What does Putin want (and whatabout it)

nan said:

Right, the sanctions came after the invasion. That's the usual sequence.

Right, so the SWIFT move wasn’t part of an existential threat that Russia was reacting to.

PVW said:

nan said:

dave said:

There is no existental threat to Russia.  It has a large (now shrinking) army and plenty of nukes. 

You or the US does not get to decide that.  If Russia put missiles in Mexico and said they were not a threat, I'm sure we would disagree.  The Cuban Missile crisis comes to mind. 

When Castro took power, that was not an attack on the U.S., nor was it part of a strategy of trying to provoke regime change in the U.S.

Putting missiles in Cuba was certainly a hostile act by the USSR, but doesn't work well as an analogy as there was no similar hosting of nuclear missiles by the U.S. in Ukraine. Cuba simply allying itself with the USSR, as Ukraine has done with the U.S., was not an attack against the U.S.

It was perceived as an existential threat, just like what has been happening in Ukraine.  We did not know the motives back then, but were worried about nuclear destruction which is worse than regime change.  

You continue to be willfully ignorant to the fact that Ukraine is a client state of the US.  We are basically running that place and paying their bills. The CIA has a hand in almost everything that happens there.   

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

Right, the sanctions came after the invasion. That's the usual sequence.

Right, so the SWIFT move wasn’t part of an existential threat that Russia was reacting to.

No, the US/NATO training and arming the strongest army in Europe was an existential threat.  Talk about them getting nukes again was an existential threat.  Attacking the Russian speakers in the Donbas was a big problem.  These people wanted to join Russia as Crimea had, but Putin said no.  He was trying to advocate for them to have a special status and that had turned into a big problem.  And also living next to a huge group of Bandera worshiping Nazis was not so great.  

The SWIFT move was part of the US plan to destroy Russia economically. The US uses sanctions to boss other countries around.  It does not work as well as it used to anymore.  We should try diplomacy instead.  

jamie said:

Nan - are there any other places in the net you post your thoughts on Ukraine?  Just curious.

No, not regularly.  Why do you ask?

A Russian citizen, Igor Girkin, began the fighting in the Donbast. 

Jaytee said:

In her absence she has regressed tremendously. It’s not even worth it responding to her anymore. No wonder Putin thinks the USA is just a lunatic asylum. 

You think I'm the reason Putin supposedly thinks the USA is a lunatic asylum?  That's hilarious. You think Putin has it right about the USA.  That's mind-blowing.  

dave said:

A Russian citizen, Igor Girkin, began the fighting in the Donbast. 

Many people in the Donbass were upset after the 2014 coup.  They did not think Ukraine had a legitimate government. They were worried about what the changes would mean for Russian speakers.  They began to protest.  Things got ugly real fast. 

nan said:

dave said:

A Russian citizen, Igor Girkin, began the fighting in the Donbast. 

Many people in the Donbass were upset after the 2014 coup.  They did not think Ukraine had a legitimate government. They were worried about what the changes would mean for Russian speakers.  They began to protest.  Things got ugly real fast. 

It's Donbas, not Donbass.

Who is "they"?

What, specifically, does "things" refer to?

dave said:

nan said:

Many people in the Donbass were upset after the 2014 coup.  They did not think Ukraine had a legitimate government. They were worried about what the changes would mean for Russian speakers.  They began to protest.  Things got ugly real fast. 

It's Donbas, not Donbass.

Who is "they"?

What, specifically, does "things" refer to?

In one "protest", they shot down an airliner. 

To be fair, that could have been the Russian military operating in Donbas.

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

dave said:

There is no existental threat to Russia.  It has a large (now shrinking) army and plenty of nukes. 

You or the US does not get to decide that.  If Russia put missiles in Mexico and said they were not a threat, I'm sure we would disagree.  The Cuban Missile crisis comes to mind. 

When Castro took power, that was not an attack on the U.S., nor was it part of a strategy of trying to provoke regime change in the U.S.

Putting missiles in Cuba was certainly a hostile act by the USSR, but doesn't work well as an analogy as there was no similar hosting of nuclear missiles by the U.S. in Ukraine. Cuba simply allying itself with the USSR, as Ukraine has done with the U.S., was not an attack against the U.S.

