Getting fun…
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Sorry mate, but 3rd time today in this thread. Kinda cringe on the part of the US Embassy if you ask me.
I'd not want to be in Ukraine right now that's for sure. Worried for the potential civilian losses really.
Oh feck me, is Carlson really backing Putin? Great. Cue the MAGA brigade turning this into a Democrats vs Republicans political issue. FFS.
Putin: The Leninist/Soviet blunder of recognizing/extending Ukrainian sovereignty needs to be corrected with an invasion. This would be true de-Communization.
Ukraine: This de-Communization invasion is the re-establishment of the Soviet Union.
The USSR, many things to many people
Thanks, i'm blind.
Very good response from Biden in reassuring the Baltics and whole Nato eastern flank in the face of imperialistic nonsense from the bunker psychopath.
No worries, it's not very clear at first glance.
...and about the amount of business between UK and Russia, I honestly don't know. But it will be interesting to see what the next 'round of sanctions' will be from us.
Putin's paranoia about COVID makes me wonder if he's got underlying health issues that make him immunocompromised or if he's afraid being sick will make him look weak.
He's supposed to be this uber-macho symbol of masculinity to the Russian people, but he's meeting people across a 30 foot table?
Well, I have a job and stuff so 1st time for me.
I’ve said that a good dozen of pages back that Putin’s health must be really not good for him to be isolating from everyone the way he does. He’s shit scared of Covid.
God: alright Covid, now you’re gonna infect a world leader…
Covid: Righto, Chap!
God: Haha, cheerio. Right.. right… oh shit. Wait!
https://www.economist.com/by-invita...-in-ukraine-is-the-direction-of-human-history
The title genuinely made me
The title genuinely made me
I'm paid to do a job, but really I just refresh the caf Russia-Ukraine thread all day.
25-30 high schoolers from 10am-345pm can really do a number on my weekday Redcafe time.
The good news is that the way things are going you'll have a lot less US history you can actually teach, so more Caf time?
There was a period a few years back when there was a lot of talk of him showing signs of Parkinsons - he disappeared from the public eye for a bit. No idea if credible but wouldn’t be crazy to think a 70 year old might have some underlying health issues I guess!
Rather than looking at it as NATO expanding eastwards, look at it as countries legitimately living in fear of Russia and wanting to enter defence pacts to better ensure their own survival. It’s a bit rich of Putin to lament NATO and countries wanting to join NATO as a deterrent to Putin targeting them, when Russia itself has defence pacts with five other post-Soviet states in the form of the CSTO.
It’s Russia, and principally Putin, who wants to rekindle the Cold War and still expects its neighbouring countries to dance to its tune, regardless of the self-determination of the people living there. It’s Putin who is choosing to go down the path of making Russia and NATO adversaries. It doesn’t have to be this way.
You can go and watch Putin's speech yesterday and make up your mind.
Hint: it had not much to do with NATO, and it had to do everything with Ukraine always being under Russia, and being artificially created from Lenin. So I guess, instead of trying to think what Putin thinks, we could you know, just listen to what he says. His mask has slipped off for some time and he does not care about public opinion anymore.
It was never about NATO, it was always about Russian's imperialism.
Wars are fought with memes now.
Definitely, the internet and social media has been weaponised.
We often hear about the Russian troll farms but wouldn't surprise me if other countries are doing something similar too. If you think about the sort of misinformation that organisations like The Heartland Institute have been pumping out for decades, it feels kind of obvious that they'd be up to the same dirty tricks
It would be fantastic if this was true.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/opinion/putin-ukraine-nato.html
Yes, there is a legitimate point to be had. It has become rather retrospective now, but it isn't a fantasy or an apology. Prominent people in prominent positions were wary of NATO expansion post-Soviet collapse. Many predicted this scenario. That doesn't justify a Russian invasion of Ukraine, however. Friedman, in the article above, is no pro-Russian hack, but even he understands the rather simple point made by Kennan and co. Again, it matters less today than it did a month ago, but that is the contextual depth to this event. Putin has used it as a casus belli but the cause should never have been presented to him as justification. All academic now, anyway.
Friedman said:
Public opinion influences the opinion of politicians, so there is a an information component to all of this.
I thought they shared this intel with Ukraine?
A lot more Caf time if they try that. I’ll just quit and find something I can do from home
Just another version of the age old propaganda poster.
