Ukraine is sure fighting pretty damn hard for a place that’s latently Russian in national identity.
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 535
Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland23815 Posts
Ukraine is sure fighting pretty damn hard for a place that’s latently Russian in national identity. | ||
captainwaffles
United States1050 Posts
On August 12 2023 07:50 Magic Powers wrote: More Putin quotes on Ukraine's statehood: "As a result of Bolshevik policy, Soviet Ukraine arose, which even today can with good reason be called 'Vladimir Ilyich Lenin's Ukraine'. He is its author and architect. This is fully confirmed by archive documents ... And now grateful descendants have demolished monuments to Lenin in Ukraine. This is what they call decommunisation. Do you want decommunisation? Well, that suits us just fine. But it is unnecessary, as they say, to stop halfway. We are ready to show you what real decommunisation means for Ukraine." "Ukraine never had a tradition of genuine statehood." "Russia assumed obligations to repay the entire Soviet debt in return for the newly independent states giving up part of their foreign assets. In 1994, such agreements were reached with Ukraine, but they were not ratified by Ukraine... "(Ukraine) preferred to act in such a way that in relations with Russia they had all the rights and advantages, but did not bear any obligations... "From the very first steps they began to build their statehood on the denial of everything that unites us. They tried to distort the consciousness, the historical memory of millions of people, entire generations living in Ukraine." Link below for more quotes. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/extracts-putins-speech-ukraine-2022-02-21/ Putin is a smart dude, everything he said there is true. | ||
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland23815 Posts
On August 12 2023 08:34 captainwaffles wrote: Putin is a smart dude, everything he said there is true. Except he’s still not correct. His observations may be factual, but he’s omitting a hell of a lot to come to his overall conclusion. Statehood is just a manifestation of some national identity, but not all national identities manifest in statehood. Frequently outside influences also exert their will over and above the will of those in various areas across the globe. Growing up and living where I do, I’m pretty acutely aware of misalignments between national identity and the state one lives in. As I said earlier, Occam’s Razor isn’t always correct but it usually is. Why are Ukrainians fighting so damn hard if Ukrainian identity isn’t something dearly held? He’s not that smart man. He’s historically been pretty damn competent, can’t level that against him. He made a huge gambit that has resolutely not come off, and has been doubling down for the entire duration of this conflict. That is not smart behaviour. | ||
captainwaffles
United States1050 Posts
On August 12 2023 08:42 JimmiC wrote: Why isn’t NATO just attacking Russia right now? They are stretched thing and struggling against Ukraine. They could use their combined might and strike on all fronts? IMO, the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Carnegies, the Rothschilds and every other dynastic family that has a stake in the West's oil monopoly just isn't ready for nuclear war. | ||
a_ch
Russian Federation240 Posts
On August 12 2023 05:06 JimmiC wrote: For the Western media thing, first they are so far from a monolith that "them" is just odd. Yes most all of them thought that Russia was just posturing to get themselves a better deal but that is because that was what would make sense at this point basically everyone thought that Putin was a genius, maybe evil but very cunning. As it has shown this war has done nothing but bad for him and his oligarchs not to mention the people (but it is pretty questionable if he cares about them). My "Western media" refers to the big-7 that Ardias mentioned earlier - in a similar sense as people referring to Russian media usually mean the state-owned TV broadcasters, as those are the media that create the most effect. This is simply for brevity of expression; I know about the popularity of Fox-News, the existence and position of "tankies" etc. On August 12 2023 05:06 JimmiC wrote: He made an awful decision, even you take away all the human costs (which are staggering), the financial costs and the ability to defend themselves even against their made up enemies is so much less. He has continued to make cascading terrible decisions to try to hide how awful the first one was. Basically everyone thought that he was not dumb enough to make everything worse for some crazy bringing back the USSR dream. We all thought it was nationalistic bluster to distract from the massive grift to enrich him and his inner circle. It makes no sense to not only go through all this cost but also lose all the international investment that was pouring in. This is all Russian leaderships fault. They could have continued to make massive money off of Europe and claimed