It was perceived as an existential threat, just like what has been happening in Ukraine.  We did not know the motives back then, but were worried about nuclear destruction which is worse than regime change.  

You continue to be willfully ignorant to the fact that Ukraine is a client state of the US.  We are basically running that place and paying their bills. The CIA has a hand in almost everything that happens there.   

Yeah no -- not going to join you in endorsing things like the Bay of Pigs.

ETA, to make sure it's clear -- as written, Nan is saying that Castro taking over was seen as an existential threat that caused the US to be worried about nuclear destruction. When Castro took over, there was no nuclear threat to the U.S. from Cuba, and -- going back to the whole time only flows one way thing -- one cannot use things like the Cuban Missile Crisis to retroactively justify events such as the Bay of Pigs that occurred when Cuba was no threat. Nan's stance -- that the alliance of a neighboring country with a rival constitutes a legitimate threat justifying hostilities -- I reject.

The Cuban analogy is an especially bad one for Nan as there was eventually the real threat of nuclear missiles being based there, whereas nothing similar has happened in Ukraine. In fact, Ukraine's allies have been very insistent on not providing even conventional missiles to be used in striking into Russian territory.

As I noted earlier -- grant Nan all her premises, and she still is unable to demonstrate Ukraine or its allies attacking Russia.

It’s not that nan loves Putin that much you know… it’s just that she really hates America. 
People that harbor so much negativity and hatred for someone or something, always end up suffering with affliction to the nervous system.
Bouts of anxiety and irritability are all symptomatic.

PVW said:

The Cuban analogy is an especially bad one for Nan as there was eventually the real threat of nuclear missiles being based there, whereas nothing similar has happened in Ukraine. In fact, Ukraine's allies have been very insistent on not providing even conventional missiles to be used in striking into Russian territory.

As I noted earlier -- grant Nan all her premises, and she still is unable to demonstrate Ukraine or its allies attacking Russia.

Not to mention that the U.S. never invaded Cuba based on the possibility that nuclear missiles could be placed there in the future.

nan said:

jamie said:

Nan - are there any other places in the net you post your thoughts on Ukraine?  Just curious.

No, not regularly.  Why do you ask?

Just curious - wondering if there were other platforms where your sharing your perspective.

Back to Ukraine.  How many Nazis are left?  Please post Putin's latest assessment on the worst Nazi scourge since WWII.

Surely, he must have his pulse on the progress of directive #1.

I would in general appreciate if you did quote Vlad more instead of you interpreting what he is thinking.

PVW said:

Yeah no -- not going to join you in endorsing things like the Bay of Pigs.

ETA, to make sure it's clear -- as written, Nan is saying that Castro taking over was seen as an existential threat that caused the US to be worried about nuclear destruction. When Castro took over, there was no nuclear threat to the U.S. from Cuba, and -- going back to the whole time only flows one way thing -- one cannot use things like the Cuban Missile Crisis to retroactively justify events such as the Bay of Pigs that occurred when Cuba was no threat. Nan's stance -- that the alliance of a neighboring country with a rival constitutes a legitimate threat justifying hostilities -- I reject.

This stance of nan’s, which dovetails with her argument that a risk of WWIII means that acts of superpower aggression should get a pass as long as they are given a defensive gloss,* is indeed clear.

* Like tjohn, I’ve been reading The Guns of August, which describes Germany’s insistence that its invasion of neutral Belgium was a response to existential threats including Paris society’s snubbing of a German military attache’s wife.

Also, let's delve deeper into the worst nazi scourge since WWII.  nan and paul have really defended Vlad's view of the Nazi issue in Ukraine.  Even though they completely ignored the Wagner goon squad employed by Putin.

So let's compare what effects they've had on the world.

Nazis during WWII approximate 2.7 million jews were murdered at killing centers.  How does this compare with the Ukrainians nazis?  How many have they murdered - and who are they targeting?  Hitler was the leader during WWII - who is the Ukrainian Nazi leader.

Again worst scourge since WWII - so there must must be a clear parallel somewhere - right?  

