The Mueller investigation.

[iceaura]

Why should Russia (or I) oppose a fascist rule in the US, if the alternative is even more dangerous?

No reason. On that planet, lots of alternative realities are available.

Explain, I simply don't understand your point here.

You lack information. I can't help you.

No, it is. The communist side tried hard, very hard, to censor every information coming from the West. They did not succeed, the only result was that almost all the population supported what Western propaganda told them as more reliable. On the Westen side, censorship was much less serious than it is now.

Russian incompetence does not limit others.

Now imagine Clinton there - who thinks Putin will run away instead of retaliating

You lack information about Clinton. Your imagination is not a good substitute.

But he is able and ready to play chicken games with the US. Simply because you have no choice - either you are ready to go to war, or you have lost against the US.

So the danger was that Putin would start a war against Hillary Clinton to keep his macho image in good shape?
I agree, actually - that is run of the mill fascist behavior.
It's not a good reason to back a fascist takeover of the US, though. Which the Russians - and you - did.

 

[Schmelzer]

If a president such as Yanukovych or Maduro violates the powers and responsibilities "legally" granted to them, does that not in itself constitute a coup?

You have which evidence for such claims? There is none.

Let's suppose the US has its own set of mafia oligarchs that it supports. How would that be any worse than the mafia oligarchs currently running the country under Putin? The only difference between now and 1990 is that oil prices are higher and Russia has access to global markets.

Look at the living standards of the Russians and the general situation in Russia under US oligarch rules (1990-2000) and under Putin's rule. The differences are large, and in favor of the Putin time.

Does it not concern you that Ukraine thinks you want to install a mafia to run them?

They already have a mafia running them, and they know it. That's why they preferred to elect a clown as the new president.

On the rare occasions when I actually speak to a Putin apologist in person and listen to the fantasies they've convinced themselves to believe in, I have to wonder what they think of Russian people on the whole. If America is in the grasp of an unprecedented evil tyranny while Russia is currently managed by a great liberator, and the quality of life and level of social development is so badly lopsided in America's favor even with all the existing shortcomings in American society, what exactly do they expect would become of the Russian people if such leadership roles were reversed?

First of all, what is evil is that the US lives by exploiting the rest of the world. The Russians have seen how the West has robbed everything during the Yeltsin time in Russia. Of course, the ability to exploit the rest of the worlds gives some advantage in the living standards. Then, there are a lot of Russians living in the US now, and they compare what they see in the US with what they see in Russia. Some have already returned to Russia. And what they see is not always in favor of the US. For example, US medicine is of good quality, but it is horribly expensive. That one has to pay a lot for education is horrible in the eyes of the Russians. The infrastructure is deteriorating, and already in some aspects worse than in Russia.

Russia does not even want to rule the world. They are quite happy that they no longer have to rule the Baltikum, in their opinion now Europe has to pay for them, and that is fine. And even if during the Ukraine crisis many were in favor of doing much more (namely liberating all the South East where most Russian people live) essentially nobody proposed to occupy the whole of Ukraine, in particular not the power base of the Ukrainian Bandera fascists in West Ukraine. That part should be given to Poland or left alone, simply no civilized power would try to rule it.

There is a difference between supporting those who want to defend their freedom against US and ruling over people who don't like this rule. So, supporting the people of Syria or Venezuela, which are victims of US aggression, is one thing, ruling over people who support fascist ideas, like those in the Baltikum or in Western Ukraine, a quite different one.

 

[Schmelzer]

No reason. On that planet, lots of alternative realities are available.

In those elections, there was only one alternative - Hillary. In a Trump against Sanders battle, I would have been much less in favor of Trump. (The only reason to support him would have been to harm the US, which is, as explained many times, a good thing to do if one wants peace on Earth.)

You lack information. I can't help you.

You could help giving it, and supporting it with evidence. But, of course, if that evidence does not exist, you cannot.

So the danger was that Putin would start a war against Hillary Clinton to keep his macho image in good shape?

No. The danger was that Hillary attacks Russian forces and that the Russian forces, instead of running away, retaliate. The macho shape, which is anyway Western propaganda fantasy, plays no role here at all. The question is how to react against the permanent US aggression.

It's not a good reason to back a fascist takeover of the US, though. Which the Russians - and you - did.

The fascist takeover already happened in 2001 with the PATRIOT Act. So, it is, once Obama has not removed it, bipartisan fascism. Nothing comparable to PATRIOT has been done by Trump, so, all you cry about fascism is simply the minor political struggle between two variants of fascism.

(Of course, both are not fascist in the historical meaning of open support of fascist traditions, like those of the Bandera fascists movement in Ukraine supported by Obama, but fascist if considered from a more general point of view, which takes into account also the structure of political power.)

In retrospect, even if the globalists have now with Bolton/Pompeo the power again, the world has gained two years without globalists in power and engaged in internal fightings. Which is positive, in particular, because during this time the US soft power has been seriously weakened.

