Putin is a loser

[Scruples]

My dumb strawman alert has gone off.

The idea that UKR can kick Russia out is not laughable, their invasion is failing with huge losses and their economy is collapsing fast now.

Putin has reinforced his troops with foreigners, mostly North Korean, it seems. He is now using missiles that are superior and more devastating than earlier missiles. He is on the push...Is he getting desperate? Is the pressure on? Can he hold on? We wait, and hope, he loses but the chances are slim. The West are losing the enthusiasm to continue with full support yet they must realise the consquences in they don't.

 

[Scruples]

Since the revolution the Russians, and left wing regimes of all shapes and sizes, have had everything to fear from the west (USA and allies) and nothing has changed in modern times. Democratic left-wing regimes subverted, attacked , destroyed. https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/a...-the-wests-war-to-end-the-russian-revolution/
You can hear it from the right in the expressions of visceral hatred of communism, socialism, which even percolates down to these pages! Last week one of Trumps lunatic advisors was advising UK to keep clear of the socialism of Europe and build closer ties with the imaginary "free market" economics of USA!
Glasnost was a lost opportunity in that they were fobbed off with the failed neo-liberal ideology of Thatcher/Reagan, which somehow turned Russia into a mafia state. I suppose you could think of that as the apotheosis of free-market capitalist economics. We've been lucky in keeping it at arm's length (so far) - the Americans have Trump, we only have the ridiculous Fartrage buffoon.
How much this bears on Putin's world view I've no idea.

Glasnost was, indeed, a lost opportunity but it was handled so badly that, during the prolonged transition, those with some money and power made inroads into small gangs. The people were more unsettled and wanted the status quo back. Better the devil you know was their cry.
They did like the McDonalds though.
And Putin was watching...

 

[selectortone]

I took your implication to suggest that the Russians killed all their own people and there was no input from Germany whatsoever. Is that what you are saying?

I have no idea where you are getting all that from. I said that, on past evidence, in Russia life is cheap.

In the context of the previous few posts before mine my point was: the Russian side may be taking horrendous casualties but don't get any hopes up that Putin will be shedding any tears or that that will lead to a ceasefire.

 

[selectortone]

Thoughtless uncaring sociopath might fit Stalin rather well.
He was happy enough to sacrifice a few million before the war to starvation.

Most of them in Ukraine.

 

[Fergie 307]

And there you have it, in a nutshell. What you are led to believe is not the same as what people outside of the western world are led to believe. You, I presume, assume that everything you have been told MUST be true, so anything that goes against that narrative must, by definition, be false.

What if it isn't?

Is this a war between Russia and the Ukraine, or is this actually a civil war between parts of what used to be the Ukraine, with Russia and the West fighting proxy war on Ukrainian ground? Or, is it an existential war between the Golden Billion who hold all the wealth, and the other 7 plus billion who are kept in poverty for the exclusive benefit of the "wealthy" nations? All are possibilities, and perhaps all are true.

Things are not as they seem. The smug certainty that Russia is finished financially seems not to be based in reality. The smug certainty that all russian military are incompetent and all russian equipment is useless is also not based in reality. The ukrainian army in 2022 was the finest, best trained army that NATO could field, and it was destroyed by the Russians. The ukrainians then fielded a sedond army, which was also destroyed by the russians. They are now on their third army, which appears to have been explosively disassembled in Kursk, of all places (do you know your history?) Each time this happens, NATO has less equipment to send. All the old soviet kit is long gone from the ex soviet countries. All the old western kit is now gone. The shiny new kit purportedly for the defence of NATO countries is seriously depleted, and NATO countries are now whining about not being able to supply more.

NATOs best, shiniest new wonder-weapons cannot be launched by Ukrainian technicians, and use NATO real-time targeting information inputted by NATO technicians. At what point will you be forced to admit that this is a NATO war against Russia? If it's perfectly right and proper for NATO operatives to kill Russians, should it not also be perfectly right and proper for Russians to kill NATO servicemen, (and civilians too, it's their war as well, don't forget)? If not, why not?