their people had it worse for all the reasons they did while lining their pockets, living on their super yachts, billion dollar estates. traveling and doing whatever their hearts desired. They could have kept scapegoating NATO. Let me explain some circumstances in order to show why I think these are very unlikely to be the reasons for the war: -Putin had numerous achievements and improved Russian economy a lot. However, people've been quite tired of his infinite rule and gerrymandering (including edition of the Constitution) aimed to stay at power; -There had been a history of brutal suppressions of opposition rallies and legal persecutions against protesters during his reign; -These two things created the following attitude: "we don't give a fuck what Putin's doing, just please let it not intervene with our private life. Anyway he'll be dead sooner or later - and then, perhaps, the politics in Russia will be revived again." I believe this to be more or less correct for the major part of the Russian population at the beginning of 2022. Putin's popularity was gradually decreasing, but there was no one who could challenge him, including non-establishment people like Navalny (who despite being somewhat popular, was simply not allowed to participate in elections). So my point is - Putin didn't has to do anything in order to stay at power as long as he wanted. In the absence of competitors he simply did not need high approval to get reelected, while he wasn't strongly hated either. And I'd say that starting the war was the worst thing Putin could do in terms of appeal to the "indifferent" group. Any war is a thing that people cannot ignore, and a war with Ukrainians was especially unthinkable to Russians, as almost everyone here had relatives or friends in Ukraine. I have no proofs, and there's no reliable sociological data, but I have an impression that at the beginning the war was extremely unpopular. Some indirect evidences are - lots of people left the country during that period (large share of them being high-skilled professionals), and numerous attacks on cars with "Z" symbols have been reported in cities. If I am correct, the one and only realistic scenario of Western victory was the following: discontent people, further upset by economic problems due to sanctions and army's poor performance, start a rebellion against Putin. If true, this makes the architechts of this war from the both sides failures, as the Russian scenario at the start also relied on using a small regiment to help topple Zelensky in a coup. Upd: On August 12 2023 05:06 JimmiC wrote: A NATO invasion was never going to happen, the only risk was to those in power in Russia of the Russian people wanting and forcing change. The Russian leadership was worried about the people of Russia seeing the people of Ukraine doing better than them and questioning how with so much more resources and being told of their superiority their whole lives that they could be worse off. They were willing to take the short term financial hit because they assumed this would be done in a week and the west would tire of the sanctions because their own people just want the cheap resources and the corps want the profits. They massively miscalculated but are unwilling to ever admit making a mistake. Look, to most russians, including me, this war was inconceivable too. Just a quote from Leo Tolstoy on this: "In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful." | ||
Lwerewolf
Bulgaria78 Posts
On August 12 2023 08:46 captainwaffles wrote: IMO, the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Carnegies, the Rothschilds and every other dynastic family that has a stake in the West's oil monopoly just isn't ready for nuclear war. Are you just trying to tick every "conspiracy nut" checklist? I guess I'd love to have a primer on "the west's oil monopoly", since I don't exactly see one. Is OPEC the west? | ||
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland23815 Posts
On August 12 2023 08:42 JimmiC wrote: Why isn’t NATO just attacking Russia right now? They are stretched thing and struggling against Ukraine. They could use their combined might and strike on all fronts? It’s almost like they’d rather not and haven’t used a war on Europe’s Eastern borders as justification for doing so. But obviously a parallel world where Ukraine wasn’t invaded NATO were just biding their time to do so. And this isn’t a crazy opinion with basically nothing backing it fucking up. Insane ideas held by (mostly) sane people, oh what a world. If NATO was setting something up you wouldn’t have had Germany strike big, big gas deals with Russia. Western Europe were alright to tango with Russia in those kind of terms in perpetuity. Decision makers would rather that have continued rather than deal with the huge political blowback of being ‘too close to Russia’ after they invaded. I’m not a foreign policy wonk or as well-versed as some but this seems just unbelievably obvious and observable, and logically just makes way more sense than the bollocks the perpetual contrarians put out | ||