After the globalist takeover, it is less clear what is less evil - Bolton/Pompeo or Clinton. On the surface, the policy of Bolton/Pompeo may look even more warlike, but has up to now not started a war - the Venezuela coup attempt is yet much more peaceful in comparison with Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. On the other hand, the Bolton/Pompeo regime clearly overplays the US soft power by forcing Europe and everybody else to sanction Iran and Russia in a way which obviously harms the European economy. The EU is essentially forced to resist and starts to resist. Once the structures for resistance have been created, in particular, a banking system not under US control, they decrease the US power forever. Less aggressive policies would preserve these powers.

 

[Quantum Quack]

On the surface, the policy of Bolton/Pompeo may look even more warlike, but has up to now not started a war

Funny thing about that is that neither has Hillary.....started a war.... ( well .....she can't can she!)
Using your (ir)rational is like .....uhm.... forget it...

 

[sculptor]

...
"we came
we saw
he died
giggle giggle"

 

[Quantum Quack]

The U.S. withdrawal had been expected. Trump made it official at the National Rifle Association's annual convention in Indianapolis, pulling out a pen onstage and signing a paper that he said would take back the Obama administration's signature on behalf of the U.S.


The ATT has long been a target of the NRA, which claimed it would harm U.S. gun owners. Trump echoed that criticism on Friday, calling the ATT a threat to Second Amendment rights. "We will never surrender America's sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy," Trump was quoted as saying, in a White House statement announcing the change.

src: https://www.npr.org/2019/04/26/717547741/trump-moves-to-withdraw-u-s-from-u-n-arms-trade-treaty
​

Coming from a man who achieved office because of Russian interference and became president of the USA....
and he talks about supporting the second amendment....so sad!

 

[Quantum Quack]

Note: As I have been publicly accuse of trolling by the site administrator, JamesR, I will no longer be participating in this thread or any other for some time...

 

[CptBork]

You have which evidence for such claims? There is none.

Iceaura has already noted your aptitude for ignoring whatever exists and doesn't fit your narrative. Nevertheless just to give one example, how do you explain former PM Yulia Tymoshenko getting locked up and beaten in prison on dubious corruption charges and a bogus trial already denounced by European human rights courts, while President Yanukovych was embezzling millions of dollars in public funds to live in a secret private compound filled with tacky art?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...raine-presidential-compound-viktor-yanukovychhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2...raine-presidential-compound-viktor-yanukovych

Look at the living standards of the Russians and the general situation in Russia under US oligarch rules (1990-2000) and under Putin's rule. The differences are large, and in favor of the Putin time.

Not outside Moscow, they're not. Putin's popularity is at all-time lows and dropping across the country. As I said, the only positive difference between now and 1990 is that Russia can sell the oil and gas from all the land it's stolen in the last three centuries at much higher prices and in much bigger quantities to markets in Europe and Asia, and has been able to purchase modern technology and education from abroad with some of the profits. Otherwise capital flight is at record highs, the global population of Russian speakers is in rapid decline, average life expectancy is less than the retirement age, Russia's navy was orders of magnitude more powerful in 1990 with technology that was 29 years older than what's available today... Oh but they do have a new stats guy, so at least the numbers on paper are much better.

They already have a mafia running them, and they know it. That's why they preferred to elect a clown as the new president.

Yes but my question was whether you think that adding the Russian mafia into the Ukrainian picture makes the world a better place.

First of all, what is evil is that the US lives by exploiting the rest of the world. The Russians have seen how the West has robbed everything during the Yeltsin time in Russia.

What did America steal from Russia during Yeltsin's time, exactly? Did McDonald's clog up everyone's arteries and shut down the country?

Of course, the ability to exploit the rest of the worlds gives some advantage in the living standards.

Yes, America is only stronger than you because it takes steroids, thick hairline be damned. This is the typical lamentation of the old school international socialist, and I thought you said you hated those guys. What would really be relevant is if you could point out something the US does to make a greasy profit which isn't also being done by Russia and just about everyone else on the planet. If you're going to tell me that refusing to do business with people who do business with you amounts to "exploitation", then you really need to stop listening to emo teen pop.

Then, there are a lot of Russians living in the US now, and they compare what they see in the US with what they see in Russia. Some have already returned to Russia.

How many have left Russia in the last 5 years and how many have returned?

And what they see is not always in favor of the US. For example, US medicine is of good quality, but it is horribly expensive. That one has to pay a lot for education is horrible in the eyes of the Russians.

And yet they're in the US because expensive education and healthcare are still better than virtually no education and health care. In Russia they tell elderly patients in the emergency room that they've lived a good long life and it's time to make room for the young'uns... Yeah what a great way to make people want to devote their working lives to the national cause, really wonder why it's not working out.

The infrastructure is deteriorating, and already in some aspects worse than in Russia.

