|
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. |
On November 17 2025 22:40 EEk1TwEEk wrote: And to the guy from Switzerland suggesting that Russia wants a WW3 - I am really lost for words, dude.
That makes sense to me, if I had to find words to explain why Putin won't go to war I would have trouble finding them as well.
|
United States43250 Posts
On November 17 2025 22:40 EEk1TwEEk wrote: Ok not talking to KwarK - he's a troll. Oh sure, call me a troll because you can’t deal with the overwhelming force of the excellent arguments I’m making. Typical cowardly Russian. But it doesn’t change the fact that Putin hasn’t held enough elections.
|
On November 17 2025 22:40 EEk1TwEEk wrote: Ok not talking to KwarK - he's a troll.
Have you ever heard of the war between Ukraine and Lugansk, Donetsk and Donbass region, populated by ethnical russians since 2014 to 2022? Google "alley of angels" Google "proxy war" lol.
It's both hilarious and disheartening to see someone so hopelessly trapped inside a misinformation bubble.
|
On November 17 2025 22:40 EEk1TwEEk wrote: Ok not talking to KwarK - he's a troll.
Have you ever heard of the war between Ukraine and Lugansk, Donetsk and Donbass region, populated by ethnical russians since 2014 to 2022? Google "alley of angels"
And to the guy from Switzerland suggesting that Russia wants a WW3 - I am really lost for words, dude.
If everyone you talk to is a troll, maybe a mirror would be of some benefit to you?
|
On November 17 2025 22:15 KwarK wrote: Zelenskyy has held elections. Why hasn’t Putin held an election this year? Citation needed.
On November 17 2025 22:40 EEk1TwEEk wrote: Ok not talking to KwarK - he's a troll.
Have you ever heard of the war between Ukraine and Lugansk, Donetsk and Donbass region, populated by ethnical russians since 2014 to 2022? Google "alley of angels"
And to the guy from Switzerland suggesting that Russia wants a WW3 - I am really lost for words, dude. They are baiting you, if they are trolling don't respond. Kwark even said once 300.000 civilians died in Mariupol, and thats still not half as dumb as some posts over the last few pages. Facts and logic are like garlic to a vampire to these people, so use them (cite sources, they hate that the most)
|
On November 17 2025 20:20 EEk1TwEEk wrote:ahahaahahahah care to give a link to these numbers?))) 10 trillion wow man
https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/109275/
Budget deficit 2024 was 3,5 trillion.
In August 2025 the deficit was 4,2 trillion. However Russia does a lot of end of year spending. August 2024 the budget was actually on a surplus before end of year spending brought it to -3,5 trillion.
Russia themselves say its going to be about 5,7 trillion this year. But going by last year's trend it would be more like 7,7 trillion. In August I saw most estimates at about 6,9 or so.
However oil prices have been low, refining capacity has been hit and oil has been heavily discounted due to sanctions, spending is up 20% and Russian numbers are hardly reliable.
10 trillion is likely wishful thinking but 8 is absolutely doable. And even if it were to come in at about 6 trillion that is still really bad.
|
What is going on with our resident russian troll no longer being able to write Zelenskyys name? Does he worry that this is some kind of Bloody Mary or Voldemort situation?
|
Eek or Zeo (or better both), if you were trying to convince a Ukrainian that partnering with Russia is better than Partnering with the EU, what would your argument be?
|
Number of destroyed Bakhmuts in Ukraine: 1 Number of destroyed Bakhmuts in Belarus: 0 Checkmate, western pawns!
|
On November 18 2025 01:50 Sent. wrote: Number of destroyed Bakhmuts in Ukraine: 1 Number of destroyed Bakhmuts in Belarus: 0 Checkmate, western pawns!
That would also be my argument. If you are a Russian puppet you don't get invaded. Can't see many other arguments for it, unless you want to be part of the 0.001% Oligarchs, could argue for them easily.
|
That is what came to mind to me, but the pro Russian people might know of benefits I don't. Or if they think about the question they might see why people outside of the EU and Russia see the Ukraine as the good guy and Russia as the bad guy. Outside of the obvious, who is invading who. There is also the whole, Ukraine is not getting tricked into joining the west it is just way better for 99.99999% of their people. The real mind blown moment might be when they realize it would be better for them personally and 99.99999% of Russians too.