I think Putin feels he eradicated the nazi scourge of Ukraine in the steel plant in Mariupol. He’s never mentioned the word again. Maybe that’s why nan thinks he has “won” …

Jaytee said:

I think Putin feels he eradicated the nazi scourge of Ukraine in the steel plant in Mariupol. He’s never mentioned the word again. Maybe that’s why nan thinks he has “won” …

This is not true - he's repeated the importance of denazification well after Mariupol.

Vladimir Putin views his election for a fifth term as president as a plebiscite to cement his legitimacy as a great wartime leader leading a existential fight to save Russia from Ukrainian “Nazis” and from Western threats to Russia’s very existence as a great power and a unique civilization.

Nazism, for Russians, is primarily about being anti-Russian. If you read Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands, he notes how the distinctly Jewish aspect of the Nazi killings was de-emphasized or even outright ignored in Soviet propaganda in favor of emphasizing Soviet -- and especially Russian -- victimhood at the hands of the Nazis.

Ukraine is "Nazi" for Putin not because of charges of anti-semtism and far-right ideology (which clearly makes little sense with a Jewish president), but because of it being opposed to Russia. That's the argument Nan unwittingly makes when she casts the removal of Yanukovych as an attack against Russia. It makes no sense to claim that Ukraine's president changing was somehow an attack against Russia, unless one accept Putin's understanding of history. If you do that, then the change from a Russian-aligned government to one that sought its own course independent of Russia was, from his perspective, a big threat.

Ukraine isn't Russia, but for Putin and those who share his views, it is supposed to be, and opposing that is opposing Russia and, hence, "Nazi".

dave said:

nan said:

dave said:

A Russian citizen, Igor Girkin, began the fighting in the Donbast. 

Many people in the Donbass were upset after the 2014 coup.  They did not think Ukraine had a legitimate government. They were worried about what the changes would mean for Russian speakers.  They began to protest.  Things got ugly real fast. 

It's Donbas, not Donbass.

Who is "they"?

What, specifically, does "things" refer to?

You are right about the spelling--I was typing fast and the bonus letter after a vowel followed by an s spelling rule kicked in.  I know better but I'm sure I'll do it again.

The "things" I'm referring to were the famous events that happened there such as the deliberate burning of protesters in Odessa.  No one was ever prosecuted for that crime. 

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

dave said:

There is no existental threat to Russia.  It has a large (now shrinking) army and plenty of nukes. 

You or the US does not get to decide that.  If Russia put missiles in Mexico and said they were not a threat, I'm sure we would disagree.  The Cuban Missile crisis comes to mind. 

When Castro took power, that was not an attack on the U.S., nor was it part of a strategy of trying to provoke regime change in the U.S.

Putting missiles in Cuba was certainly a hostile act by the USSR, but doesn't work well as an analogy as there was no similar hosting of nuclear missiles by the U.S. in Ukraine. Cuba simply allying itself with the USSR, as Ukraine has done with the U.S., was not an attack against the U.S.

It was perceived as an existential threat, just like what has been happening in Ukraine.  We did not know the motives back then, but were worried about nuclear destruction which is worse than regime change.  

You continue to be willfully ignorant to the fact that Ukraine is a client state of the US.  We are basically running that place and paying their bills. The CIA has a hand in almost everything that happens there.   

Yeah no -- not going to join you in endorsing things like the Bay of Pigs.

ETA, to make sure it's clear -- as written, Nan is saying that Castro taking over was seen as an existential threat that caused the US to be worried about nuclear destruction. When Castro took over, there was no nuclear threat to the U.S. from Cuba, and -- going back to the whole time only flows one way thing -- one cannot use things like the Cuban Missile Crisis to retroactively justify events such as the Bay of Pigs that occurred when Cuba was no threat. Nan's stance -- that the alliance of a neighboring country with a rival constitutes a legitimate threat justifying hostilities -- I reject.

The Cuban analogy is an especially bad one for Nan as there was eventually the real threat of nuclear missiles being based there, whereas nothing similar has happened in Ukraine. In fact, Ukraine's allies have been very insistent on not providing even conventional missiles to be used in striking into Russian territory.

As I noted earlier -- grant Nan all her premises, and she still is unable to demonstrate Ukraine or its allies attacking Russia.

