O/T:- Ukraine [Incorporating 'Congrats to Russia' thread]

[andy6025]

I have no reason to think that the people in the documentary aren’t authentic, but it would be astonishing if there were not opposing views. After all, some misguided people support Forest. My point was simply that the documentary makes no attempt at balance. An invasion, or an insurrection, is not a good way to achieve change. In our own country, most worthwhile change has been made by pointing out injustice and winning arguments, which is a slow and frustrating process but can achieve results in the long term.

I imagine that most people in Donbas probably agree with you that an insurrection isn’t a good way to make change - hence their rejection of the US backed Maidan coup against the democratically elected constitutional government in 2014, and their being in favour of autotomy from the Victoria Nuland installed puppet government that sought to violently quash them.

Just like most people rightly reject the American “Jan 6th� insurrection as a threat to democracy, so too did Eastern Ukrainians.

Waiting for the next election, which Yanukovych’s government agreed to move up sooner, may have been a more slow and frustrating process than the US backed street mob wanted, but would likely have been much better in the long run and avoided the current mess.

[andy6025]

An interesting short interview with Sarah Wagenknecht, member of the German Bundestag:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pgs0U3c3YJ4

[Jampie]

"Wagenknecht has called for the dissolution of NATO and for a new security agreement that links Germany and Russia."

So, yet another Kremlin stooge.

Funny if you're not a Kremlin stooge yourself, Andy, how come you never quote anyone who isn't? Or examine a viewpoint that isn't?

[drillerpie]

"Wagenknecht has called for the dissolution of NATO and for a new security agreement that links Germany and Russia."

So, yet another Kremlin stooge.

Funny if you're not a Kremlin stooge yourself, Andy, how come you never quote anyone who isn't? Or examine a viewpoint that isn't?

Just to give some background to the lady in the video, to better understand what kind of world she would like to see: she was a member of the youth wing and then the grown up version of the East German regime before the Berlin Wall fell, after which she wrote an essay praising Stalinism (which she only retracted in 2017).

Early this year she said American intelligence about the upcoming Russian invasion was an effort to inflame the situation and Russia wouldn't invade. She admitted to an error of judgement afterwards but is still against sanctions on the Putin regime.

Perhaps the most famous time Germany and Russia made a security pact it was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, in which glorious anti-fascist Russia agreed to give Nazi germany free reign in return for allowing Russia to do what it does best - territorial expansion in Eastern Europe.


The YouTube channel appears to be a Canadian sinophile (a description fitting Andy himself, although no idea if it's him) who posts anti- Western pro- Chinese videos, and favourable comparisons of Chinese democracy to Western democracy. He has something of a reputation for (amongst other things) selective editing of interviews.

In relation to the other post, I would recommend anyone who hasn't studied the Maidan protests to read up on it from scholarly sources and make their own minds up whether Andy is right to follow the Kremlin line and continually call it a coup.

[andy6025]

Just to give some background to the lady in the video, to better understand what kind of world she would like to see: she was a member of the youth wing and then the grown up version of the East German regime before the Berlin Wall fell, after which she wrote an essay praising Stalinism (which she only retracted in 2017).

Early this year she said American intelligence about the upcoming Russian invasion was an effort to inflame the situation and Russia wouldn't invade. She admitted to an error of judgement afterwards but is still against sanctions on the Putin regime.

Perhaps the most famous time Germany and Russia made a security pact it was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, in which glorious anti-fascist Russia agreed to give Nazi germany free reign in return for allowing Russia to do what it does best - territorial expansion in Eastern Europe.


The YouTube channel appears to be a Canadian sinophile (a description fitting Andy himself, although no idea if it's him) who posts anti- Western pro- Chinese videos, and favourable comparisons of Chinese democracy to Western democracy. He has something of a reputation for (amongst other things) selective editing of interviews.

In relation to the other post, I would recommend anyone who hasn't studied the Maidan protests to read up on it from scholarly sources and make their own minds up whether Andy is right to follow the Kremlin line and continually call it a coup.