Does anyone have a good explanation as to why Russia wants to expand its empire? They have the largest country in the world, with the most resources. They have so much excess land that they give it away, free of charge, to anyone who wants to become a farmer. What possible reason do they have to want to invade and occupy all of western Europe, or even some of it? They don't have the manpower for it - it would be an impossible task, and western Europe doesn't have sufficient wealth or natural resources to make it a viable proposition. Europe is utterly indebted and broke. Russia wants to sell oil and gas to Europe, not conquer and pay for it. So why has Russia invaded the Ukraine? What could the reason be, if it isn't for a land grab? Defence of ethnic russians and Mother Russia, perhaps?

Defence against whom?

If the Russians have so comprehensively destroyed all Ukrainian forces then pray why do they only occupy such a small part of the country?
Does that not seem strange to you, perhaps slightly at odds with their alleged total destruction of the Ukrainian army?
Do you not suspect, even a teensy little bit, that you might be being lied to?
Or does your Putin fan club map show it all in red?
Seems to me the state of Russia's military is summed up by their navy's flagship, Kuznetskov, 50,000 odd tons of floating scrap that can't go anywhere without a small fleet of tugs as it breaks down every five minutes and has to be towed.
I am sure the commanders of any of Americas eleven carrier battle groups must offer daily prayers it remains in port, god forbid they should ever have to face this mighty example of Russian military power.

 

[Chris152]

This looks a good read, I've only scanned it but may have a go later.
https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/oa_edited_volume/chapter/3881915

Whatever accounts of what led to the war in Ukraine, explanation is not justification. We can explain what happened in 30s Germany, and we can describe the number of testicles Hitler had, his relations with the women in his family, his failed ambitions to be an artist etc., but that does not justify what he did.

 

[Jacob]

Glasnost was, indeed, a lost opportunity but it was handled so badly that, during the prolonged transition, those with some money and power made inroads into small gangs.

This was a direct consequence of their attempts to implement free-market neoliberal economics, including selling off state run enterprises. Listening to the west was a big mistake.
There's a brilliant film to watch https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...-ingenious-essential-viewing-from-adam-curtis

 

[Fergie 307]

This looks a good read, I've only scanned it but may have a go later.
https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/oa_edited_volume/chapter/3881915

Whatever accounts of what led to the war in Ukraine, explanation is not justification. We can explain what happened in 30s Germany, and we can describe the number of testicles Hitler had, his relations with the women in his family, his failed ambitions to be an artist etc., but that does not justify what he did.

And we don't need to have met the man to conclude that he was a nasty piece of work, his actions lead you inexorably to that conclusion.

 

[Jake]

Putin has reinforced his troops with foreigners, mostly North Korean, it seems.

He wouldn't be doing that if he wasn't getting desperate. And the promised payments to recruit new domestic recruits is now over £150,000. That's a lot money, but then they go straight to the front and die, so the payments will be lower as the state welches on them. But still, that's a lot of money for a state which is going broke.

He is now using missiles that are superior and more devastating than earlier missiles.

If you mean the IRBMs, they did not do much damage, and the two they launched were prototypes (of a new version of an old design).

He is on the push...Is he getting desperate? Is the pressure on? Can he hold on? We wait, and hope, he loses but the chances are slim.

Subject to your next point, I think the chances are pretty reasonable, Russia is grinding its capacities down on all fronts and that will accelerate in the next year or two if the pressure is kept up. All the peace talk stuff is being promoted by the Russian side, which is telling.

The West are losing the enthusiasm to continue with full support yet they must realise the consquences in they don't.

Agree.

 

[Norman Boyes]

Well, hang on - the West, or NATO, or whatever shorthand you want to use for the hegemon or empire or whatever, is constantly invading sovereign nations. When not militarily intervening they intervene by overthrowing the current, often democratically elected governments. Two wrongs don't make a right, but if the world's policeman ignores international law, why would anyone else pay even lipservice to it? The Russians have a word for the West, which translates as "agreement incapable". In other words, Russia doesn't believe anything that the West says, because they invariably lie, obfuscate and renege on any deal. "Not one inch eastward" springs to mind as just one example, or how about Merkel confirming Minsk 2 was purely to allow the Ukraine a chance to rearm and get back to ethnically cleansing the Donbas region of its ethnic Russian subhumans. Oh, how about Boris Johnson rushing to Kiev to put a stop to any agreement between Russia and the Ukraine which was all ready to go so the fighting could stop?