Yeah less plane crashes and bridge collapses, US really needs to up its game.

Russia does not even want to rule the world.

Yeah they do, at least enough of it so that history will remember them as the dominant global power. Wanting to rule over your own neighbourhood and deny equal rights and self-determination to your neighbours is already bad enough as is.

They are quite happy that they no longer have to rule the Baltikum, in their opinion now Europe has to pay for them, and that is fine.

No, they froth at the mouth over the loss of every square millimetre of land they ever once infested.

And even if during the Ukraine crisis many were in favor of doing much more (namely liberating all the South East where most Russian people live) essentially nobody proposed to occupy the whole of Ukraine, in particular not the power base of the Ukrainian Bandera fascists in West Ukraine.

You yourself were one of the loudest mouth breathers foaming at the mouth over the imminent Russian conquest of Kiev, now you're claiming you never wanted it. Your side is the only one in the debate that keeps rambling about this guy Bandera who died 60 years ago, it's like you think they fight for Santa Claus.

That part should be given to Poland or left alone, simply no civilized power would try to rule it.

Yet you're willing to kill hundreds of thousands to rule over Chechnya and Crimea which are in even worse shape. You're making excuses for the fact that Russia doesn't have the economic or military strength to rule all of Ukraine or go up against NATO instead of just admitting that Russia is no longer strong enough to bully all its neighbours.

There is a difference between supporting those who want to defend their freedom against US and ruling over people who don't like this rule. So, supporting the people of Syria or Venezuela, which are victims of US aggression, is one thing, ruling over people who support fascist ideas, like those in the Baltikum or in Western Ukraine, a quite different one.

No you can't have it both ways. Either the Ukrainians elected a clown who rejects the existing system, or they elected a Nazi who continues to propagate a Nazi system. Which position are you sticking to and which one are you walking away from?

 

[iceaura]

(The only reason to support him would have been to harm the US, which is, as explained many times, a good thing to do if one wants peace on Earth.)

You supported a fascist demagogue, apparently without realizing it. Your "reasons" were all standard Republican Party propaganda lines, straight from the corporate authoritarian media operations who have been pimping US imperialism for decades now (they profit). You got played.

No. The danger was that Hillary attacks Russian forces and that the Russian forces, instead of running away, retaliate.

So the fantasy danger was that Putin would double down on his macho image and symbolic greatness in Syria even at the risk of nuclear war.
I doubt Putin is that foolish, but you may be correct. Meanwhile, that is a small corner of the planet - Trump was and is the much bigger risk everywhere else, including other nuclear weapon regions.

The fascist takeover already happened in 2001 with the PATRIOT Act. So, it is, once Obama has not removed it, bipartisan fascism.

Nonsense. Obama had no such powers.
There is nothing bipartisan about the fascist takeover of the Republican Party, and failing to stop them is not equivalent to being them.

In retrospect, even if the globalists have now with Bolton/Pompeo the power again, the world has gained two years without globalists in power and engaged in internal fightings.

Those globalists regained power when Trump, their fellow Republican and advancer of their policies, won. You supported that. There was no two year break.

After the globalist takeover, it is less clear what is less evil - Bolton/Pompeo or Clinton.

Trump or Clinton, you mean.
Clinton is plenty evil, especially in her compromising and cowardly complicity in Republican policies and betrayals of liberal democracy generally, but nothing compared to Trump. Clinton compromises with evil - Trump is the evil itself.
One reason that is unclear to you is that you lack information about US politics. You supported Trump's ascension to power, and now you talk as if the immediate and direct consequences of that - the restoration of Bolton and Pompeo to high office, say, and the standard Republican policies in the Americas - were somehow from something else.

"we came
we saw
he died
giggle giggle"

Clinton was forever trying to appeal to the Republican voter, especially by pandering to their love of war and violence. One of the few bright spots in her loss was the possibility that this kind of "bipartisan" appeal would get some of the blame, and the Dems would quit doing that.

 

[Schmelzer]

So the fantasy danger was that Putin would double down on his macho image and symbolic greatness in Syria even at the risk of nuclear war.

No. Learn to read. How many times I have to explain to you the difference?

Nonsense. Obama had no such powers.

The Dems after the Obama takeover would have had it. But, I forgot, when it was accepted, all the Reps could have simply refused to vote, it would have passed anyway.

Those globalists regained power when Trump, their fellow Republican and advancer of their policies, won. You supported that. There was no two year break.

There was. The US power decreased, and its soft power deteriorated even quite a lot.

... now you talk as if the immediate and direct consequences of that - the restoration of Bolton and Pompeo to high office, say, and the standard Republican policies in the Americas - were somehow from something else.

They were not immediate at all. And it was always clear that what Trump will do is unpredictable. For example, he announced withdrawal from Syria, even fired that war minister who didn't like it. But nonetheless, he did not withdraw and supports in the occupied Al Tanf zone the IS remains.

