RussiaGate

[Loren Pechtel]

They wanted the eastern-bloc countries back under their thumb. The expansion of NATO meant they couldn't just take them over again. If the eastern-bloc countries weren't afraid of Russian conquest they would have had no reason to join NATO. Note how many of the countries that didn't join NATO have been reconquered by Moscow.

Yes, that's what US media tells you to believe.

You don't realize that you're just parroting what Putin tells you to believe.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ukraine is want they want to conquer now. And you don't get to take gifts back, even if you later regret them.

It was not a a gift, it was common property.

They said it was a gift. They didn't really mean it because they figured they controlled it anyway. Times changed, they don't get to back on it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Afghanistan? You're forgetting the Soviet-backed puppet government, followed by an invasion to "protect" it. The CIA backed the resistance to that Russian invasion, we didn't start things.

You are out of touch with history. US admitted that they went to Afghanistan first with sole purpose to draw USSR in and make it their Vietnam.

Where are you getting your "history", Pravda?

No, their becoming "socialist" was a result if it being imposed by Moscow in all areas they controlled. The countries were supposed to be free to go their own way.

Tell that to Japan and West Germany.

Free. Just because they are in our camp doesn't mean they're under our control.

We permitted that in the West, Moscow treated the East as a conquest.

Nope, they treated it as a historical inevitability.

You're preaching Marxist-Leninist thought. Doesn't mean they were right. The people in the East didn't like their fate and kicked out their overlords as soon as they could. There have been no revolutions in Western Europe because they people aren't under the yoke of overlords.

 

[Elixir]

I think you lost him at

... people aren't under the yoke of overlords.

Russians can't assimilate that kind of information - they have no context for it. So they assume it can't be so.

 

[Copernicus]

It was not a a gift, it was common property.

They said it was a gift. They didn't really mean it because they figured they controlled it anyway. Times changed, they don't get to back on it.

Well, technically it wasn't a gift, but a change made by Khrushchev (who was sort of Ukrainian) at a time when Ukraine was an integral part of the Soviet Empire. Yalta had not been part of Ukraine before. Russia annexed it, and that became a casus belli for the Russo-Turkish war towards the end of the 18th century. The Russian Black Sea fleet was headquartered in Sevastopol, so Putin's aggression was very popular in Russia. It was a good "wag the dog" strategy for him, and that is one reason why Russia is likely to vigorously resist relinquishing control back to Ukraine, even after Putin leaves power. I suspect that an internationally-supervised plebiscite there would leave Russia firmly in control, but I could be wrong. Putin certainly isn't willing to take a chance on one. An eventual diplomatic solution might involve Russia agreeing to pay reparations for its annexation but keep Crimea.

 

[barbos]

Yes, that's what US media tells you to believe.

You don't realize that you're just parroting what Putin tells you to believe.

Yeah, I should get it from you instead

 

[barbos]

They said it was a gift. They didn't really mean it because they figured they controlled it anyway. Times changed, they don't get to back on it.

Well, technically it wasn't a gift, but a change made by Khrushchev (who was sort of Ukrainian) at a time when Ukraine was an integral part of the Soviet Empire. Yalta had not been part of Ukraine before. Russia annexed it, and that became a casus belli for the Russo-Turkish war towards the end of the 18th century. The Russian Black Sea fleet was headquartered in Sevastopol, so Putin's aggression was very popular in Russia. It was a good "wag the dog" strategy for him, and that is one reason why Russia is likely to vigorously resist relinquishing control back to Ukraine, even after Putin leaves power. I suspect that an internationally-supervised plebiscite there would leave Russia firmly in control, but I could be wrong. Putin certainly isn't willing to take a chance on one. An eventual diplomatic solution might involve Russia agreeing to pay reparations for its annexation but keep Crimea.

West is afraid of that too. They are afraid that results will be identical to "unfree" referendum and that their lies about voting will be exposed. As for Putin,he is not afraid, he is annoyed at this idea of second guessing and checking his actions.
West prefer to keep the notion that Crimea was occupied and most people there want back to Ukraine, so much so that some western journalists are flabbergasted when they don't see people with machine guns patrolling every inch there. So there will be no "free" referendum.
Crimea should have been returned to Russia immediately after the USSR dissolution. It did not happen because dissolution was not complete and nobody treated it seriously at the time (except baltic states, they were gone) What we have now is real dissolution.

 

[barbos]

You are out of touch with history. US admitted that they went to Afghanistan first with sole purpose to draw USSR in and make it their Vietnam.

Where are you getting your "history", Pravda?