And yes, the West did overthrow the duly elected, constitutional and democratic government in 2013/2014, which is why the Donbas region refused to acknowledge the Kiev coup, hence a civil war. Russia can claim a right to protect because it is precisely what NATO did in Kosovo, amongst other places.

You have posted this in the wrong thread - the joke section is very there

 

[McAldo]

My understanding is that it’s pretty easy to win an election and have a high approval rating when your opponents are prevented from standing by being put in prison.

In reality there were a few 'opponents' .

The only one that stands out was Boris Nadezhdin. Like all the others, he did not speak against the government or criticized Putin. But in a surprising turn of events he did at some point, somewhat, suggested that the war was bad.
Now, it was suggested that this was allowed by the government to reinforce the appearance of a political opposition actually being there, and being a tiny minority.

After all it would be quite impossible to be a candidate in first place, without governmental approval.

But then Navalny was 'deceased', which led that 20-15% of Russians who strongly supported him, and would not know who to vote for anyway, to look at Nadezhdin as a protest vote option. On social media people started posting a bit too many hashtags with his name. Which would make make a dent in Putin's performance. 2% of voters for anti war looked good, it reinforced Putin. 15% not so much.

So the electoral commission found flaws in the 100 thousands signatures collected by Nadezhdin to legally become a candidate.
And goodbye Boris...

There is an amusing side to the Kremlin having been forced to sink the very straw candidate which they set up.

However, it is also indicative that the Kremlin needs to project internally as vaguely legitimate. Our at least, that they try just in case.
I often hear that 50 to 60% of voters in Russia are apolitical, get on with life and let leaders lead.
The remaining 40% are supposedly split between Navalny type positions, so currently essentially voiceless, and nationalists who would criticise the government for being too soft, but know better.
A real red line is critizing Putin specifically, if anything goes wrong it's always someone's else fault, but nationalists do criticize other politicians.

 

[Jacob]

Firstly, you do know that the USSR is no longer with us? Stalin died generations ago. Russia is not the same country and Russians are not the same people as the Soviet Socialist Republic denizens.


Secondly, a list of US interventions in other peoples' governments:

• China 1949 to early 1960s
• Albania 1949-53
• East Germany 1950s
• Iran 1953 *
• Guatemala 1954 *
• Costa Rica mid-1950s
• Syria 1956-7
• Egypt 1957
• Indonesia 1957-8
• British Guiana 1953-64 *
• Iraq 1963 *
• North Vietnam 1945-73
• Cambodia 1955-70 *
• Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
• Ecuador 1960-63 *
• Congo 1960 *
• France 1965
• Brazil 1962-64 *
• Dominican Republic 1963 *
• Cuba 1959 to present
• Bolivia 1964 *
• Indonesia 1965 *
• Ghana 1966 *
• Chile 1964-73 *
• Greece 1967 *
• Costa Rica 1970-71
• Bolivia 1971 *
• Australia 1973-75 *
• Angola 1975, 1980s
• Zaire 1975
• Portugal 1974-76 *
• Jamaica 1976-80 *
• Seychelles 1979-81
• Chad 1981-82 *
• Grenada 1983 *
• South Yemen 1982-84
• Suriname 1982-84
• Fiji 1987 *
• Libya 1980s
• Nicaragua 1981-90 *
• Panama 1989 *
• Bulgaria 1990 *
• Albania 1991 *
• Iraq 1991
• Afghanistan 1980s *
• Somalia 1993
• Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
• Ecuador 2000 *
• Afghanistan 2001 *
• Venezuela 2002 *
• Iraq 2003 *
• Haiti 2004 *
• Somalia 2007 to present
• Honduras 2009 *
• Libya 2011 *
• Syria 2012
• Ukraine 2014 *

Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?

A: Because there’s no American embassy there.
[/i]We should delete the Ukraine from the list, then - some nice person from the state department said "I dindo nuffin'", so there was never any US involvement. Victoria Newland was just handing out cookies at the Maidan because she is a nice person. Got it.

