Putins satan 2 dooms day

[dilute micro]

Never said I was. After all, it isn't 'me' writing about 'me.' It's you lot.

You probably think this post is about you.

 

[RD2003]

I swear even not-that-cuddly Uncle Arthur in your avatar is looking ever more pissed off as time goes on coz of being stuck next to your tiresome, suck-the-life-out-of-every-thread-you-post-on pessimistic sludge! Ah well... if it makes you feel better... which I strongly suspect it doesn't

As I say above, though, there's surely room for every shade of twat on here? If you only like basically your own views reflected back on you, what's the purpose of coming on an internet forum?

 

[RD2003]

You probably think this post is about you.

I walk on here as though I'm walking onto a yacht.

 

[newme]

I walk on here as though I'm walking onto a yacht.

You mean invading without provocation.

 

[RD2003]

No, RussianDefense2003, there has to be some responsibility of today's Russia within Russia. It wasn't inevitable, neither is subjugation of Ukraine. What you see in Ukraine is just that, in part or in total.

Find the above sentence a bit incoherent, but I do think that what's happening on the ground in Ukraine is wholly Russia's responsibility. It doesn't, however, mean that it wasn't inevitable due to the factors outlined above.

As for Russia itself, you coud see how it was going to turn out even in 1990-91. Western advice was shit, driven by hubris, but, yes, it was Russians who were responsible for putting it into practice. Or at least some Russians. Most of them, like us, have no control over events whatsoever. We're blown about like leaves in the wind.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Maybe there's a docile farm animal they can be compared to?

 

[RD2003]

Maybe there's a docile farm animal they can be compared to?

'Harmlessly passing their time in the grasslands away...'

 

[ska invita]

"we are involved in a war where there is no question we are on the right side and it feels good"
thread gets meta

 

[sleaterkinney]

As I say above, though, there's surely room for every shade of twat on here? If you only like basically your own views reflected back on you, what's the purpose of coming on an internet forum?

Being right on the internetz.

 

[RD2003]

"we are involved in a war where there is no question we are on the right side and it feels good"
thread gets meta

We have the spectacle of posters who presumably still consider themselves radically left cheering on policy as defined by the untouchable elites. Whose policies in other areas they wring their hands over (albeit impotently).

The days when left-wingers had a coherent critique of the war industry have become a distant memory. Nowadays it seems they comfort themselves by fantasies of goodies and baddies-as if the (subjectively-defined) goodies are going to suddenly triumph in a world where this has never happened in any definitive way.

 

[dilute micro]

Find the above sentence a bit incoherent, but I do think that what's happening on the ground in Ukraine is wholly Russia's responsibility. It doesn't, however, mean that it wasn't inevitable due to the factors outlined above.

As for Russia itself, you coud see how it was going to turn out even in 1990-91. Western advice was shit, driven by hubris, but, yes, it was Russians who were responsible for putting it into practice. Or at least some Russians. Most of them, like us, have no control over events whatsoever. We're blown about like leaves in the wind.

No, 1991 didn't tell the future. You're just nodding to their story. I doubt you would have predicted the full scale invasion had you been asked about it in 2014.

 

[RD2003]

I DON'T Support the Russian Invasion of de jure Ukraine, I wish we could go back to before 2014 somehow. But it is the powers in Kyiv that have pišşed it all away.

The "wider picture" is worldwide geopolitics. The "Belt & Road" initiative, oil being sold in currencies other than USD, BRICS, coup d'etats in Sahel Africa......

I've a had a while off Urban and just putting my tootsies back in to it as opposed to being some new "fcukwit" turning up. It is interesting to watch how the tenor has somewhat changed.

Saddam Hussein was a nastier guy than that there "Puťler", but more people questioned back then the narrative of the Iraq war for example.

