For those imagining there is a compromise with Putin. https://mobile.twitter.com/francska1/status/1510898134481788930 An op-ed for state news agency RIA Novosti titled "What Russia should do with Ukraine" by pundit Timofei Sergeitsev has created quite a stir today
The rhetoric is truly horrific, even by the standards of what I'm used to seeing from pro-Kremlin media Below are a few quotes:
"Denazification is a set of measures aimed at the nazified mass of the population, which technically cannot be subjected to direct punishment as war criminals"
"However, besides the elite, a significant part of the masses of the people, who are passive nazis, are accomplices to Nazism. They have supported the Nazi authorities and indulged them..."
"...The just punishment for this part of the population is possible only as the bearing of the inevitable hardships of a just war against the Nazi system" ... "Denazification is inevitably also deukrainisation – a rejection of the large-scale artificial inflation of the ethnic element of self-identification of the population of the territories of the historical Malorossiya and Novorossiya begun by the Soviet authorities"
"Unlike, let’s say, Georgia or the Baltics, Ukraine, as history has shown, is unviable as a national state, and attempts to 'build' one logically lead to Nazism"...
They’re getting more explicit about it now but, as far as the Russian authorities are concerned, Ukraine is populated with Russians and Nazis. The ‘operation’ is to get rid of the Nazis, by which they mean anyone opposing the Russian invaders. The large opposition to the invasion, means that there’s more Nazis than they expected.
Reading the original - https://ria.ru/20220403/ukraina-1781469605.html - the writer has come up with a definition of Nazi that "there is neither the main Nazi party, nor the Fuhrer, nor full-fledged racial law".
So Nazism without the Nazi bit??
Apparently not being pro-Russian = Nazi....
Putin's Russia continues to define itself, above all else, as the nation which defeated Hitler. Thus anyone opposing them is by definition a Nazi.
For those imagining there is a compromise with Putin. https://mobile.twitter.com/francska1/status/1510898134481788930 An op-ed for state news agency RIA Novosti titled "What Russia should do with Ukraine" by pundit Timofei Sergeitsev has created quite a stir today
The rhetoric is truly horrific, even by the standards of what I'm used to seeing from pro-Kremlin media Below are a few quotes:
"Denazification is a set of measures aimed at the nazified mass of the population, which technically cannot be subjected to direct punishment as war criminals"
"However, besides the elite, a significant part of the masses of the people, who are passive nazis, are accomplices to Nazism. They have supported the Nazi authorities and indulged them..."
"...The just punishment for this part of the population is possible only as the bearing of the inevitable hardships of a just war against the Nazi system" ... "Denazification is inevitably also deukrainisation – a rejection of the large-scale artificial inflation of the ethnic element of self-identification of the population of the territories of the historical Malorossiya and Novorossiya begun by the Soviet authorities"
"Unlike, let’s say, Georgia or the Baltics, Ukraine, as history has shown, is unviable as a national state, and attempts to 'build' one logically lead to Nazism"...
Sadly, gonna be a lot more war before any kind of peace deal.
Even a peace deal won't be 'peace'
This will be new period of conflict either hot or cold for decades to come.
I suspect that there are significant numbers in eastern Eurpean countries where the 'cultural centre ground' is somewhat to the right of western Europe. Indeed in rural parts of most European countries the same will be found. Social media - including PB at times gives a rather skewed take on these matters - hence why some posters are so baffled by countries like Hungary, people like Le Pen, parties like Vox - no 2 in the polls in Spain now and of course not to mentiuon events in the UK in 2016. Of course all these things are not the same in their degree or detail but they really should not surprise.
I'd agree with that, and argue that it extends beyond Europe. The city/rural divide in much of the world is, I suspect, pronounced, with city dwellers more likely to be culturally progressive and rural dwellers culturally conservative. Towns are somewhere in between. It certainly seems to apply in the USA, and I'd be surprised if it doesn't apply in countries as diverse as Australia and China, for example.
I'd probably disagree with you on the political implications, though. Where cities lead, rural areas follow.
Except when they don't - normally when the push to change is a step too far - and the backlash can be quite severe.
In the short term, yes; people outside cities don't like rapid change. Hence the backlash against globalisation, and on a smaller scale the 'trans' debate.
But in the longer term, I'd argue progressive values tend to win over. To give just three examples of 'progressive values' that have become broadly accepted throughout western cultures, even by the conservative (small c) members/rural dwellers: changes in the role of women; changed attitudes to homosexuality; strong disapproval of racism.