Impressed by the list.
It's a bit short however - things started kicking off a lot earlier.
USA is the most war mongering and most terrorist state in history, and , lest we forget, the only state to use nuclear weapons so far.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

 

[Jake]

What is the basis of the statement that Russia’s economy is collapsing? The IMF and BBC both report that it is growing at a rate faster than the US and UK.

The IMF assessment was that the war spending lead to an increase in GDP this year (to 3.6%) but it cut its prediction for next year to 1.2%. Russia is spending its foreign currency reserves (burnt through 15% of them), its currency is tanking versus the dollar or even the hryvnia, and its base rate is now 21.5%. Rosneft is begging for enormous govt bailout. Roscosmos can't recruit because the population is so poorly educated and low skilled and so many are being packed into the meat cubes. It's spent half of the sovereign wealth fund already. The head of Rostec has said that most defence companies face bankruptcy unless interest rates are reduced (but they need those to counter high inflation). Corporate bankruptcies are up 20% this year, and bad/late debts are soaring.

War economies produce growth in the short term but basically need success (conquering new resources) to keep going as all the spending is of no real productive value in the long run otherwise.

 

[Jake]

Your knowledge of history really is straight from a Soviet era history book.

He claims to be former UK military but living in Moldova.

 

[Jake]

The remaining 40% are supposedly split between Navalny type positions, so currently essentially voiceless, and nationalists who would criticise the government for being too soft, but know better.

Agree with the most of your post, but note that Navalny was a nationalist (and at least formerly an ultra nationalist) and although he later changed his position he supported the Crimean invasion for a long time.

 

[Delaney]

From my observations over the last 40 years, I'd say that when the USSR broke up and those states formed their own independence, Russia had appeared weaker to the world. They were not ony weak but fallible and had lost their credibility as a world power.

Then they went through Perestroika. the restructuring process where the cleverer Russians made big money but the people didn't like that and it frightened them. They seemed happier with the status quo they had. It seemed that being under a dictatorship suited them more than new freedoms. The did get a McDonalds in Moscow, I remember. And they had Beryozka shops were only foreigners could buy luxury goods and booze. They were set up up attract as much foreign currency as they could. Russian currency didn't really have any exchange value when I was there.

Having visited the USSR during the change, I saw how poor people could be. How they were controlled and how the KGB watched everything and everyone. I stayed in Murmansk and saw their docks and their nuclear subs rotting on the sea wall. I saw the military men, no women, in uniform constantly in motion throughout the port. Most of them carrying a single rose for the loved ones they were leaving or just coming back to. They looked cold, blank.

I think Putin wanted the break-away states back and set out to gain power and start the process. He's been successful so far but not without costs. The last estimate I saw estiated the Russian losses in the Ukraine 'action' at 700,000. I know the families of those who died are bitter but dare say nothing ot anyone, even the people in their own comunities. He's got it made.

A great story, well written and I’m sure accurate in many ways.
It doesn’t however make any observations regarding the US, EU and Nato.
Without including them, your story is just that.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

And there you have it, in a nutshell. What you are led to believe is not the same as what people outside of the western world are led to believe. You, I presume, assume that everything you have been told MUST be true, so anything that goes against that narrative must, by definition, be false.

What if it isn't?

Is this a war between Russia and the Ukraine, or is this actually a civil war between parts of what used to be the Ukraine, with Russia and the West fighting proxy war on Ukrainian ground? Or, is it an existential war between the Golden Billion who hold all the wealth, and the other 7 plus billion who are kept in poverty for the exclusive benefit of the "wealthy" nations? All are possibilities, and perhaps all are true.

Things are not as they seem. The smug certainty that Russia is finished financially seems not to be based in reality. The smug certainty that all russian military are incompetent and all russian equipment is useless is also not based in reality. The ukrainian army in 2022 was the finest, best trained army that NATO could field, and it was destroyed by the Russians. The ukrainians then fielded a sedond army, which was also destroyed by the russians. They are now on their third army, which appears to have been explosively disassembled in Kursk, of all places (do you know your history?) Each time this happens, NATO has less equipment to send. All the old soviet kit is long gone from the ex soviet countries. All the old western kit is now gone. The shiny new kit purportedly for the defence of NATO countries is seriously depleted, and NATO countries are now whining about not being able to supply more.