The tenor has indeed changed. It could be something to do with the death of project Corbyn and the void it leaves. (Although the pro-war left on here come across as types who'd be horrified by the disruption that would have resulted from the attempted destruction by the markets and those who serve them of Corbyn's mildly social-democratic policies. Most of them, after all, haven't come to terms with Brexit, nearly a decade on.) In the absence of anything else, certain types of people have to look for a cause, however, and so they latch on to the junior school-level concept of an 'innocent country' violated by an 'evil country.' And so you get posters who purport to having anarchist sympathies, for example, saying stuff like 'for once I am onside with a government I otherwise hate,' or words to that effect. The implications of having thrown in your lot with another neo-liberal project are ignored.

You couldn't make it up.

 

[RD2003]

No, 1991 didn't tell the future. You're just nodding to their story. I doubt you would have predicted the full scale invasion had you been asked about it in 2014.

Not 1991 but early '92. When Gaidar was given a free-hand with the economy, it did clearly indicate the direction of travel, although, yes, nobody would have been able to predict the exact course of events.

In 2014, I remember talking to Soviet-raised Ukrainians now living here about the prospects for a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. I remember saying the die was cast. They didn't disagree despite being largely in favour of the recent Azov-reliant coup. Don't know what they're thinking now, as they've been keeping me at arm's length since I got the job as a Putinbot.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I made the mistake of taking r2d2 off ignore, just to see what all the fuss was about. I won't do that again in a hurry.

 

[RD2003]

I made the mistake of taking r2d2 off ignore, just to see what all the fuss was about. I won't do that again in a hurry.

I don't remember asking you to.

 

[RD2003]

So are the Russians bloodthirsty maniacs willing to blow up the world or not, in your eyes? If they're not, then the nukes are an empty threat since Ukraine is in no position to pose an existential risk to Russia. If they are, then what on what basis can Ukraine expect negotiations to be conducted in good faith?

It isn't a question of whether anybody is a bloodthirsty maniac. And nor does it matter if Ukraine is actually an existential threat to Russia: if a Russian government considers it to be so, then to all intents and purposes it is.

It's highly unlikely that the present Russian government wants to use nuclear weapons. Putin himself (whom the optimists would have had dead from cancer or debilitated by Parkinson's disease near the beginning...) seemed to intervene and largely calm the rhetoric down on that some time ago. However, it doesn't mean that some kind of gamble won't be taken if things go badly wrong for Russia. The Russian government is not going to accept anything that looks like a definitive defeat, and nor is it likely to accept a Ukraine that goes its own way (as, inevitably, defined by those in Ukraine with the power and wealth.) It will do its best to make Ukraine unviable for at least a generation rather than accept this, and this is where the nuclear weapons issue comes back into play. Not inevitably, but this is where war with nuclear-armed states gets us. Just because something hasn't happened yet, and is generally considered unthinkable, it doesn't mean it won't eventually. If it doesn't happen in this war, there will be a war in the future where it will, especially if climate change and other insoluble problems result in the long-predicted resource wars and so on.

And there is no way out: a defeated Russia is going to be a dangerous, nuclear-armed animal.

 

[NoXion]

It isn't a question of whether anybody is a bloodthirsty maniac. And nor does it matter if Ukraine is actually an existential threat to Russia: if a Russian government considers it to be so, then to all intents and purposes it is.

It's highly unlikely that the present Russian government wants to use nuclear weapons. Putin himself (whom the optimists would have had dead from cancer or debilitated by Parkinson's disease near the beginning...) seemed to intervene and largely calm the rhetoric down on that some time ago. However, it doesn't mean that some kind of gamble won't be taken if things go badly wrong for Russia. The Russian government is not going to accept anything that looks like a definitive defeat, and nor is it likely to accept a Ukraine that goes its own way (as, inevitably, defined by those in Ukraine with the power and wealth.) It will do its best to make Ukraine unviable for at least a generation rather than accept this, and this is where the nuclear weapons issue comes back into play. Not inevitably, but this is where war with nuclear-armed states gets us. Just because something hasn't happened yet, and is generally considered unthinkable, it doesn't mean it won't eventually. If it doesn't happen in this war, there will be a war in the future where it will, especially if climate change and other insoluble problems result in the long-predicted resource wars and so on.

And there is no way out: a defeated Russia is going to be a dangerous, nuclear-armed animal.

