Western power politics, being German princes of the House of Oldenburg Holstein-Gottorp und Anhalt-Zerbst after all, without a ny Russian ancestry whatsoever.

We got rid of them.

And again, you miss the point of a defensive buffer. These lands had all been occupied by the Nazis and/or were full of local fascists and collaborators with the Germans in the period 1914-1945. There was an attempt at Denazification during and after the war. It's that kind of Europe that invades Russia, and if we have to march to Paris or Berlin to put the latest invading Monster down, so be it.

To the Devil with the Taliban if they don't like things like " White Sun of the Desert": they certainly have learned to respect fellow warriors if not like them.

Let’s just take, for example, the military invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Be honest. Do you really believe that wasn’t because the people wanted reforms in the direction of more freedom and democracy? They wanted free speech and a free press. They were a democracy before Stalin and returned to democracy after 1989. There was no emerging fascism in the country in 1968 that justified an invasion to create a “buffer zone” against fascism. As with Ukraine, that’s not to say there weren’t some fascists in the country, but that was not the direction they wanted.