For those imagining there is a compromise with Putin. https://mobile.twitter.com/francska1/status/1510898134481788930 An op-ed for state news agency RIA Novosti titled "What Russia should do with Ukraine" by pundit Timofei Sergeitsev has created quite a stir today
The rhetoric is truly horrific, even by the standards of what I'm used to seeing from pro-Kremlin media Below are a few quotes:
"Denazification is a set of measures aimed at the nazified mass of the population, which technically cannot be subjected to direct punishment as war criminals"
"However, besides the elite, a significant part of the masses of the people, who are passive nazis, are accomplices to Nazism. They have supported the Nazi authorities and indulged them..."
"...The just punishment for this part of the population is possible only as the bearing of the inevitable hardships of a just war against the Nazi system" ... "Denazification is inevitably also deukrainisation – a rejection of the large-scale artificial inflation of the ethnic element of self-identification of the population of the territories of the historical Malorossiya and Novorossiya begun by the Soviet authorities"
"Unlike, let’s say, Georgia or the Baltics, Ukraine, as history has shown, is unviable as a national state, and attempts to 'build' one logically lead to Nazism"...
What does Putin (etc) mean by 'Nazi'? I know there was, initially some co-operation between the Nazis and Ukrainian 'patriots' in WWII, until the Nazis showed they were, if anything, worse than the Soviets, but it was Nationalist, rather than National Socialist, and I'm not aware of any 'hatred' of Ukrainians for Russians, part from now towasrfds Russian troops.
I agree with the article - of course. Who wouldn't. But the wisest teacher I ever had once mentioned that the words 'something' and 'surely' in an assertion tended to weaken its impact.
'Something' needs to be replaced by a list of realisable options.
'Surely' frequently means 'Not surely'. As it does here.
Despite being correct the article scores 2 out of 2.
I suspect that there are significant numbers in eastern Eurpean countries where the 'cultural centre ground' is somewhat to the right of western Europe. Indeed in rural parts of most European countries the same will be found. Social media - including PB at times gives a rather skewed take on these matters - hence why some posters are so baffled by countries like Hungary, people like Le Pen, parties like Vox - no 2 in the polls in Spain now and of course not to mentiuon events in the UK in 2016. Of course all these things are not the same in their degree or detail but they really should not surprise.
I'd agree with that, and argue that it extends beyond Europe. The city/rural divide in much of the world is, I suspect, pronounced, with city dwellers more likely to be culturally progressive and rural dwellers culturally conservative. Towns are somewhere in between. It certainly seems to apply in the USA, and I'd be surprised if it doesn't apply in countries as diverse as Australia and China, for example.
I'd probably disagree with you on the political implications, though. Where cities lead, rural areas follow.
Except when they don't - normally when the push to change is a step too far - and the backlash can be quite severe.
In the short term, yes; people outside cities don't like rapid change. Hence the backlash against globalisation, and on a smaller scale the 'trans' debate.
But in the longer term, I'd argue progressive values tend to win over. To give just three examples of 'progressive values' that have become broadly accepted throughout western cultures, even the conservative (small c) members: changes in the role of women; changing attitudes to homosexuality; strong disapproval of racism.
Yes but see attitudes to immigration on the other side, which have if anything hardened since the 1990s as cheap labour has undermined wages at the lower end and lack of sufficient controls put pressure on public services. There is also more concern at the pace of globalisation outside the big cities too and at the power of big corporations and global institutions.
People outside inner cities are now generally accepting of homosexuality, they are not yet fully behind gender neutral toilets however. They may also disapprove of racism, that does not mean however they want to trash Churchill or Theodore Roosevelt and tear down statues
Possibly unfair to Macron, Germany, bang to rights:
Very tough like from the Polish PM this morning on Germany and France. He calls out Macron’s “failed diplomacy” and says German energy policy for past 12 years has put Europe on back foot.
No, it's fair wrt Macron who likes to cast himself in the role of making or keeping the peace but has done no such thing. He's a fraud and his time would have been better spent working on the EU side of things to bring about a Russian oil and gas embargo.