Russia is going to lose sooner or later. No winning streak is unending. Not that Russia is on any kind of winning streak right now. So even if Ukraine capitulated right now (fat chance), that would only kick the can down the road. Annexing or salami-slicing Ukraine does not solve the fundamental problems of Russia. So appeasement isn't going to work. The miserabilist position has nothing to offer anyone.

At least by choosing to resist, Ukraine might open up opportunities that might otherwise be missed by indulging the imperial longings of their neighbour. If there's "no way out" (not my opinion but you seem convinced), then it doesn't matter what Ukraine does. Resist, capitulate, it all comes to ash in the end. Nihilism is self-defeating like that.

 

[RD2003]

Russia is going to lose sooner or later. No winning streak is unending. Not that Russia is on any kind of winning streak right now. So even if Ukraine capitulated right now (fat chance), that would only kick the can down the road. Annexing or salami-slicing Ukraine does not solve the fundamental problems of Russia. So appeasement isn't going to work. The miserabilist position has nothing to offer anyone.

At least by choosing to resist, Ukraine might open up opportunities that might otherwise be missed by indulging the imperial longings of their neighbour. If there's "no way out" (not my opinion but you seem convinced), then it doesn't matter what Ukraine does. Resist, capitulate, it all comes to ash in the end. Nihilism is self-defeating like that.

Don't really know where this 'winning streak' stuff is coming from tbh. And it isn't matter of appeasement, as, like I said, a defeated Russia is going to be at least as dangerous as it might be at present, not least because, as you say, slicing up Ukraine will solve nothing for Russia long-term. That is why there really is no way out. This is probably the first war in a world where everything is spinning out of control due to a a variety of factors, climate change being a major one. There will be others, emanating from both a 'victorious' or defeated Russia and elsewhere.

In my opinion Ukrainian resistance was bound to happen. It's just unfortunate, and tragic, that any 'opportunities' opening up in the event of 'victory' will be for the usual few (you know them; they exist everywhere.)

 

[krtek a houby]

And there is no way out: a defeated Russia is going to be a dangerous, nuclear-armed animal.

Ah, so the preferred option is a defeated Ukraine. Right.

We have the spectacle of posters who presumably still consider themselves radically left cheering on policy as defined by the untouchable elites. Whose policies in other areas they wring their hands over (albeit impotently).

The days when left-wingers had a coherent critique of the war industry have become a distant memory. Nowadays it seems they comfort themselves by fantasies of goodies and baddies-as if the (subjectively-defined) goodies are going to suddenly triumph in a world where this has never happened in any definitive way.

This is your fantasy. Who are these posters, specifically?

The tenor has indeed changed. It could be something to do with the death of project Corbyn and the void it leaves. (Although the pro-war left on here come across as types who'd be horrified by the disruption that would have resulted from the attempted destruction by the markets and those who serve them of Corbyn's mildly social-democratic policies. Most of them, after all, haven't come to terms with Brexit, nearly a decade on.) In the absence of anything else, certain types of people have to look for a cause, however, and so they latch on to the junior school-level concept of an 'innocent country' violated by an 'evil country.' And so you get posters who purport to having anarchist sympathies, for example, saying stuff like 'for once I am onside with a government I otherwise hate,' or words to that effect. The implications of having thrown in your lot with another neo-liberal project are ignored.

You couldn't make it up.

You've done a pretty good job. But don't stop now...

In 2014, I remember talking to Soviet-raised Ukrainians now living here about the prospects for a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.

And are they in the room with you still?

 

[RD2003]

Ah, so the preferred option is a defeated Ukraine. Right.


This is your fantasy. Who are these posters, specifically?



You've done a pretty good job. But don't stop now...



And are they in the room with you still?

Everybody I've ever met is in the room with me all the time, wherever I am. Quite often I have guilt-ridden conversations with them. Doesn't everybody?

 

[krtek a houby]

Bend reality? Which reality your subjective ideals?

You think that a group riddled with cranks, Assadists, conspiraloons and other wrong 'uns "may not be perfect".