No, their becoming "socialist" was a result if it being imposed by Moscow in all areas they controlled. The countries were supposed to be free to go their own way.

Tell that to Japan and West Germany.

Free. Just because they are in our camp doesn't mean they're under our control.

Eastern Europe is free too, what's your problem?

We permitted that in the West, Moscow treated the East as a conquest.

Nope, they treated it as a historical inevitability.

You're preaching Marxist-Leninist thought.

I am stating historical facts, it's you who are preaching here.

Doesn't mean they were right. The people in the East didn't like their fate and kicked out their overlords as soon as they could. There have been no revolutions in Western Europe because they people aren't under the yoke of overlords.

You are not that different from Marxist-Leninists, same style, you can write their stupid propaganda books real well.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, technically it wasn't a gift, but a change made by Khrushchev (who was sort of Ukrainian) at a time when Ukraine was an integral part of the Soviet Empire. Yalta had not been part of Ukraine before. Russia annexed it, and that became a casus belli for the Russo-Turkish war towards the end of the 18th century. The Russian Black Sea fleet was headquartered in Sevastopol, so Putin's aggression was very popular in Russia. It was a good "wag the dog" strategy for him, and that is one reason why Russia is likely to vigorously resist relinquishing control back to Ukraine, even after Putin leaves power. I suspect that an internationally-supervised plebiscite there would leave Russia firmly in control, but I could be wrong. Putin certainly isn't willing to take a chance on one. An eventual diplomatic solution might involve Russia agreeing to pay reparations for its annexation but keep Crimea.

West is afraid of that too. They are afraid that results will be identical to "unfree" referendum and that their lies about voting will be exposed. As for Putin,he is not afraid, he is annoyed at this ide of second guessing and checking his actions.
West prefer to keep the notion that Crimea was occupied and most people there want back to Ukraine, so much so that some western journalists are flabbergasted when they don't see people with machine guns patrolling every inch there. So there will be no "free" referendum.
Crimea should have been returned to Russia immediately after the USSR dissolution. It did not happen because dissolution was not complete and nobody treated it seriously at the time (except baltic states, they were gone) What we have now is real dissolution.

Nonsense. Russia had signed an agreement to respect Ukraine's sovereignty, which included keeping Crimea in Ukraine. There is no reason why Putin needed to annex Crimea. He did it to serve his internal political agenda--his autocratic rule of Russia. It has made him the richest, most powerful man in the world.

ETA: See The Future is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia.

 

[barbos]

Yes, that's what US media tells you to believe.

Why would the Eastern European countries not want to move towards NATO

Ask Montenegro, or really anyone except Poland, most of the population was around 50-50 on NATO.

and the EU who are rich and awesome and away from Russia which is poor, shitty and produces nothing of value except for petrochemicals. Who would defend Russia it´s a gas station with an outdated military and a failing economy and culture.

 

[barbos]

West is afraid of that too. They are afraid that results will be identical to "unfree" referendum and that their lies about voting will be exposed. As for Putin,he is not afraid, he is annoyed at this ide of second guessing and checking his actions.
West prefer to keep the notion that Crimea was occupied and most people there want back to Ukraine, so much so that some western journalists are flabbergasted when they don't see people with machine guns patrolling every inch there. So there will be no "free" referendum.
Crimea should have been returned to Russia immediately after the USSR dissolution. It did not happen because dissolution was not complete and nobody treated it seriously at the time (except baltic states, they were gone) What we have now is real dissolution.

Nonsense. Russia had signed an agreement to respect Ukraine's sovereignty, which included keeping Crimea in Ukraine.

Incorrect, they did not sign it, It was a memorandum and fortunately it did not get signed by anybody including Ukraine. Once nukes left Ukraine everybody lost interest in making sure it was voted on and signed. But I agree, from a legal stand point it was not nice to take Crimea back. From any other point it was a right thing to do however. And US ambassador Matlock agrees with me.

There is no reason why Putin needed to annex Crimea.

What if KGB agent run through trash cans in Pentagon and recovered US plans for base in Sevastopol?
Don't you think it could be considered a reason?

He did it to serve his internal political agenda--his autocratic rule of Russia.

Yeah, he saw that idea was extremely popular and doing nothing will cause him elections, can you blame a politician for that?

It has made him the richest, most powerful man in the world.

Not sure if he really thought that, but can you really blame politicians for that?
Half of them have at least 20% of Trump in them.

ETA: See The Future is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia.

Cool, there is a book, someone wrote it, must be the true and accurate description of reality.