As I explained many times: The choice between something unknown and unpredictable, and a known murderous warmonger.

Iceaura has already noted your aptitude for ignoring whatever exists and doesn't fit your narrative.

Who cares about polemic defamations? (Of course, you will predictably support them too, nothing else is expected.)

Nevertheless just to give one example, how do you explain former PM Yulia Tymoshenko getting locked up and beaten in prison on dubious corruption charges and a bogus trial already denounced by European human rights courts, while President Yanukovych was embezzling millions of dollars in public funds to live in a secret private compound filled with tacky art?

First, Timoshenko is as corrupt as all the Ukrainian politicians, her gas deal with Russia was a very good one for Russia, and the suspicion that it based on some dubious deal was very reasonable. So, judging from everything, she deserved prison. I have not seen reliable evidence if she was beaten. That Yanukovych was corrupt too is also no secret. Same for Poroshenko. They are all Ukrainian politicians, that's all you have to know about this.

Not outside Moscow, they're not.

Wrong. Essentially all the big, main roads are today in quite good quality.

As I said, the only positive difference between now and 1990 is that Russia can sell the oil and gas from all the land it's stolen in the last three centuries at much higher prices and in much bigger quantities to markets in Europe and Asia, and has been able to purchase modern technology and education from abroad with some of the profits.

Nonsense too. Nuclear technique as well as almost all of their weapon techniques they have developed themselves, and are in some of these domains world leaders. The education was better than Western already during communist time. And they don't care much about navy, because the aim of their army is not power projection on Third World countries as for the US.

Yes but my question was whether you think that adding the Russian mafia into the Ukrainian picture makes the world a better place.

Russian mafia was an important player during Yeltsin time, today it plays no role. In Ukraine, the mafia oligarchs already rule. Now, a new mafia ruler, Kolomoisky (ok, his puppet) has been elected to rule the game.

This is the typical lamentation of the old school international socialist, and I thought you said you hated those guys.

So what? If Hitler says 2+2=4, I support Hitler.

What would really be relevant is if you could point out something the US does to make a greasy profit which isn't also being done by Russia and just about everyone else on the planet.

The petrodollar.

How many have left Russia in the last 5 years and how many have returned?

Google yourself, I'm too lazy.

And yet they're in the US because expensive education and healthcare are still better than virtually no education and health care.

No. Those who leave have gotten a good education for free.

In Russia they tell elderly patients in the emergency room that they've lived a good long life and it's time to make room for the young'uns...

Heard such horror stories about the US too. Who gives a shit.

Yeah less plane crashes and bridge collapses, US really needs to up its game.

You mean the US has fewer bridge collapses? LOL. Number of bridge collapses since 2000 according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures#2000–present
Russia 1 (one), during its construction, 0 dead, 0 injured (with the horrible consequence that a total of 111 freight trains and 104 passenger trains were delayed).
US 24 (twenty four), among them 5 with deads, a sum of 31 dead, and 10 with injuries, a sum of 272 injured.

You yourself were one of the loudest mouth breathers foaming at the mouth over the imminent Russian conquest of Kiev, now you're claiming you never wanted it.

A lie. Quote with link, please, or you have been yet another time identified as a liar.

Just to clarify, there were a lot of Russians in favor of liberating Novorossia from the Ukraine, which would have been a quite natural split. Much less were in favor of going to Kiev. Almost nobody wanted the whole of Ukraine. Putin wanted much less, he essentially stopped the Donbass army two times, forcing them to accept the Minsk I and Minsk II ceasefire agreements.

Your side is the only one in the debate that keeps rambling about this guy Bandera who died 60 years ago, it's like you think they fight for Santa Claus.

No, the Ukrainian fascists ramble about Bandera much more. Of course, you follow here the Western Party line that there is no fascism in Ukraine.

Yet you're willing to kill hundreds of thousands to rule over Chechnya and Crimea which are in even worse shape.

Chechnya is ruled today by a Chechen ruler, and the second Chechen war was one between a coalition of Russians with traditional Sufi Chechens against the SA-imported Wahabi jihadists.
Crimea separated and joined Russia in a peaceful way, numbers of killed I have seen information about: 2 (two).

No you can't have it both ways. Either the Ukrainians elected a clown who rejects the existing system, or they elected a Nazi who continues to propagate a Nazi system. Which position are you sticking to and which one are you walking away from?

Clown Selensky does not reject the existing system at all. There was essentially no big difference at all between the candidates. That Selensky has not used openly fascist rhetorics does not change the fact that the oligarch behind Selensky, Kolomoisky, described himself openly as a Jewish Bandera supporter:

 

[CptBork]

First, Timoshenko is as corrupt as all the Ukrainian politicians, her gas deal with Russia was a very good one for Russia, and the suspicion that it based on some dubious deal was very reasonable. So, judging from everything, she deserved prison. I have not seen reliable evidence if she was beaten. That Yanukovych was corrupt too is also no secret. Same for Poroshenko. They are all Ukrainian politicians, that's all you have to know about this.