 

[Wilf]

I'm not really bothered about 'how I come across.' After all, there's room for all shades of twat on these boards.

I actually like the idea of myself as 'a thoroughly nasty person.' When I exchange pleasantries with a neighbour, I might come across as a bland, non-commital cunt, but they just don't know what evil thoughts are going through my head.

However, it's notable that the same small group of posters have chosen yet again to write about another poster. It seems harder for them to give up than heroin.

My take is that you put an enormous effort into these threads, threads that you say don't make a difference to anyone or anything. Inserting your superior tone, provoking people, pretending that only you understands the sweep of history, well, it's all a bit sad really. Chuckling up your sleeve as you tell lies about posters being pro Nato and the rest, a rather tawdry way to spend your time in my opinion.

 

[krtek a houby]

Everybody I've ever met is in the room with me all the time, wherever I am. Quite often I have guilt-ridden conversations with them. Doesn't everybody?

Dunno. You're a liar and a fantasist, so it's difficult to tell what's going on in your head.

 

[NoXion]

Don't really know where this 'winning streak' stuff is coming from tbh. And it isn't matter of appeasement, as, like I said, a defeated Russia is going to be at least as dangerous as it might be at present, not least because, as you say, slicing up Ukraine will solve nothing for Russia long-term. That is why there really is no way out. This is probably the first war in a world where everything is spinning out of control due to a a variety of factors, climate change being a major one. There will be others, emanating from both a 'victorious' or defeated Russia and elsewhere.

In my opinion Ukrainian resistance was bound to happen. It's just unfortunate, and tragic, that any 'opportunities' opening up in the event of 'victory' will be for the usual few (you know them; they exist everywhere.)

Honestly this just sounds like defeatism to me. What prospect is there of anything better, be it progressive or revolutionary, in this bleak outlook of yours? Might as well throw your lot in with the oligarchs and tyrants, since apparently they're inevitably going to win, at least until the world is overtaken by apocalypse.

Seems like a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.

 

[likesfish]

Backing Russia into a corner.

Aka as not letting it dictate or occupy it's neighbours anymore. Russias pissed about NATO's expansion eastward because it's former colony's can't be invaded if they do something Moscow doesn't like.
considering every non NATO neighbour of Russia has been

 

[Aladdin]

Most of them, like us, have no control over events whatsoever

This is something we can agree on

 

[tim]

Find the above sentence a bit incoherent, but I do think that what's happening on the ground in Ukraine is wholly Russia's responsibility. It doesn't, however, mean that it wasn't inevitable due to the factors outlined above.

As for Russia itself, you coud see how it was going to turn out even in 1990-91. Western advice was shit, driven by hubris, but, yes, it was Russians who were responsible for putting it into practice. Or at least some Russians. Most of them, like us, have no control over events whatsoever. We're blown about like leaves in the wind.

Another trip down Memory Lane. It's a pity that you do not have a more varied of memories to brush from.

 

[RD2003]

My take is that you put an enormous effort into these threads, threads that you say don't make a difference to anyone or anything. Inserting your superior tone, provoking people, pretending that only you understands the sweep of history, well, it's all a bit sad really. Chuckling up your sleeve as you tell lies about posters being pro Nato and the rest, a rather tawdry way to spend your time in my opinion.

It really doesn't take enormous effort. In fact, it takes hardly any effort at all.

I don't pretend that only I understand anything. 'Telling lies about people bring pro-NATO' might be understandable when they speak up all the time for NATO. Any worse than calling anybody who disagrees a 'Putinbot'? Is my tone any more 'superior' than the quite numerous posters who seem to have a need to constantly appear to take the moral high ground? As for tawdry, perhaps (I quite like the idea of being a tawdry cunt), but it isn't me who responds to others with petulant 'fuck offs', or tried to get them banned. Not that it matters: anybody is welcome to say anything about me.

 

[tim]

(P)retending that only you understands the sweep of history, well, it's all a bit sad really.

That bit is true, though. He is our answer to Harry Corbett

 

[maomao]

That bit is true, though. He is our answer to Harry Corbett

View attachment 391816

It's not true. He should Sue.