There is even an argument for the Oligarchs, you wont be as rich, but your chances of falling out of a window or having a heart attack the same time as bullet wound go way way down.
|
On November 17 2025 22:30 EEk1TwEEk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 22:28 Excludos wrote:On November 17 2025 22:12 EEk1TwEEk wrote:On November 17 2025 21:47 Excludos wrote:On November 17 2025 20:18 EEk1TwEEk wrote:
I mean, on one hand, you have a deeply flawed country with old corruption cultures inhabited from Russia, with a leader who is actively trying to combat it. On the other, you have Russia, who is deeply corrupt from top to bottom, with a leader who is actively participating in it.
Care to comment about that?
Sure The leader of ukraine is actually a person who built this corruption. He was the one talking bout russian spies in NABU and SAPO and tried to block their work. It's really strange to blame soviet union on corruption, the SU collapsed 34 years ago, what corruption heritage are you talking about? Ukraine has been a sovereign since 1991 and has been pro-western since 2014. "But Russia being one of the most corrupt countries on the planet is a-ok! It's only a problem when someone else is doing it. In fact Ukraine's corruption is so problematic that they deserve to be invaded in a war that is now totaling 1.2 million casualties, so they can finally be put under the even more corrupt umbrella of Russia once again!" Yes, Ukraine did become more pro western in 2014 (Can't imagine why. What else happened that year..?), but corruption on a deep level isn't rooted out in barely a decade. The reason we know that Zelenskyy isn't somehow the orchestrator of it, is that this is one of the genuine pressure points for Ukraine's EU membership (And being kept close on eye. No one in EU is going to accept a high level of corruption for a new applicant), and he is doing his best to root it out while simultaneously fighting off an invasion from an army 5 times bigger than his. I understand we're not going to be seeing eye to eye on probably any topic in this tread. But the fact that you can't even admit that Russia is a contender for the most corrupt country on earth (Of which there is a literal mountain of undeniable evidence), while whining about corruption in Ukraine, a genuine heritage from the time they actually were part of Russia, is to me insane. Do you not understand your own hypocrisy? Do you not ever read your own words that you type? How can you say that Ze is not an orchestrator of corruption if everyone caught red-handed are from his actor's troop "95th quarter"? Ze initiated a process against NABU and SAPO in July this year, calling them russian spies. Ze refused to hold elections, so he is not a legitimate president of the country. And don't talk that corruption was a reason for a war - The reason of special military operation has nothing to do with corruption - for years we said that Ukraine cannot join NATO - this was always a red line for Putin. NATO expanded year after year since 1991. Then Kamala and Blinken said that - yeah - let them join NATO. Thus the invesion started. Ze had a peace deal in front of him - the "Minsk agreement" in 2022, but he still chose to carry on fighting. Does Russia have corruption, sure it does, who doesn't? Talking about corruption I am 100% sure, that all the western leaders were giving plenty of money to Ukraine without counting, because the percentage went straight in their pockets - Trump was the first person to say "we need a peace deal", while the EU is constantly fueling the war. And sometimes I see reports on the media, that Russia will invade other countries after Ukraine. Whether u like Putin or not (personally i dislike him because of corruption btw) - do you really think that he will invade NATO countries? Do you really think that he is an idiot? So the corruption of one country makes it acceptable for another equally or more corrupt country to invade them. Is that the argument you are going with here? And don't talk that corruption was a reason for a war - The reason of special military operation has nothing to do with corruption - for years we said that Ukraine cannot join NATO - this was always a red line for Putin. I have to say that for a fascist you're dumber than average.
If Putin's motivation was Ukraine joining NATO, why did he reject a peace deal at the start of the war in which Ukraine agreed not to join NATO?
Your claim that Ukraine joining NATO was always a red line for Putin is blatantly false. In early 2000's he was clearly not against eastern NATO expansion, including Ukraine. Putin even helped establish American military bases in Central Asia during the War in Afghanistan. How do you explain that?
If Russia was afraid of NATO, why did it withdraw its troops from Kaliningrad and borders with Finland and the Baltics during the war in Ukraine? They even moved their air defenses from St Petersburg area to Ukraine. That's how threatened by NATO Russia felt. If NATO had any intentions to attack Russia, there had never been a better opportunity than 2022-2023.
NATO has not once threatened Russia with military force, let alone with nuclear weapons, other than in retaliation. Russia, on the other hand, routinely threatens NATO with military force, violates the airspace of NATO countries, as well as the airspace of Sweden and Finland. It has also threatened NATO countries with unprovoked nuclear attacks countless times - be it Russia's propaganda mouthpieces, Russian politicians, or strategists. Sergey Karaganov argued that Russia should nuke all major cities in Poland to make a point. NATO has not moved its nuclear weapons closer to Russia in decades. Russia, on the other hand, deployed nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad and Belarus.