So your proof that Tymoshenko deserved prison time is that she caved into Russia on a gas deal, and this arouses suspicion? If suspicion of corruption is all it takes to put someone in jail then why didn't Yanukovych also go to jail instead of becoming President again?

And they don't care much about navy, because the aim of their army is not power projection on Third World countries as for the US.

And yet all Russia talks about are its military commitments in Ukraine, Syria and now Venezuela. All third world countries, last I heard. The remaining third world countries of immediate interest are all on Russia's borders.

Russian mafia was an important player during Yeltsin time, today it plays no role.

You already told us that you don't want to live in Russia because it's run by criminals. That constitutes a mafia. Did they build a whole new city from scratch for the Olympics in Sochi, with all the money that was spent?

Google yourself, I'm too lazy.

Then you have no way of knowing whether your claims about Russian expatriates yearning for the glories of the Motherland have any substance to them. Talking to a couple of people doesn't count for anything, if you've even gone that far.

Heard such horror stories about the US too. Who gives a shit.

The people who keep leaving Russia every day for better lives in the US and Europe, that's who.

You mean the US has fewer bridge collapses? LOL. Number of bridge collapses since 2000 according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures#2000–present
Russia 1 (one), during its construction, 0 dead, 0 injured (with the horrible consequence that a total of 111 freight trains and 104 passenger trains were delayed).
US 24 (twenty four), among them 5 with deads, a sum of 31 dead, and 10 with injuries, a sum of 272 injured.

Uhm 1 bridge collapse in the last 19 years? That figure never seemed fishy to you? I don't know if your source is meant to be comprehensive, but it basically ignores the issue I'm referring to altogether. Here's some samples of the over 100 Russian bridge collapses in the last year alone:

https://en.crimerussia.com/gromkie-...hundreds-in-russia-why-new-ones-aren-t-built/

No, the Ukrainian fascists ramble about Bandera much more. Of course, you follow here the Western Party line that there is no fascism in Ukraine.

I never said that, I said that most of them are not fascist, and most of them don't want anything to do with you.

Chechnya is ruled today by a Chechen ruler, and the second Chechen war was one between a coalition of Russians with traditional Sufi Chechens against the SA-imported Wahabi jihadists.

No, Chechnya is ruled by a Kremlin-appointed Chechen warlord, and the second Chechen war was a war against the people themselves, justified by false flag apartment bombings in Russia. You spilled a lot of blood for that wasteland, no doubt you want Ukraine and beyond too.

Crimea separated and joined Russia in a peaceful way, numbers of killed I have seen information about: 2 (two).

Your information comes from glancing down at your belly button.

Clown Selensky does not reject the existing system at all.

You said voters supported him because they reject the existing system, so he embodies the change they want.

There was essentially no big difference at all between the candidates. That Selensky has not used openly fascist rhetorics does not change the fact that the oligarch behind Selensky, Kolomoisky, described himself openly as a Jewish Bandera supporter:

Putin advertises the support he gets from criminal biker gangs, why would a Bandera supporter among Zelensky's supporters bother you? Stalin forcefully starved 3 million Ukrainians to death, plenty of Russians remember him fondly. Tell you what, what would it take for Ukrainians to prove to you and Russians in general that they don't want anything to do with you?

 

[iceaura]

No. Learn to read. How many times I have to explain to you the difference?

It's what you posted. You have Putin risking nuclear war with the US to avoid having his macho image tarnished by - how did you put it - "running away". You posted that explicitly.

The Dems after the Obama takeover would have had it. But, I forgot, when it was accepted, all the Reps could have simply refused to vote, it would have passed anyway.

Nope.
You lack information about US politics.

There was. The US power decreased, and its soft power deteriorated even quite a lot.

Because of incompetence - the globalists you disparage are not competent, as the Iraq War proved beyond a doubt.
There was no two year "break" in Republican foreign policy - it came in with Trump, immediately, from day one of his administration, just as predicted.

They were not immediate at all.

They were. He expanded the drone wars in the middle east and restored them to CIA control, for example, in his first month on the job. Bolton was a regular visitor and consultant during the transition and in the early months of Trump's tenure. And so forth.

As I explained many times: The choice between something unknown and unpredictable, and a known murderous warmonger.

And each time you "explained" once again that your ignorance justifies any claim you make about Trump, the following simple fact comes up:
Trump was known, and predictable.
And you refused all such information - you were not just ignorant, but willfully so. You maintained your ignorance.
He was and is a fascist demagogue, the type specimen of Republican politician that US liberals identified as the destination of the Republican Party's progress decades ago, and have been warning about for fifty years or more, obviously and without the slightest concealment or subterfuge.
You got played, is all. If it's any consolation, you got played by the best.