This is ridiculous--the idea that the Bay of Pigs is not the same as what is happening to the Russians--and all the people saying the Russians had nothing to worry about from NATO. You just make crap up like ambulance chasing lawyer in court. This war shows the Russians had plenty to worry about. The US considers itself in charge of the world and tells everyone what they can and can't do and they set up shop in any country they feel like. If a country resists they work overtime to bring them down or overthrow their leaders and install who they want.  

Another voice of reason:

https://twitter.com/Glenn_Diesen/status/1780479492642750801

Foreign Affairs writes about the "hidden history" of diplomacy that could have ended the war. 

It was not "hidden"! The media refused to report on verifiable facts & smeared anyone who discussed it as "Putinists" and "propagandists" Why did the media fail to report on the following:

- On the first day after Russia invaded, Zelensky confirmed that Moscow contacted them to negotiate peace based on neutrality
- On the third day after the invasion, both Moscow and Kiev confirmed negotiations would start based on restoring Ukrainian neutrality.
- The US spokesperson, Ned Price, argued the US could not support the peace negotiations as this war was much greater than Ukraine
- The Israeli and Turkish mediators at the negotiations confirmed they were close to an agreement as Russia would compromise on everything besides neutrality / end of NATO expansionism, but the US and UK blocked it as they saw an opportunity to weaken Russia by fighting with Ukrainians
- The head of Zelensky's political party confirms there was a deal, and the former advisor of Zelensky also confirms there was a deal but the Americans could get the Russians and Ukrainians to fight each other.
- Ukrainian ambassador Chalyi who participated in the peace negotiations argues Putin "tried everything" to get a peace agreement and they were very close to a deal before it was postponed
- General Harald Kujat, former head of the German Army and Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, argues a deal reached before the US and UK sabotaged it by telling Zelensky they would not support the peace agreement but would give him all the weapons he needed to defeat Russia on the battlefield. According to Kujat, the US and UK saw an opportunity to kill Russians and thus weaken a strategic rival

This has been an amazing propaganda campaign, appealing to the best in humanity to do the worst. They provoked a war and sabotaged all paths to peace to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, and they sold it to the public as "supporting" and "helping" Ukraine. Almost every "pro-Ukrainian" policy since the coup in 2014 failed to have support from the majority of Ukrainians and always ended in tragedy for their nation.
- The only reason we are now allowed to speak about the negotiations is that NATO has run out of Ukrainians and the war is lost. The public must therefore be prepared for a settlement after two years of claiming that Ukraine is winning while refusing to even sit down and talk with Russia. Absolutely disgusting and shameful!

PVW said:

Nazism, for Russians, is primarily about being anti-Russian. If you read Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands, he notes how the distinctly Jewish aspect of the Nazi killings was de-emphasized or even outright ignored in Soviet propaganda in favor of emphasizing Soviet -- and especially Russian -- victimhood at the hands of the Nazis.

Ukraine is "Nazi" for Putin not because of charges of anti-semtism and far-right ideology (which clearly makes little sense with a Jewish president), but because of it being opposed to Russia. That's the argument Nan unwittingly makes when she casts the removal of Yanukovych as an attack against Russia. It makes no sense to claim that Ukraine's president changing was somehow an attack against Russia, unless one accept Putin's understanding of history. If you do that, then the change from a Russian-aligned government to one that sought its own course independent of Russia was, from his perspective, a big threat.

Ukraine isn't Russia, but for Putin and those who share his views, it is supposed to be, and opposing that is opposing Russia and, hence, "Nazi".

You lost me after "Timothy Snyder's"   The guy is a fancy pants Yale historian, but somehow became a propagandist for Zelensky and the west.  There are pictures of them sitting together smiling in Kyiv. Those videos he made, which you watched after telling me you would never watch a video, made me want to throw my computer at the wall. So many people watch him because on the face of it he's esteemed and all powerful OZ kind of person but I'm sure he's on some media dissemination payroll somewhere. 

This stuff about what "Nazi" is for Putin reminds me of that dribble from "Mind of Putin expert" Fiona HIll that you also adore. Perhaps Snyder and Hill are funded from the same sources.  Claiming that the installed 2014 Ukraine government was no threat to Russia or the Russians in the Donbas (who knew it was going to be bad) is just a boldfaced lie (or crater sized omission if you want to be nice). 

