It is not ok, but it is part of freedom of speech, thus, it should be allowed. So, I do not object at all against the use of pseudonyms like CptBork, and I restrict myself to showing that what is proposed under this label is wrong, instead of asking the administration to ban that guy for publishing disinformation known to be factually incorrect, with the purpose of harming a public's ability to make informed democratic choices.
I never pretended that CptBork was my real name, nor have I intentionally misrepresented anything with the intent to cause harm to anyone, so there's no reason why one would or should need to deal with me in the same way as they would with a deliberate fraud who's trying to cause damage. I will attempt to further address your confusion between the freedom to express and the freedom to defraud in another post.
And the "thousands of Russian bot accounts" are simply thousands of accounts which do not support the anti-Russian hate campaigns of the globalists.
They also make sure that everyone on social media sees the latest propaganda coming from Russian state news, and that the number of people on said media who actually agree with it is misrepresented.
Not "the Chechens" with "the Wahabis". "Chechen" is an ethnicity, "Wahabi" a particular variant of Islam with origin in Saudi Arabia. The split was among the Chechens, the Wahabi faction of the Chechens was quite strong, and, given the support from Saudi Arabia and the West, they probably would have won a purely civil war against the traditional Sufi Chechens without Russian support.
It wasn't a grammatical error on my part, you implied that the Chechens had collectively abandoned and denounced Wahabism in sufficient numbers so as to deny them the right of self-determination that you claim everyone's supposed to have.
My proposal has also justifications for war, namely defensive wars after aggression. The Chechen Wahabis have attacked Dagestan, a neighbor republic which is part of the Russian Federation, so that Russia had the right to fight them, as according to international law, as according to libertarian ideas.
Firstly, there were high level former Russian officials and insiders such as Boris Berezovsky (once the wealthiest man in Russia, for those who don't know), who claimed that the invasion of Dagestan was staged by a faction of Chechen rebels in coordination with Putin in order to trigger a Russian invasion and the removal of their elected rivals under President Aslan Maskhadov. Nonetheless, even if the invasion wasn't plotted with any Russian officials; given that Maskhadov had condemned the invasion of Dagestan and offered to fight the responsible militants himself, and his offer was summarily rejected in favour of an all-out Russian invasion, you provide a very flimsy excuse for why Grozny had to be bombed flat, hundreds of thousands of Chechen civilians had to die, and the territory remains under occupation by Russian soldiers to this day. Your "libertarian" ideals don't provide justification for the situation Russia perpetuates there today, but Russian imperial ideals certainly do.
Stalin confiscated Russian grain too, in the same forceful way, and starved a lot of Russian peasants to death. The grain was mainly used for export, to get income necessary for industrialization.
When Russian peasants starved, it was for the intended benefit of Russian industry and society. When Ukrainian peasants starved, it was also for the benefit of Russian industry and society.
Novorussia (which contains Donbass and Crimea) was never Ukrainian before Lenin, and the people there have been Russians (or Crimean Tatars) already in tsarist Russia. Most of them did not even understand the local idiom used in some irrelevant villages of Western Ukraine which is now "Ukrainian language".
According to the Wikipedia article on Novorussia, ethnic Russians historically constituted a minority of the total population, outnumbered in the region by Ruthenians (Ukrainians) and others. Yes it is a substantial minority not too far shy of 50%, but they were not the majority and can't act like the territory is now their exclusive domain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya
More importantly, there are and have long been tons of ethnicities scattered around the territories of the defunct Russian empire, including Russia itself. Borders were drawn, national identities collectivized, everyone gained and lost in the process. Now you want to go back and revisit old agreements and reignite old disputes that everyone had long ago already put aside, and you feel it's fair that the one single party demanding a resettlement should have thousands of nukes and overwhelming territorial, population and conventional military advantages, while the party seeking to maintain the peaceful status quo has next to nothing and should not receive any foreign assistance.
First, the idea of compensation for what happened long ago in history is nonsense.
Then why do you keep whining about Nikita Khrushchev giving Ukraine to Ukrainians and seeking war in order to reverse it?
Then, there is no continual trend. The expansion at Stalin time was based on communist ideology, which aimed to rule the whole world, independent of any nations, and anti-nationalist (internationalist). Instead, Russia today is much smaller than the USSR, and the main reason for this was a peaceful split. All the military conflicts appeared because of the resulting republics, which became independent states, did not accept further separatism.
Russia still possesses territory stolen from Germany, Finland and other European and Asian countries under the USSR, and this doesn't seem to bother you in your claimed German homeland. But when it comes to a territory being assigned to a certain collection of Soviet citizens by that same authority in Ukraine, followed by a peaceful separation with mutual territorial and political recognition which originally left Ukraine intact, you suddenly want to pull your own hair out. You claim that President Yeltsin's commitments were not legally binding when he recognized Ukraine's sovereignty and convinced them to relinquish their nuclear arsenal, and yet some criminal running sham elections and jailing political opponents in Ukraine has the right to walk off the job, invent new constitutional powers that didn't exist the day before, and invite a Russian military invasion? Sounds a lot like libertarian Russian imperialism to me.
What constitutes submitting to US rule is that you do whatever is necessary to make the US propaganda machine describe your elections as "free, fair democratic elections". This is something very different. The Russian elections are now sufficiently free and fair, Navalny was with less than 3% estimated support never a "major candidate" and that he was banned was prescribed by law (he is a convicted criminal).
I was talking about elections in places like Ukraine, Venezuela and Syria, although the same principle should apply in Russia too. Why can there not be a basic electoral process in which all major interested parties can openly verify that there's no cheating? Lots of elections are managed that way around the world. American monitors could make sure Russia's preferred candidates aren't cheating, Russia could make sure the Americans aren't cheating. China, Europe, the UN, Iran and all other middle eastern countries can make sure their interests aren't being compromised by undemocratic means. Why would you support and recognize an electoral process in which the result can't be openly verified through basic accounting?
I can do this because your claim is a lie. None of these countries has started an illegal war.
Your definition of what's legal and not legal doesn't have any coherent basis, unless seen through the lens of a Russian imperialist. The fact is that, over the last 10 years, all of those countries you listed except Venezuela have been responsible for a greater number of human deaths through direct acts of military and police violence. If those deaths were not created in an openly declared war, that makes them even more unjustified, not less.
Regarding internal repression, they all have smaller GULAGs than the US, absolute as well as relative (possible exception NK). Participation in combat against terrorists without violation of international law, like the Russian one in Syria, does not make a state aggressive. What counts as aggressive are the use of the military against other states (with the exception of defense after aggression from the other side) and support for terrorist organizations in their fight with the legitimate government with weapons, money, instructions, and cooperation (in reconnaissance) in other states.
When a country or regime claims to be defending its own civilians from terrorists, but it ends up killing an order of magnitude more of those same civilians than the alleged terrorists themselves kill, the claim to be defending their own civilians is nullified, along with the accompanying justification for the employed violence which kills them.