Meanwhile: if you have been following the matter, the overseer of the Mueller investigation has been replaced - and entered the public view as a supporter of Trump and disparager of the supposed "liberal media". It turns out that political bias of the FBI is still - as it has been for generations - conservative, rightwing, and Republican.

 

[Schmelzer]

So your proof that Tymoshenko deserved prison time is that she caved into Russia on a gas deal, and this arouses suspicion?

It is not a proof, I have not put her in jail, therefore I don't need any proof. so I couldn't care less. It is simply very plausible. And it is also well-known that Putin supported Timoschenko against the "pro-Russian" Yanukovich, who was a project of the Ukrainian oligarch Achmetov and the US.

If suspicion of corruption is all it takes to put someone in jail then why didn't Yanukovych also go to jail instead of becoming President again?

Because Yanukovich run away and succeeded.

And yet all Russia talks about are its military commitments in Ukraine, Syria and now Venezuela. All third world countries, last I heard.

Ukraine was on equal foot with Russia, part of the Second World. If you think that it is Third World now, ok, this happens if one follows the US today.

You already told us that you don't want to live in Russia because it's run by criminals.

No. I have simply told that I don't want to live in Russia. I have not given details about the reasons.

Uhm 1 bridge collapse in the last 19 years? That figure never seemed fishy to you? I don't know if your source is meant to be comprehensive, but it basically ignores the issue I'm referring to altogether. Here's some samples of the over 100 Russian bridge collapses in the last year alone:https://en.crimerussia.com/gromkie-...hundreds-in-russia-why-new-ones-aren-t-built/

Your point. I have never cared about those numbers, your post was the first motivation to care about it at all. The English Wiki was the first link given, and I did not suspect that they could publish a "list of" if what they give is only an arbitrary accidental collection of some cases. Ok, English Wiki appears much more unreliable than I thought, and not only where it handles politically suspect things, but also in seemingly completely harmless things like accidents.

No, Chechnya is ruled by a Kremlin-appointed Chechen warlord, and the second Chechen war was a war against the people themselves, justified by false flag apartment bombings in Russia.

Any Chechen leader was a warlord at that time, and the Kreml had no way to appoint them - they had the choice to fight them or to took their side. Putin was clever enough to unify with the Sufis against the Wahabis. The war was started after the Chechen Wahabi jihadists attacked Dagestan.

You said voters supported him because they reject the existing system, so he embodies the change they want.

So what? Sheeple believing in democracy will be played. That's their fate.

Putin advertises the support he gets from criminal biker gangs, why would a Bandera supporter among Zelensky's supporters bother you?

The funny (criminal?) biker gang is nothing worth to care about, it has no power at all. The Bandera supporter is the oligarch Kolomoisky, a billionaire, who was the most powerful after Achmetov in the past, and who had a heavy fight with Poroschenko over power in the Ukraine. The winner in the first round was Poroshenko. Now Kolomoisky is back.

Stalin forcefully starved 3 million Ukrainians to death, plenty of Russians remember him fondly.

You forgot to mention that the Georgian Stalin, supported by a party ruled predominantly by non-Russians, also starved millions of Russians to death.

Tell you what, what would it take for Ukrainians to prove to you and Russians in general that they don't want anything to do with you?

As if the Russians would like to have anything to do with the Ukrainian fascists. The problem are only the millions of Russians, or Russian-speaking persons, who live in Ukraine.

Ok, for you this may not be a problem if those you support are fascists which handle the Russians as slaves.

The reasonable way would have been a subdivision of Ukraine, those parts with a majority which does not want anything to do with Russia is one part, the other which prefers Russia in comparison with Bandera rule is the other part. But the Bandera fascists did not accept this, they wanted to rule the whole of Ukraine.

 

[Schmelzer]

It's what you posted. You have Putin risking nuclear war with the US to avoid having his macho image tarnished by - how did you put it - "running away". You posted that explicitly.

Liar. Here is the quotes with "running away":

Maybe you have been confused a little bit because I have chosen the language of chicken games to explain the point. Therefore you may think that Putin does not run away because he is a macho and likes to win such chicken games. But the situation is quite different here, simply because Putin has no choice. Either he is ready to stand at certain points, or he will be unable to stop running until Russia is again ruled by US-supported mafia oligarchs.

No. The danger was that Hillary attacks Russian forces and that the Russian forces, instead of running away, retaliate. The macho shape, which is anyway Western propaganda fantasy, plays no role here at all. The question is how to react against the permanent US aggression.

So, I can accept that you have misunderstood this the first time. But even after two explicit corrections of this misunderstanding, you continue - this is no longer a misunderstanding, but an explicit lie.

Because of incompetence - the globalists you disparage are not competent, as the Iraq War proved beyond a doubt.