 

[Copernicus]

Nonsense. Russia had signed an agreement to respect Ukraine's sovereignty, which included keeping Crimea in Ukraine.

Incorrect, they did not sign it, It was a memorandum and fortunately it did not get signed by anybody including Ukraine. Once nukes left Ukraine everybody lost interest in making sure it was voted on and signed. But I agree, from a legal stand point it was not nice to take Crimea back. From any other point it was a right thing to do however. And US ambassador Matlock agrees with me.

Извините, но ето просто дисинформация, товарищ барбос. Russia, the US, the UK, and Northern Ireland all signed the  Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances on December 5, 1994. You may not know this, or may not care, but that is in the public record. Putin unilaterally abrogated that agreement. He lied when he claimed that Russia had not invaded Crimea. Much after the fact, he publicly admitted it. (See Putin admits Russian military presence in Ukraine for first time.) Why would he lie about it, if Russia had, in fact, not technically agreed to respect Ukrainian sovereignty? The man famously said: "“You don't understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a state. What is Ukraine? Part of its territories is Eastern Europe, but the greater part is a gift from us.” (Ты же понимаешь, Джордж, что Украина — это даже не государство! Что такое Украина? Часть ее территорий — это Восточная Европа, а часть, и значительная, подарена нами!)" (See  Vladimir Putin quotes)

There is no reason why Putin needed to annex Crimea.

What if KGB agent run through trash cans in Pentagon and recovered US plans for base in Sevastopol? Don't you think it could be considered a reason?

A reason for what? You aren't making any sense.

He did it to serve his internal political agenda--his autocratic rule of Russia.

Yeah, he saw that idea was extremely popular and doing nothing will cause him elections, can you blame a politician for that?

Can I blame a politician for assuming dictatorial control over a country, assassinating political opponents, and destroying democracy? Well, that's a tough one. Let me think. Yes, I can.

It has made him the richest, most powerful man in the world.

Not sure if he really thought that, but can you really blame politicians for that? Half of them have at least 20% of Trump in them.

Oh, gosh, you ask such tough questions. Can I blame politicians like Trump? Let me think. Yes. Yes, I can. Putin's only saving grace is that he is not as stupid or ignorant as Trump, but he is a stinker. Just like Trump in that respect. A strutting, pompous nativist who brings out the worst in the people he dominates. It is no wonder that he hangs out with people like the disgraced Italian leader, Berlusconi. or that he supports right wing fascism everywhere in Western countries.

ETA: See The Future is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia.

Cool, there is a book, someone wrote it, must be the true and accurate description of reality.

Or it might just be something to contradict your pro-Putin biases. I don't know where your "Milky Way Galaxy" is in the world, but, if you are in a Western country, you can get this book and read it. If you are in Russia, you can't.

 

[barbos]

Incorrect, they did not sign it, It was a memorandum and fortunately it did not get signed by anybody including Ukraine. Once nukes left Ukraine everybody lost interest in making sure it was voted on and signed. But I agree, from a legal stand point it was not nice to take Crimea back. From any other point it was a right thing to do however. And US ambassador Matlock agrees with me.

Извините, но ето просто дисинформация, товарищ барбос. Russia, the US, the UK, and Northern Ireland all signed the  Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances on December 5, 1994. You may not know this, or may not care, but that is in the public record. Putin unilaterally abrogated that agreement.

Dude, I mentioned the damn thing, and you say I may not know that? You are not making any sense.
Memorandum is just that - memorandum, hardly worth anything. Parliaments were supposed to vote it into a real thing, Few presidents sitting together and signing it don't mean much.

He lied when he claimed that Russia had not invaded Crimea.

We have been over this, he did not lie technically, he avoided the question by saying "It could be anybody" You should listen to white House briefings, they do it all the time.

Much after the fact, he publicly admitted it. (See Putin admits Russian military presence in Ukraine for first time.)

Wow, this change everything! just wow! How did I miss that, this is unbelievable, you opened my eyes!

Why would he lie about it, if Russia had, in fact, not technically agreed to respect Ukrainian sovereignty? The man famously said: "“You don't understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a state. What is Ukraine? Part of its territories is Eastern Europe, but the greater part is a gift from us.” (Ты же понимаешь, Джордж, что Украина — это даже не государство! Что такое Украина? Часть ее территорий — это Восточная Европа, а часть, и значительная, подарена нами!)" (See  Vladimir Putin quotes)

There is no reason why Putin needed to annex Crimea.

What if KGB agent run through trash cans in Pentagon and recovered US plans for base in Sevastopol? Don't you think it could be considered a reason?