captainwaffles
United States1050 Posts
On August 12 2023 08:51 Lwerewolf wrote: Are you just trying to tick every "conspiracy nut" checklist? I guess I'd love to have a primer on "the west's oil monopoly", since I don't exactly see one. Is OPEC the west? Here's an excerpt from a speech that was given in 2016 to Brazil's largest oil union, Petrobas, that sums it up pretty well: Oil Bankers: The Richest People in the World Who is the richest person in the world? The international media often tries to answer that question for us. Names get floated around like Bill Gates, Carlos Slim, Warren Buffet – sometimes they’ll mention an Arab sultan or prince. Forbes magazine publishes a list of the richest people in the world. All of this utter nonsense. Bill Gates, Carlos Slim, Warren Buffet, the king of Saudi Arabia, all of these people are poor men compared to the ones who have real power. These people are listed as the richest people in the world, because they are so poor, that they have all of their money listed in their own name. Those who are really rich, those with the most wealth, power and influence, have astronomical amounts of wealth, often so much money that their total net worth cannot even be calculated. The richest people in the world can be described in two words: oil bankers. The House of Rockefeller, the House of Morgan, the Carnegies, the Rothschilds, the Mellons, the Du Ponts -- these oil and banking dynasties sit at the center of a small network of deeply entrenched power and influence, dominating the economies of the United States and western Europe, and most of the rest of the planet. Let’s take the most powerful family of oil bankers, the Rockefellers, as a case study. When Nelson Rockefeller, one of the many heirs of John D. Rockefeller and the Standard Oil cartel of the 1880s, was being questioned by the US Congress in 1974, some of the most brilliant investigative reporters, journalists, and economists assembled to cover the hearing. “Those with the most wealth, power and influence, have astronomical amounts of wealth, often so much money that their total net worth cannot even be calculated.” Among them, none of them could determine exactly how much money Nelson Rockefeller really had. In his own name, Mr. Rockefeller personally had a few billion dollars. The rest of his money was tied up in an elaborate network – thousands of trusts, small corporations, and foundations he controlled. When testifying before Congress, Nelson Rockefeller was asked about his control of Chase Manhattan Bank. He testified, honestly, “I don’t own a single share of Chase Manhattan Bank.” He was telling the truth. He personally did not have a single cent invested in Chase. However, one of the trusts he controlled owned well over 325,000 shares of stock in Chase Manhattan Bank. That was back in the 1970s. Today the wealth and influence of one of two most powerful oil-banking cliques is combined. The House of Rockefeller holds control of the largest super-major oil company, Exxon-Mobil, as its personal property. In addition, this powerful family jointly controls an entity called JP Morgan-Chase with the Morgans, another powerful family in the United States. JP Morgan Chase is the largest banking entity in the entire world. The Morgans, now partnered with the Rockefellers, are descendants of an infamous Wall Street legend named JP Morgan. Not only do the Rockefellers and Morgans control JP Morgan Chase, they also control a company called General Electric, the sixth-largest firm in the United States. There is no key aspect of the global economy that the oil bankers haven’t put their stamp on, and tried very hard to craft in their own interest. General Electric ranks 21st among corporations contracted by the US military. This entity controlled by the Rockefellers and Morgans has over 6,674 contracts with the Pentagon, bringing in over $2 billion a year in US military projects alone. You can be sure that the US military brass is very concerned about making sure that the Rockefellers and the Morgans are happy with whatever decision they make. Furthermore, the global media conglomerate called NBC Universal, which includes MSNBC and Comcast, is openly controlled by General Electric. “There is no key aspect of the global economy that the oil bankers haven’t put their stamp on.” Universal Studios, one of the “big six” in Hollywood, is also their property as well. Most art museums in the United States are directly linked to Rockefeller foundations, if not directly controlled by them – like the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. Without the direct approval of the Rockefellers, we may never have known the names Andy Warhol or Jackson Pollock. Almost every major college and university in the United States depends on money from Rockefeller-controlled foundations, a relationship that puts academia under the direct control of the oil bankers. More interestingly, the US Central Intelligence Agency crafts its policies and conducts its research with a private foundation called the Council on Foreign Relations. Exxon-Mobil