Driller, I think it would be better to discuss the ideas and positions that are put forward rather than try to dig up supposed ‘dirt’ on the people that are talking. Regardless of the presenters, such as the red herrings like their opinion on Stalin or references to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the issues she talks about still remain; Germany (not to mention the rest of Europe) is in a very significant quandary without Russian energy. Even if they drop any pretensions of a consistent moral position and continue trade with ‘friendly countries’ that don’t have impeccable geopolitical records themselves, Germany is rapidly deindustrializing. Meanwhile, as Macron points out, America is excruciatingly overcharging Europe for LNG - “some friend!� Perhaps they took a page out of Victoria “Fu** the Europeans� Nuland’s book.

For anyone interested, here’s the documentary produced by Oliver Stone about Maidan called Ukraine on Fire. Not surprisingly YouTube tries to make it appear unavailable to some viewers by putting up a ‘this is offensive’ banner, but I get around it by refreshing it, then it plays.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pKcmNG...ctr=1667824824

I’m looking forward to hearing about the skeletons in Oliver Stone’s closet.

But in all seriousness, this conflict will only end when the two sides talk to each other about the issues of substance and reach an agreement that is suitable to both. I hope that happens sooner rather than later.

Best,

Andy

ps. The YouTube channel that hosted the interview with Sarah Wagenknecht doesn’t belong to me, nor do I have any affiliation with it. Regardless, and as I said, her ideas ought to be considered on merit.

[drillerpie]

Driller, I think it would be better to discuss the ideas and positions that are put forward rather than try to dig up supposed ‘dirt’ on the people that are talking. Regardless of the presenters, such as the red herrings like their opinion on Stalin or references to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the issues she talks about still remain; Germany (not to mention the rest of Europe) is in a very significant quandary without Russian energy. Even if they drop any pretensions of a consistent moral position and continue trade with ‘friendly countries’ that don’t have impeccable geopolitical records themselves, Germany is rapidly deindustrializing. Meanwhile, as Macron points out, America is excruciatingly overcharging Europe for LNG - “some friend!� Perhaps they took a page out of Victoria “Fu** the Europeans� Nuland’s book.

For anyone interested, here’s the documentary produced by Oliver Stone about Maidan called Ukraine on Fire. Not surprisingly YouTube tries to make it appear unavailable to some viewers by putting up a ‘this is offensive’ banner, but I get around it by refreshing it, then it plays.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pKcmNG...ctr=1667824824

I’m looking forward to hearing about the skeletons in Oliver Stone’s closet.

But in all seriousness, this conflict will only end when the two sides talk to each other about the issues of substance and reach an agreement that is suitable to both. I hope that happens sooner rather than later.

Best,

Andy

ps. The YouTube channel that hosted the interview with Sarah Wagenknecht doesn’t belong to me, nor do I have any affiliation with it. Regardless, and as I said, her ideas ought to be considered on merit.

Well here's a point I'm happy to debate with you.

I actually agree with you that people's views should be debated on merit regardless of any dirt that can be dug up on them, but that's not what I'm doing here.

I'm not saying those people used the N word, or did something questionable in their personal lives, therefore their views are null and void. I'm just giving full disclosure about where their ideological/geopolitical sympathies lie, which is relevant in this conversation.

The German politician grew up in one of the most oppressive regimes that has ever existed, and didn't rebel against it, or even just keep her head down, but joined it. She praised Stalinism. Not socialism, not communism, not Leninism, but Stalin - the guy who created one of the most terrifying totalitarian regimes in human history.

The guy whose YouTube channel she was on dedicates his channel to anti-Western and pro Chinese propaganda (according to him the Tianamen Square massacre is a Western invention and all the Uighurs in re-education camps are Al Qaeda)

As I wrote before, the two guys who made the film about Donbas work for Russia Today, and one of them left the US to join Putin's political party.

Is it fair and relevant to point out that all of them seem to be strongly anti-Western, and seem to feel a strong affinity to authoritarian regimes, three of them to Russia in particular?

I think it is.

Molotov-Ribbentrop pact needs to be mentioned because I'm tired of hearing (normally from the types of people mentioned above) that Russia is a glorious bastion of anti-facism. It isn't. They were quite happy for Nazi Germany to do Nazi Germany things if it meant more territory for them. Even when Hitler double crossed them and they decided to fight him instead of splitting the spoils with him, they still needed American weapons to do it.

Funny you should mention Oliver Stone. I think his films are great, but having watched his appearance on the Lex Friedman podcast recently I would also group him with the people above.