A reason for what? You aren't making any sense.

Reason for invasion, stop being dense.

He did it to serve his internal political agenda--his autocratic rule of Russia.

Yeah, he saw that idea was extremely popular and doing nothing will cause him elections, can you blame a politician for that?

Can I blame a politician for assuming dictatorial control over a country, assassinating political opponents, and destroying democracy? Well, that's a tough one. Let me think. Yes, I can.

You are answering the question I did not ask.

It has made him the richest, most powerful man in the world.

Not sure if he really thought that, but can you really blame politicians for that? Half of them have at least 20% of Trump in them.

Oh, gosh, you ask such tough questions. Can I blame politicians like Trump? Let me think. Yes. Yes, I can. Putin's only saving grace is that he is not as stupid or ignorant as Trump, but he is a stinker. Just like Trump in that respect. A strutting, pompous nativist who brings out the worst in the people he dominates. It is no wonder that he hangs out with people like the disgraced Italian leader, Berlusconi. or that he supports right wing fascism everywhere in Western countries.

ETA: See The Future is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia.

Cool, there is a book, someone wrote it, must be the true and accurate description of reality.

Or it might just be something to contradict your pro-Putin biases. I don't know where your "Milky Way Galaxy" is in the world, but, if you are in a Western country, you can get this book and read it. If you are in Russia, you can't.

If I am pro-putin then Ambassador Matlock is pto-Putin as well
I don't need to read a book written by someone who has an ax to grind.

 

[Malintent]

It was not a a gift, it was common property.

They said it was a gift. They didn't really mean it because they figured they controlled it anyway. Times changed, they don't get to back on it.

It was his Precious! His Birthday Present!

 

[Elixir]

I don't need to read a book written by someone who has an ax to grind.

Whatever you've been reading, it seems to have ground your axe all the way down to the handle.
Don't grind your fingers off - you'll need them to spread pro-Russian propaganda!

 

[Opoponax]

I don't need to read a book written by someone who has an ax to grind.

Whatever you've been reading, it seems to have ground your axe all the way down to the handle.
Don't grind your fingers off - you'll need them to spread pro-Russian propaganda!

Barbos has the Madea response down pat. The first 1:30 is okay, but at 1:37 is where it's really spot on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHsBK722Yqw

 

[barbos]

I don't need to read a book written by someone who has an ax to grind.

Whatever you've been reading, it seems to have ground your axe all the way down to the handle.
Don't grind your fingers off - you'll need them to spread pro-Russian propaganda!

Yes, that book is no better than my stupid postings here
And I don't have pro-russian propaganda to spread. I have anti-stupidity propaganda to spread.
I think we have Dunning–Kruger effect here. You are really convinced that you know how things are in Russia better than russians themselves.
Reminded me the case of store clerk-woman who gave me (PhD in physics) a physics lecture about sacrificial anodes I wanted to buy, trying to convince me that it has nothing to do electricity.

Whatever you've been reading, it seems to have ground your axe all the way down to the handle.
Don't grind your fingers off - you'll need them to spread pro-Russian propaganda!

Barbos has the Madea response down pat. The first 1:30 is okay, but at 1:37 is where it's really spot on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHsBK722Yqw

This video is not available.

 

[barbos]

They said it was a gift. They didn't really mean it because they figured they controlled it anyway. Times changed, they don't get to back on it.

It was his Precious! His Birthday Present!

Some people say Khrushhev being ukrainian suggests it was a gift, but in reality it was just economy and geography.
Stalin, on the other, hand did give Abkhazia to Georgia as a gift it seems, so they tried to get away from Georgia at first opportunity.

I don't think it matters what it was, It should have been taken into account during "divorce" regardless.


I am curios how nobody comments on Matlock. Too inconvenient to comment?
Does it bother you that people who are definitely more knowledgeable then you disagree with you?
Of course not, thanks to dunning-kruger effect again.

 

[Elixir]

This video is not available.

Gee, that's odd. It comes right up for me.
Oh - I forgot; "unavailable to Russian trolls". Can't let those trolls see themselves being mocked...

 

[Elixir]

You are really convinced that you know how things are in Russia better than russians themselves.

Projection, much?
Frankly I don't know and largely don't care whether Russians consider themselves well off or not.
What I do know is that the Russian government is hard at work sowing dissent and conflict within the US in the hope of destabilizing it.
I'm sure that the US is doing their hapless best to do the same thing in Russian, but they're at a severe disadvantage due to the Russian government's control of all their media.
Do you have any idea of what things are really like for Americans?