Obama was incompetent too, he forced Russia and China into a strategic partnership. And Clinton, after losing, did everything to prevent correction of this error by Trump. Ok, there are questions where Obama was more competent than Trump. But he also started Libya and Syria wars, both as stupid as the Iraq war.

The usual "you know nothing" babble disposed of.

 

[candy]

Schmelzer I suspect you dislike Obama because he had the foresight to oppose invading Iraq thus taking away part of your propaganda.

 

[iceaura]

So, I can accept that you have misunderstood this the first time. But even after two explicit corrections of this misunderstanding, you continue - this is no longer a misunderstanding, but an explicit lie.

Not at all. It is a clear and correct statement of fact about the content of your posting here, as you quoted yourself. You can pretend to be misunderstood, but you can't erase those posts.

Obama was incompetent too, he forced Russia and China into a strategic partnership.

Irrelevant.
And of course wrongheaded: Russia and China have their own agendas, and their strategic partnerships in the ME are largely around Iran and Islamic issues involving fossil fuels and mineral access. US incompetence and evil with regard to Iran goes back to Reagan if not earlier, the Iraq War being the dominant extra factor these days.

And Clinton, after losing, did everything to prevent correction of this error by Trump.

Clinton had no superpowers of influence, and no governmental power at all. Trump was not "prevented" in the correction of any "errors" by Clinton.

But he also started Libya and Syria wars, both as stupid as the Iraq war.

Nothing involved here was anywhere near as stupid and evil as the Iraq War - the Iraq War "started" the Syrian war, for example. The Syrian stuff, bad as it is, was a mere side effect and auxiliary theater for the Iraq War. The Republican foreign policy agenda - to depose the Syrian government and conquer the country on the way to Iran - had to be postponed, but the effects of invading Iraq were harder to stop.

Obama's failure to prosecute W&Company and the bankers is far more central and significant than anything Obama did on his own, unforced, in LIbya or Syria - and mention of it far more disparaging of Obama. But you ignore that, to invoke the minor points of his failure. Odd.

 

[Schmelzer]

Schmelzer I suspect you dislike Obama because he had the foresight to oppose invading Iraq thus taking away part of your propaganda.

That's really funny. Because of the very fact that the people say something against the will of the deep state but do what the deep state tells them when they become presidents shows that elections do not matter in the US.

The opponent of the Iraq war starts wars in Libya and Syria, the opponent of a cold war against Russia makes relations with Russia even worse, all that elections change are some irrelevant local issues in flyover land. That's part of what I tell you all the time. All the relevant questions are controlled by the deep state.

And of course wrongheaded: Russia and China have their own agendas, and their strategic partnerships in the ME are largely around Iran and Islamic issues involving fossil fuels and mineral access. US incompetence and evil with regard to Iran goes back to Reagan if not earlier, the Iraq War being the dominant extra factor these days.

This was not about ME, it was about attacking both at the same time. With Ukraine attack against Russia, and the pivot to Asia against China. It is the same error as Bush and now Trump - power overstretch. As an error, this is quite typical for empires in decline. They don't accept the decline and think they are obliged to do what they have always done. But there is, of course, no reason to hypothetize that all three made the same error independently. It is the same deep state which continues to make the same error all the time.

Clinton had no superpowers of influence and no governmental power at all. Trump was not "prevented" in the correction of any "errors" by Clinton.

Clinton or some other globalists, who cares, the globalist deep state is large. The enemies of Trump were strong enough to put him into a permanent defense mode, and they certainly prevented any improvement of the relations with Russia with their Russian meddling conspiracy. Given the "Trump is a Putin puppet" hysteria he was unable to improve the relations with Russia, that means, to correct the main Obama error of attacking both China and Russia and forcing them into an alliance.

While the deep state tried hard to prevent the correction of this overstretch-error, Trump makes its own overstretch-errors. Trump only forced Iran to connect even closer to China and Russia. Diplomacy to hide the brutal power behind is not his thing, he openly declares that vassals have to behave like vassals and to obey. But the vassals have the anti-Trumpers. of the deep state behind them and don't obey. Moreover, the orders are too harmful to them economically (like to stop North Stream II to Germany) so they did not even obey to Obama (who also tried, but diplomatically, not overstretching).

Obama's failure to prosecute W&Company and the bankers is far more central and significant than anything Obama did on his own, unforced, in Libya or Syria - and mention of it far more disparaging of Obama. But you ignore that, to invoke the minor points of his failure. Odd.

I have explained many times that I have a quite different focus. I don't care about internal US affairs, but about international aggression. Here, Obama stands for three criminal aggressions, Libya, Syria, Ukraine.