Talking to people is great, and listening to other points of view is great, and I genuinely mean that, but by the same token if you think 2+2 = 4, but someone else swears it's 5, it doesn't mean that you should split the difference and say 2+2 equals four and a half.

[andy6025]

Well here's a point I'm happy to debate with you.

I actually agree with you that people's views should be debated on merit regardless of any dirt that can be dug up on them, but that's not what I'm doing here.

I'm not saying those people used the N word, or did something questionable in their personal lives, therefore their views are null and void. I'm just giving full disclosure about where their ideological/geopolitical sympathies lie, which is relevant in this conversation.

The German politician grew up in one of the most oppressive regimes that has ever existed, and didn't rebel against it, or even just keep her head down, but joined it. She praised Stalinism. Not socialism, not communism, not Leninism, but Stalin - the guy who created one of the most terrifying totalitarian regimes in human history.

The guy whose YouTube channel she was on dedicates his channel to anti-Western and pro Chinese propaganda (according to him the Tianamen Square massacre is a Western invention and all the Uighurs in re-education camps are Al Qaeda)

As I wrote before, the two guys who made the film about Donbas work for Russia Today, and one of them left the US to join Putin's political party.

Is it fair and relevant to point out that all of them seem to be strongly anti-Western, and seem to feel a strong affinity to authoritarian regimes, three of them to Russia in particular?

I think it is.

Molotov-Ribbentrop pact needs to be mentioned because I'm tired of hearing (normally from the types of people mentioned above) that Russia is a glorious bastion of anti-facism. It isn't. They were quite happy for Nazi Germany to do Nazi Germany things if it meant more territory for them. Even when Hitler double crossed them and they decided to fight him instead of splitting the spoils with him, they still needed American weapons to do it.

Funny you should mention Oliver Stone. I think his films are great, but having watched his appearance on the Lex Friedman podcast recently I would also group him with the people above.

Talking to people is great, and listening to other points of view is great, and I genuinely mean that, but by the same token if you think 2+2 = 4, but someone else swears it's 5, it doesn't mean that you should split the difference and say 2+2 equals four and a half.

People’s ideologies and geopolitical sympathies might be relevant to ‘“the conversation� if it weren’t the only part of the conversation. But since they are the only contribution you seem willing to make, it suggests to me that you yourself are the ideologue, who, despite claims to the otherwise, doesn’t wish to engage on ideas based on their merits, but rather from a position based on your own hysterical ideology.

I think Wagenknecht raises some very important problems, not just for the war in Ukraine but also for Europe’s, and Germany’s in particular, economic conundrum. And these problems exist regardless of anybody’s views on Stalin or a silly Anglo-American revisionist view of history. I’ll summarize her points as follows:

1) The sanctions were designed to bring economic pressure on Russia (ie. ‘weaponize the economy’) in order to either convince the Russian leadership to change course vis a vis Ukraine, or convince the Russian people to overthrow their leadership in favour of a new ‘western-friendly’ government (Ã* la Boris Yeltsin, perhaps). Not only have these sanctions failed to achieve either of these results, but in practice they’ve driven up the price of energy such that Russia is making even more bank than they were pre-SMO. Furthermore, these sanctions have also backfired such that they’ve put Europe is in dire economic straights! In her words: “they are destroying our economyâ€�. In light of their failures, she says, continuing the sanctions is ‘indefensible.’

2. She thinks that both warring parties ought to negotiate, and that Ukraine ought to be willing to compromise (likely along the lines that they’d already been willing to do on the eve of Boris Johnson’s visit to Ukraine back in early April). She says that it would be useful for neutral countries such as Mexico, Israel and/or China to mediate such negotiations. I think she has a point here - Europe’s economy will be in total ruins prior to either side achieving an outright victory, and given her next point, that victory is unlikely to belong to Ukraine. This ought to be obvious to anyone (with the exception of fellow fan Jampie, who is at odds with both sides’ interpretation of reality in Ukraine).

3. She says that the American supply of weapons to Ukraine is escalating the conflict and it may even reach the point that ‘the worst threat arises’ (implying nuclear war). This seems to me to be a legitimate concern given that numerous Ukrainian officials, including Zalensky himself, have called for nuclear ‘first strikes’ on Russia, and that Putin has implied that any nuclear attacks on Russia would be met with retaliation. In her view, and that of the NYT, ‘cornering’ Putin will exacerbate that danger. Given the western narrative that Putin is a madman, they ought to cognizant of this possibility. As many analysts have pointed out, we are now the closest the world has come to nuclear war - likely even surpassing the Cuban missile crisis.