Finally, let's not forget the fact that Russia is constantly attacking the West. From election interference, through cyber attacks, attacks on infrastructure, assassinations, to illegal migrants on the borders and misinformation campaigns.
NATO expanded year after year since 1991. NATO never made promises not to expand east. Gorbachev said that himself on multiple occasions.
Then Kamala and Blinken said that - yeah - let them join NATO. Thus the invesion started. As was already pointed out to you, Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Before the invasion, Ukraine had no prospects of joining NATO. Its population was against it, there was no political consensus, it had neutrality enshrined in its constitution, and several NATO members opposed Ukraine's accession. All of that changed after Russia invaded.
It's also ironic that you're not citing the official reason provided by Russia itself. NATO wasn't it.
|
Putin even helped establish American military bases in Central Asia during the War in Afghanistan. How do you explain that?
I mean, helping your enemy get involved in a war in the graveyard of empires sounds like a smart move to make. And Afghanistan didn't really turn out well for the US either, so if you are opposed to the US, helping them get into that kerfluffle sounds like a good idea no matter where you would generally stand on them having bases or whatever.
|
|
|
Canada11371 Posts
Ze refused to hold elections, so he is not a legitimate president of the country. UK didn't hold elections all throughout WWII. Churchill never even led his party to victory in an election but stepped in when Chamberlain stepped down. Was Churchill the legitimate prime minister of war time UK?
The resilience of a liberal democracy is seen in the transition into peace time. Does the centralization and unitary authority acquired as a necessity of conducting a war relapse or is it retained?
But here's my bet. If Russia does not conquer Ukraine and the war ends, Ukraine will hold free and fair elections again- and I mean, real and proper elections, not 97% popularity 'elections' held by dictators.
But Putin will never be removed electorally. He may be usurped or he may die on his throne, but there is no world in which Putin holds actual elections with a real opposition that doesn't fear being openly shot in the Red Square or pushed off a balcony.
Putin Kuchma Putin Yushchenko Putin Yanukovych Putin Turchynov Putin Poroshenko Putin Zelensky Putin ...
And so it goes.
|
United States43250 Posts
Zelenskyy isn’t not holding elections, the elections happen according to a constitutionally defined schedule and there haven’t been any scheduled. It’s not up to him, all the legally allowed elections have happened. He’s allowing them, they all happened.
Why is Putin not holding a 2025 presidential election? Without a 2025 election his legitimacy is destroyed.
|
I don't think it's a very closed secret that everyone who is "not buying Russian oil" is really just buying it through middle men/countries. Even countries in Europe are doing this. However, as morally bankrupt as this is, it's actually still quite a lot better than them buying it directly. As the oil has to go through other countries, Russia is forced to lower the prices due to the cuts these other countries take. So it's still less profits for them
Same with smuggling, obviously. Smugglers are doing more work, and especially more perilous work, to go through blockades. This costs money, which is taken from Russia's cut
|
On November 18 2025 07:17 Excludos wrote:I don't think it's a very closed secret that everyone who is "not buying Russian oil" is really just buying it through middle men/countries. Even countries in Europe are doing this. However, as morally bankrupt as this is, it's actually still quite a lot better than them buying it directly. As the oil has to go through other countries, Russia is forced to lower the prices due to the cuts these other countries take. So it's still less profits for them Same with smuggling, obviously. Smugglers are doing more work, and especially more perilous work, to go through blockades. This costs money, which is taken from Russia's cut
Buying through middle-men is not always an option though. You run the risk of getting hit by secondary sanctions and there's enough oil being produced worldwide that you can always find alternatives. They might not be as cheap as Russian oil at this point but they come with no additional dangers or hoops.
That's why there are now supposedly ~390million barrels of Russian oil stuck on tankers around the world who can't find a place to offload this cargo. So they're running a lot of tankers (each costing ~100k USD/day to operate) that are unable to provide a profit.
Edit:
And I'm not sure why we're even entertaining Russian pundits with all the discussion about the elections. Anyone living in a free, democratic country knows you can't really hold elections during war time (technically you can but it would be a logistical nightmare and changing your entire government mid-war is not very smart) so no one in the West is actually holding it against Zelensky. It's only the Russians and their sympathizers that are pushing this narrative.
If Zelensky doesn't hold elections after the war is over then it becomes a problem, but during war time there's no issue with there being no elections.
|
|
|
|
|
|