They all show aspects which are even eviler than the Iraq war, namely support of terrorists of the most despised kind (child-head-cutting jihadists, and open fascists) to do the dirty job of murdering for America. To support "right or wrong, my country" is at least something one can understand and with some limitations accept, if there is an open war, fought by the military, against the military, or later may be insurgents, in another country. But if those in power pay those which they paint themselves in the most horrible colors - Islamic terrorists and fascists - as mercenaries to fight their enemies without even declaring war, this is only despicable. A total lack of anything remembering honor.

America will have to pay for this many years, simply everybody who faces an attack by Islamic terrorists or fascists or whatever peaceful demonstrators will blame America for supporting and paying them, and this will be quite plausible, and believed worldwide even if wrong. A side effect you did not even care about. Even if it is an obvious one - one cannot expect that paying terrorists of the worst kind as mercenaries will remain hidden. In comparison, the Iraq war was, however inappropriate, a classical war, violating only the UN Charta (which is standard US practice since the Korean war), but not classical international law (I'm not completely sure here if there was a formal declaration of war, but at least inofficially it was openly declared and Iraq had all the necessary time to prepare).

So, if one looks at this from the position of the detoriation of international law, what Obama did was much more horrible than what W did.

 

[CptBork]

With Ukraine attack against Russia, and the pivot to Asia against China.

Say what now? How do you attack a foreign country when all your troops are located within your own territory? You sure you don't have family ties to Russia or somethin'? Because you seem to take it very personally when someone doesn't bow down to this wasteland has-been shithole you're so proud of.

 

[Schmelzer]

How do you attack a foreign country when all your troops are located within your own territory?

Learn to read, I have explained this many times. By supporting terrorist gangs of the worst sort. In Ukraine, the gangs which have been supported were gangs which openly praised fascist mass murderers. Poroshenko finished his speech in the Congress with the Ukrainian analogon of "Sieg Heil" and received standing ovations for this.

You sure you don't have family ties to Russia or somethin'?

Do you think I will talk with Nazi supporters about my family?

 

[iceaura]

That's really funny. Because of the very fact that the people say something against the will of the deep state but do what the deep state tells them when they become presidents shows that elections do not matter in the US.

The fact that the Iraq War was started by the US Republican Party shows that they do.
As do the fortunes and efforts spent on influencing them, by everyone from Putin to the CEO of Exxon.
And all of this underlined on this forum by the horrible fate of nuclear war we were to have faced if Clinton had been elected President - an allegation repeated many times by some guys deeply concerned with the differences between the possible outcomes of that US election, on this forum.

They all show aspects which are even eviler than the Iraq war

Nothing the US has done since WWII was more evil than the Iraq War. Not by an order of magnitude. Syria, Libya, Ukraine - trivial in comparison.
Several members of Trump's inner circle had more to do with bad stuff in Ukraine than Obama, btw. You ignore the main players and bring in the less responsible for reference, for no visible reason except your continuing inability to see through Republican Party media campaigns.

Clinton or some other globalists, who cares

You do. You refuse to get your facts straight. Clinton had no such powers.

I don't care about internal US affairs, but about international aggression. Here, Obama stands for three criminal aggressions, Libya, Syria, Ukraine.

You lack information about US internal affairs, you sucker for Republican propaganda, and so you assign responsibility for US international aggression to the wrong people - always Clinton, Obama, or whomever the Republican media operations have sold to you as bad guys; never the actual perpetrators.
Then you have to come up with some kind of explanation for why guys like Trump don't behave as you were told they would by your sources - fortunately for you, the magic words "deep state" cover absolutely anything.

. But if those in power pay those which they paint themselves in the most horrible colors - Islamic terrorists and fascists - as mercenaries to fight their enemies without even declaring war, this is only despicable. A total lack of anything remembering honor.

W did that, of course (he even made it semiofficial policy, in the "Surge"). So did Reagan, for that matter. Trump certainly has no qualms about continuing that Republican tradition in foreign policy.
Obama did much less of that than W. He didn't, for example, set up the military and "intelligence" agencies to do that - W did.

A side effect you did not even care about. Even if it is an obvious one - one cannot expect that paying terrorists of the worst kind as mercenaries will remain hidden

W's obviously remains hidden from you. So does Reagan's, and Bush's. When Trump does it you will blame the deep state, of course.

So, if one looks at this from the position of the detoriation of international law, what Obama did was much more horrible than what W did.

You apparently don't know anything about what W&Cheney did, in the Iraq War. That's ok, nobody expects you to. But you should recognize your large arena of ignorance, and avoid making such comparisons without information.

It's one thing to find you, a couple of days after Donny Jr referred to the Russian election meddling as "a couple of ads on Facebook", referring to the Russian election meddling documented in Mueller's report as a few ads on Facebook. Most of your posting here is similar parrot talk from the standard Republican media playbook. It's quite another to find you trying to swamp the behaviors of this administration in a deluge of bullshit "history" irrelevant to the matter at hand. Nothing Obama did, even - let alone Clinton or the never-to-be-identified deep state folks - excuses or justifies the Trump familia's behavior in office.