4. Returning to the question of energy, she says that economically viable alternatives to Russian energy have not been found (and I would argue that sufficient alternatives at any price haven’t been found). Further, she says that responding to Russia’s war with an economic war against them is a double-standard - that they are in the midst of responding to Azerbaijan’s military aggression against Armenia by signing more deals with them. Similarly she points out, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been waging a war against Yemen, causing the deaths of upwards of over 300k people, and Scholtz is likewise courting them. She then asks, ‘if we are to trade only with impeccable democracies, who would be left?’ She points out that the United States is likewise guilty of waging “a number of wars in violation of international law.�

5. She points out that Germany is ultimately buying Russian energy anyways, despite the sanctions. For example, Russia sells oil to India, India refined it into diesel and then sells it to Germany (obviously at inflated prices). She points out that this is absurd. Why not buy the energy directly from Russia?

Perhaps the answer to the last one is that it’s because the British and Americans don’t want Russia and Germany to have workable business relations, and see an industrial Germany powered by Russian energy as a competitive economic threat to American hegemony. Perhaps that’s what underscores the revisionist history and misplaced reminders of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (while omitting the fact that the Soviets proposed a Soviet-Franco-British alliance explicitly against Germany prior to the outbreak of WWII, but were scoffed at by the western allies).

Anyways, whatever the reason, the contradictions abound. The economic de-industrialization of Germany (and the rest of Europe) quickens its pace. Economic forecasts for Russia continue to improve. American energy companies are also making bank. And a hell of a lot of people continue to die and others be maimed.

This makes me doubt that the most important thing to consider is one’s opinion of Stalin or that you’re the one getting 4 out of 2 and 2.

[Jampie]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63573387

Russia's announced they're withdrawing from Kherson.

Might not be true. They don't always follow through on their announcements, but it would be unusually dim, even for Russia's military leadership, for people so high up to be announcing it if it's a lie.

So, nine months into the three day war to seize Kyiv, things seem to be going well. For the Ukrainians.

[i961pie]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63573387
!
Russia's announced they're withdrawing from Kherson.

Might not be true. They don't always follow through on their announcements, but it would be unusually dim, even for Russia's military leadership, for people so high up to be announcing it if it's a lie.

So, nine months into the three day war to seize Kyiv, things seem to be going well. For the Ukrainians.

Lets hope so.

[andy6025]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63573387

Russia's announced they're withdrawing from Kherson.

Might not be true. They don't always follow through on their announcements, but it would be unusually dim, even for Russia's military leadership, for people so high up to be announcing it if it's a lie.

So, nine months into the three day war to seize Kyiv, things seem to be going well. For the Ukrainians.

Yes, seems like they’re withdrawing from the Kherson bridgehead. My understanding is that it’s too difficult to supply the troops across the Dneiper and that if the Ukrainians blow the dam it’ll be flooded in 10 feet of water.

Of course it might be a fib and Zalensky suspects it’s a trap, but I’ve heard some reports that the withdrawal has already started and that the AFU are letting the Russians withdraw unmolested. Supposedly, and it could all be BS, the Americans controlling the HIMARS brokered a deal with the Russians to let them leave in exchange for a reprieve in Russian strikes on Ukrainian electricity infrastructure and the AFU withdrawing from parts of Donetsk. And lastly that this might all be part of a brokered peace deal in the making.

While that’s hopeful news, I’m not about to count on it. Given that Hungary is holding up the release of EU money to Ukraine, possibly indefinitely, the Americans just denied Ukraine a pile of drones, and that the Republicans will likely control at least the House of Reps and may also turn off the money spigot, it doesn’t seem like the Russians will stop now.

Meanwhile, the Russians apparently took control of a few towns in zaporizhzhia today, so that’d contradict the idea there’d be any deal at all.

In other news I hear that the Frenchman Macron gave Nicolas Maduro a hearty hand shank and addressed him as ‘Mr President.’ Not surprise really given that Mohammed Bin Salmon is no longer a ‘pariah’.