and variety of Rockefeller Foundations, along with the Ford Foundation, completely bankroll this powerful institution of academics and former US elected officials. The Council on Foreign Relations, controlled by oil bankers, is essentially the brain of the CIA. The smartest minds in the United States are paid six-figure salaries to carefully make proposals and calculations about how the United States should wield its influence around the world. Put simply, the Council on Foreign Relations thinks it up, but the CIA does it. And even the manner in which the CIA operates around the world is directly accountable to the Rockefeller, Morgan, and Ford dynasties. The CIA does very little work on its own. CIA agents aren’t generally the ones getting their hands dirty, conducting military coups, kidnapping people, torturing people, etc. The CIA generally has the job of finding dupes and allies in the country of interest, instructing them, advising them, and letting them carry out the tasks that serve US foreign policy interest. The key way for the CIA to help those doing its dirty work around the world is connecting them to Wall Street-controlled non-governmental organizations and foundations. The CIA goes into a country. It finds people to carry out its mission, and then the network of wealthy families that control Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, British Petroleum, and Royal Dutch Shell pay them for it. “The Council on Foreign Relations, controlled by oil bankers, is essentially the brain of the CIA.” The National Endowment for Democracy, the Open Society Institute – the whole network of activist groups controlled by George Soros – fund the activities of the CIA’s allies, dupes, and collaborators in almost every corner of the globe. You can find the money of the wealthy oil banking families in the United States all over the world, and often on multiple sides of different political issues. The oil banking dynasties, working with the CIA and the Pentagon, use their funding and money like an expert sports gambler. If you put money on both teams, you are guaranteed to win almost every game. Every country in the world has money from the oil bankers somehow manipulating its political process. Organizations that say they advocate “democracy,” “human rights,” “economic freedom,” and “social justice” are getting money from the big oil bankers and getting instructions from the CIA. If you want to find the people who run the world, the quietly powerful global elite, you don’t have to look for the Illuminati, the Freemasons, or some secret society. Look at the major oil companies and banks in the United States and Western Europe and the families whose money is historically tied up in them. The four major oil corporations in the United States, the “super-majors” as they are called – Chevron, British Petroleum, the Rothschilds’ Royal Dutch Shell, and the Rockefellers’ Exxon-Mobile – don’t really compete with each other. They function as much like a trust or cartel as is legally possible in the United States. They set the prices of gasoline together. They discuss increases and drops in production among each other. A number of smaller corporations, which are indirectly owned by the same people that own the Big Four, follow right behind them. An oil company called Marathon is technically an independent company, but it’s really just a subdivision of Exxon-Mobil, another descendant of Standard Oil. It’s technically a competitor with the Big Four, but this only true on paper. “Every country in the world has money from the oil bankers somehow manipulating its political process.” US foreign policy cannot be separated from the power of oil corporations. This should be obvious from a distance. What countries have been the biggest enemies and military opponents of the United States in the last three decades? Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, Russia, Iran. All of these countries are major oil exporters. And who pays for the Council on Foreign Relations? Who does business with the Pentagon? Who owns the banks at the center of the European Union? Who funds both the Democratic and Republican Parties in the United States? Who funds the Labor Party, the Conservative Party, and the Liberal Democratic Party in Britain? The very ground on which the United Nations Headquarters in Manhattan was constructed was a personal donation from the Rockefeller family. Henry Kissinger, one of the leading influential figures in setting US foreign policy, is a complete creation of the oil bankers. He worked for the Rockefellers before he worked in Washington. If you look at the think tanks where decisions are made by powerful leaders, you’ll see that roughly the same people work at them and the same people fund them. The Asia Society, the Brookings Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institution, the Heritage Foundation; it’s not hard to find out where all of these policy-setting institutions get their money. You can always trace it back to oil bankers. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland23815 Posts