Just got around to seeing that exchange with the svr chief. I thought it was some alpha leader shite reprimanding his underlings , but the way he jumped the script to the annexation chapter was
To be fair, Russia should not in any way be surprised that former members of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact would want to align themselves to NATO after gaining independence following the collapse of the Soviet regime.
Not a single one of those countries, except maybe Belarus, forgets how the Russians, under the guise of the Soviets, marched in, occupied their lands, oppressed their people, raped them of their resources and wealth and did not relinquish control for 70 years.
With that in mind, joinging an organization whose value proposition is essentially to stop Russian aggrandizement would be very appealing to every single one of them, except Belarus, of course.
Agree but because it's an interactive medium it makes it more surreal to watch this kind of appeal and participation. I can't really explain why it just feels...really low, even if it can be funny.
Yeah, but to be fair, Friedman makes that point cogently. He doesn't stand in ignorance of NATO's appeal to former Warsaw Pact members, he simply asks why the West chose to kick Russia when (for once) it didn't have to. In the 90s, before Putin, there was genuine cooperation between US-Russia. Reading Friedman's article, and those which he refers to, simply points to a lost opportunity. It isn't a defense of Putin, it's a retrospective criticism of NATO insofar as many believe it should have been handled differently.
It gives off the vibe that the crisis is being trivialized when in fact these are serious and tense moments for Ukraine.
He actually mentions NATO explicitly and says that Ukraine joining NATO would be a threat to Russia's national security. It was a rambling incoherent mess of a speech with many falsehoods but I believe he did directly reference NATO, as he has in the past. I don't know how much can be drawn from the speech that is Putin's true intentions either; it was more a propaganda piece aimed at his own populace rather than any sort of demonstration of his actually beliefs
I am also not trying to say that the decision of those countries in Eastern Europe to join NATO was wrong or to blame. My whole point is that NATO's expansion had a part to play in the growing tensions with Russia. She also mentions broken promises and I believe both Gorbachev and Yeltsin were reassured that NATO would not expand eastward, or if it did, that it would not station troops in those countries. None of this justifies the invasion, it is just part of the puzzle of the mess that is playing out now. Which, to be fair, as I stated, wasn't Candance Owen's point, she is an idiot, but there is a small bit of truth to what she is saying.
Last edited:
As for Candice Owens, she would be better off making that argument from within the frame which serious commentators and scholars have already made it. Not using Putin as a character witness is probably a good start.
That's a good point actually. If the best hackers from each Western country can target key military or economic networks in Russia, it would surely make life hell for them.
They are doing it to Ukraine after all.
I'm sure Russia's cyber security is good, but surely not good enough to repel cyber attacks from the rest of the world at the same time.
I agree that the west royally screwed up with Russia in the 90s and should have done everything possible to bring them into the fold. We didn't even really cooperate, instead we smiled in their face and then tried to bankrupt them.Likely because our economic system needs a boogeyman and we hadn't thought far enough ahead to identify a replacement for the Soviets when it all came crashing down (which we somehow also missed despite years of stagnation in the Politburo).
But, that being said, 30 years on and certainly after what happened in the Crimea, it should be no surprise to anyone why Russia's former satellite states would be keen on being part of NATO.
Last edited:
I don't know if I would ever cite an argument made by Thomas Friedman to make a point as he arguably is the greatest imbecile employed by a top-tier Western news organization in modern history. If you think this is exaggeration, you should read up on the role he played in promoting the Iraq War, not to mention almost everything else he has written since.
Every speech I watch with Putin he looks really weird. Like he has not slept for ages. He looks very different. Like someone who's been told he only has 6 months left to live. He does not come off as powerful and confident as he usually did but instead looks like a fed up old man who has given up on life. This is a disaster.
Agreed on all points. Again, all academic now unless some diplomatic mission can reignite talks and walk back Russian expansion which seems unlikely.
But that's exactly why I am citing him. He is a traditional hawk but even he understands the nuance which underscores the historical context. When you make this argument, as historical/contextual, people misconstrue it as being a defense when it never has that intent. If I were to cite some lefty or some Trump nutter, everyone would predictably ignore it because you will have decided a priori that it merits no consideration.
Also, Friedman has relevance because of his experience with state planners and think tanks directly engaged with this problem in 90s, whatever else your (or my) opposition to him on other issues.