NATOs best, shiniest new wonder-weapons cannot be launched by Ukrainian technicians, and use NATO real-time targeting information inputted by NATO technicians. At what point will you be forced to admit that this is a NATO war against Russia? If it's perfectly right and proper for NATO operatives to kill Russians, should it not also be perfectly right and proper for Russians to kill NATO servicemen, (and civilians too, it's their war as well, don't forget)? If not, why not?

Does anyone have a good explanation as to why Russia wants to expand its empire? They have the largest country in the world, with the most resources. They have so much excess land that they give it away, free of charge, to anyone who wants to become a farmer. What possible reason do they have to want to invade and occupy all of western Europe, or even some of it? They don't have the manpower for it - it would be an impossible task, and western Europe doesn't have sufficient wealth or natural resources to make it a viable proposition. Europe is utterly indebted and broke. Russia wants to sell oil and gas to Europe, not conquer and pay for it. So why has Russia invaded the Ukraine? What could the reason be, if it isn't for a land grab? Defence of ethnic russians and Mother Russia, perhaps?

Defence against whom?

Upfront admission. I didn't read past your first sentence.

Why?

I have family remaining in Ukraine as well as those who have fled.
I am currently Serving and have a good understanding of "facts" that are not in any way adulterated by "spin"

I have a really good idea of what I'm talking about and it isn't from listening to or reading anything either MSM or Social Media.

Your credentials, please?

 

[Jake]

It doesn’t however make any observations regarding the US, EU and Nato.
Without including them, your story is just that.

Any attempt to make those relevant needs to assume that Ukraine is not entitled to its own sovereignty and that Russia is entitled to dictate what it does (but in any case it is balls anyway).

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Your knowledge of history really is straight from a Soviet era history book.
The mass r**e of women in Berlin particularly is well documented, nothing alleged about it. Presumably all the women who reported being gang *****, and the doctors who treated them etc etc were all lying? Well documented by the Soviets themselves who recognised at the time that what they euphemistically called "immoral activity" was a widespread problem, not least because of the numbers of troops suffering from STD.
Can you point us in the direction of any actual evidence of similar behaviour by American or British troops? Sadly I am sure there will have been some cases, but not on the industrial scale practiced by the red army.

1. Why is this relevant to today's war? Other than to paint all Russians as monsters, it doesn't really have any bearing.
2. I never denied the asterisk of Berlin. As an avid war history buff, I presume you know about the German scorched earth policy, the 27 to 30 million dead Russians and the fact that those Russian soldiers had seen sufficent horrors perpetrated on their civilian population as they advanced through German occupied Russia, Ukraine etc. . While not condoning asterisk, it didn't happen in a vacuum. Interestingly, quite a number of the nazi perpetrators of horrific crimes were shipped off to Alied nations (operation paperclip, I believe), so the Alied side didn't seem to have too much of a problem with people of dubious morality. Canada was particularly enthusiastic to take Ukrainian SS members, it would seem. Quite a big expat community in Canada, and parliamentary standing ovations for ex SS soldiers.
3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_liberation_of_France just to balance the argument.
4. Modern Russia is not the USSR. Vladimir Putin is not Joseph Stalin. Two points that seem to be problematic for some.

 

[Delaney]

Any attempt to make those relevant needs to assume that Ukraine is not entitled to its own sovereignty and that Russia is entitled to dictate what it does (but in any case it is balls anyway).

And what sovereignty will Ukraine have when the war is over and Blackrock, the IMF, the World Bank and the UN, have swooped in and seized all Ukraine’s resources, as payment for the billions and billions, Ukraine owes in debt to such entities, for getting into a war, the debtors themselves, helped create, unwittingly or not?

Ukraine, whether you like it or not, is going to be one of the clearest open and shut cases, of national asset stripping. At this point, Ukraine is now a corporate landmass.

Besides, what is the meaning of being indigenous or native or a nation state when in the west, open borders, lawless, immigration, and the deliberate population replacement of native and indigenous peoples, is the clear direction of western political civilisation?

You should be celebrating the destruction of the nation as part of your liberal left-wing utopia.

You won, be happy. We’re all citizens of nowhere now. Ukraine is the model, the new model nation.
It owns nothing and will be happy.