On August 12 2023 08:46 captainwaffles wrote: IMO, the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Carnegies, the Rothschilds and every other dynastic family that has a stake in the West's oil monopoly just isn't ready for nuclear war. Nobody is ready for nuclear war, it’s hardly the preserve of the Rockerfellers to not find such a thing desirous. What Western oil monopoly? Are we just going to sidestep the autonomy of the various Gulf States entirely here or what? | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States41982 Posts
| ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland23815 Posts
On August 12 2023 09:07 KwarK wrote: I don't know why we indulge that guy. Hey that’s mean, I make the occasional salient point. | ||
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2615 Posts
On August 12 2023 08:58 WombaT wrote: Nobody is ready for nuclear war, it’s hardly the preserve of the Rockerfellers to not find such a thing desirous. What Western oil monopoly? Are we just going to sidestep the autonomy of the various Gulf States entirely here or what? I thought exactly the same thing. It's like he doesn't know OPEC, Russia, and Iran exist. And like you said, NOBODY wants a nuclear war. It's not just kid billionaires who don't want the world to end in nuclear annihilation, funnily enough. Maybe captainwaffles doesn't think global thermonuclear war would affect him, for some reason, and therefore the only reason it hasn't happened yet is that the bankers have conspired to prevent one. But wait! That would mean they've been buying off Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin! Putin was in league with "the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Carnegies, the Rothschilds and every other dynastic family that has a stake in the West's oil monopoly" all along! He was their puppet who started the war, to juice the defense stocks that the bankers were betting on. It all makes sense now. | ||
Manit0u
Poland17189 Posts
![]() THE BLACK MONDAY MURDERS is classic occultism where the various schools of magic are actually clandestine banking cartels who control all of society: a secret world where vampire Russian oligarchs, Black popes, enchanted American aristocrats, and hitmen from the International Monetary Fund work together to keep ALL OF US in our proper place. https://imagecomics.com/comics/series/the-black-monday-murders Really good stuff ![]() | ||
KrillinFromwales
47 Posts
| ||
0x64
Finland4519 Posts
Usually a monetary collapse follows this pattern, and goes at an exponential rate. One pro-Russian journalist (not pro-war) in France and famous economist said that western medias were crazy thinking that sanctions would collapse the Russian economy because it was in a crazy good state with extremely low debt, he told they could hold at least 2 years... He was not wrong, yet the 2 years mark approach and that seemed like Ukraine would never hold that long early in the conflict when he made the analysis. In the end he was right, and at the same time absolutely unable to see that the sanction worked as intended. The sad thing about monetary collapse, it make the population even more prone to nationalist propaganda. The only good thing about this situation is that Putin does not have life expectancy of 20 years, because the nationalist classic steps are being taken right now in Russia with school children having class being set up. Ardias, A_ch? What's your view about those new class in the Russian school system. What are the goals, what are the consequences you expect? | ||
Slydie
1897 Posts
"From the very first steps they began to build their statehood on the denial of everything that unites us. They tried to distort the consciousness, the historical memory of millions of people, entire generations living in Ukraine." This is a nice quote. It translates to "they did not always bend over and do exactly as I told them to". | ||
maybenexttime
Poland5439 Posts
On August 12 2023 15:22 0x64 wrote: Ardias, A_ch? What's your view about those new class in the Russian school system. What are the goals, what are the consequences you expect? Better yet, they have neo-Nazis training children in SPB. ;-) | ||
a_ch
Russian Federation240 Posts
On August 12 2023 10:43 Manit0u wrote: I kinda feel like I'm reading The Black Monday Murders again ![]() https://imagecomics.com/comics/series/the-black-monday-murders Really good stuff ![]() -omg) On August 12 2023 15:22 0x64 wrote: Ardias, A_ch? What's your view about those new class in the Russian school system. What are the goals, what are the consequences you expect? - Hard to say. From the government perspective it is a logical thing to do, as the youth here is generally the most pro-western. On the other hand, I can easily imagine these classes being cringe af, and only make things worse. On August 12 2023 16:14 maybenexttime wrote: Better yet, they have neo-Nazis training children in SPB. ;-) -yeah, the pot calling the kettle black, https://ctc.westpoint.edu/polands-evolving-violent-far-right-landscape/ | ||
| ||