And just for kicks, AFTER making that association, I googled Snyder and Hill and look, he endorsed her book!!!!!

"This book has a miraculous quality.... As a memoir this is hard to put down; if you are seeking a better American future you should pick it up.”—Timothy Snyder, New York Times best-selling author of On Tyranny

jamie said:

Also, let's delve deeper into the worst nazi scourge since WWII.  nan and paul have really defended Vlad's view of the Nazi issue in Ukraine.  Even though they completely ignored the Wagner goon squad employed by Putin.

So let's compare what effects they've had on the world.

Nazis during WWII approximate 2.7 million jews were murdered at killing centers.  How does this compare with the Ukrainians nazis?  How many have they murdered - and who are they targeting?  Hitler was the leader during WWII - who is the Ukrainian Nazi leader.

Again worst scourge since WWII - so there must must be a clear parallel somewhere - right?  

Are you trying to say the Nazis who killed Jews in Ukraine during WWII were no big deal?  That's what is sounds like. Do you think Bandera was a good guy?  Do you have no problem with a place that has statues of him and streets named after him and other Nazis?  

jamie said:

nan said:

jamie said:

Nan - are there any other places in the net you post your thoughts on Ukraine?  Just curious.

No, not regularly.  Why do you ask?

Just curious - wondering if there were other platforms where your sharing your perspective.

Back to Ukraine.  How many Nazis are left?  Please post Putin's latest assessment on the worst Nazi scourge since WWII.

Surely, he must have his pulse on the progress of directive #1.

I would in general appreciate if you did quote Vlad more instead of you interpreting what he is thinking.

I don't know what Putin thinks.  I know what he says and I have listened to his interviews and some of his speeches posted on the Kremlin website.  I suggest you look at those.  Did you listen to the Tucker Carlson interview?  You could start there.  

I'm not going to do your homework for you. 

Jaytee said:

It’s not that nan loves Putin that much you know… it’s just that she really hates America. 
People that harbor so much negativity and hatred for someone or something, always end up suffering with affliction to the nervous system.
Bouts of anxiety and irritability are all symptomatic.

I love my country which is why I am so angry about the way it's being destroyed.  Can you get that?  Probably not.  

https://twitter.com/DavidSacks/status/1780297903485133189

nan said:

Are you trying to say the Nazis who killed Jews in Ukraine during WWII were no big deal?  That's what is sounds like. Do you think Bandera was a good guy?  Do you have no problem with a place that has statues of him and streets named after him and other Nazis?  

You know exactly what I mean.

Putin says this is the worst Nazi scourge since WWII - this is why he has ordered 10s of thousands of his country men to a death sentence to fight this.

I'm making the parallel to the WWII scourge where millions died in the most horrible genocide in history.

In regards to Bandera - I didn't realize he was still alive and is still carrying out killings - if so - the Russians should take him out ASAP - and we should help.

If not - we need to know what denazification means - where are they - how many have been eliminated - how many remain where are they located - who is their current leader.  If you can't answer these simple question - then it's obviously NOT a legal war and is in fact more of a land grab - pure and simple.

By the way - can Russian call it a war or protest it yet - what death count has the Kremlin shared with the public?  Do you agree the most sent to the front line are not from the Moscow area but are from poorer - remote regions?  

Have you provided a translation of the agreement Putin said Zalensky agreed to before Boris told him not to?

nan said:

You lost me after "Timothy Snyder's"

Huh -- I assumed I'd lost you years earlier.

nan said:

Those videos he made, which you watched after telling me you would never watch a video, made me want to throw my computer at the wall.

I never asked you to watch those videos, nor have I referenced them as part of an argument on this thread. I found the lecture series interesting and well done, but as per my "no videos" policy, see them as irrelevant to arguments made on this thread.

nan said:

This war shows the Russians had plenty to worry about. The US considers itself in charge of the world and tells everyone what they can and can't do and they set up shop in any country they feel like. If a country resists they work overtime to bring them down or overthrow their leaders and install who they want.  

Still no citation of any attack against Russia by the U.S. It's a bizarre world view that looks at Russia trying to force Ukraine to do what it wants and concludes that it's the US that the one telling people what to do.