For those imagining there is a compromise with Putin. https://mobile.twitter.com/francska1/status/1510898134481788930 An op-ed for state news agency RIA Novosti titled "What Russia should do with Ukraine" by pundit Timofei Sergeitsev has created quite a stir today
The rhetoric is truly horrific, even by the standards of what I'm used to seeing from pro-Kremlin media Below are a few quotes:
"Denazification is a set of measures aimed at the nazified mass of the population, which technically cannot be subjected to direct punishment as war criminals"
"However, besides the elite, a significant part of the masses of the people, who are passive nazis, are accomplices to Nazism. They have supported the Nazi authorities and indulged them..."
"...The just punishment for this part of the population is possible only as the bearing of the inevitable hardships of a just war against the Nazi system" ... "Denazification is inevitably also deukrainisation – a rejection of the large-scale artificial inflation of the ethnic element of self-identification of the population of the territories of the historical Malorossiya and Novorossiya begun by the Soviet authorities"
"Unlike, let’s say, Georgia or the Baltics, Ukraine, as history has shown, is unviable as a national state, and attempts to 'build' one logically lead to Nazism"...
What does Putin (etc) mean by 'Nazi'? I know there was, initially some co-operation between the Nazis and Ukrainian 'patriots' in WWII, until the Nazis showed they were, if anything, worse than the Soviets, but it was Nationalist, rather than National Socialist, and I'm not aware of any 'hatred' of Ukrainians for Russians, part from now towasrfds Russian troops.
What does anyone mean by 'Nazi' these days. The term has been debased so much to some vague rightwing/facist thing.
For those imagining there is a compromise with Putin. https://mobile.twitter.com/francska1/status/1510898134481788930 An op-ed for state news agency RIA Novosti titled "What Russia should do with Ukraine" by pundit Timofei Sergeitsev has created quite a stir today
The rhetoric is truly horrific, even by the standards of what I'm used to seeing from pro-Kremlin media Below are a few quotes:
"Denazification is a set of measures aimed at the nazified mass of the population, which technically cannot be subjected to direct punishment as war criminals"
"However, besides the elite, a significant part of the masses of the people, who are passive nazis, are accomplices to Nazism. They have supported the Nazi authorities and indulged them..."
"...The just punishment for this part of the population is possible only as the bearing of the inevitable hardships of a just war against the Nazi system" ... "Denazification is inevitably also deukrainisation – a rejection of the large-scale artificial inflation of the ethnic element of self-identification of the population of the territories of the historical Malorossiya and Novorossiya begun by the Soviet authorities"
"Unlike, let’s say, Georgia or the Baltics, Ukraine, as history has shown, is unviable as a national state, and attempts to 'build' one logically lead to Nazism"...
What does Putin (etc) mean by 'Nazi'? I know there was, initially some co-operation between the Nazis and Ukrainian 'patriots' in WWII, until the Nazis showed they were, if anything, worse than the Soviets, but it was Nationalist, rather than National Socialist, and I'm not aware of any 'hatred' of Ukrainians for Russians, part from now towasrfds Russian troops.
According to the article - "there is neither the main Nazi party, nor the Fuhrer, nor full-fledged racial laws" just makes finding these Nazis (who are under *all* the beds harder.
When did it become unambiguous that Putin was unambiguously evil, rather than a strongman leader who we didn't like but could understand and do business with? My vague recollection of when he first came to power is it was a bit of a relief after the shambles of the Yeltsin years.
A bit like 1930's comments like "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" or "Dictators are very popular these days. We might want one in England before long"
I keep thinking back to the sinking of the Kursk submarine in 2000. That public narrative up to then had been that if we weren't allies of Russia there was at least a degree of friendship between Russia and the West. When Russia rebuffed the intial offers of help from Britain and Norway, and blamed a US submarine at first, it was clear that the relations were a lot frostier than generally realised.
Putin was hugely supportive of the US over 9/11. That bought him lots of time and kudos with the West. That it was because it was in his interests, not because he was a supporter of democracy and opponent of terror, doesn't appear to have been much considered.
Oh the US and the West in general misread a lot of the support and apparent realignment after 9/11. A lot of countries were simply happy to get the US off their backs and aimed at their enemies.
Indeed. Putin was simply happy that US attention was turned elsewhere for a few years, towards a different enemy.
It was of course turned towards an enemy that "we" thought we could beat easily. That is the defining difference between previous incursions and this one. Hand wringing aside there is simply nothing we can do short of actually calling the nuclear bluff that is likely to arrest the activities we are seeing.
Do I like it? Of course not. Should Putin face sanction, well yes. But we are seeing from the wrong side how the doctrine of might is right plays out.
You've repeatedly overestimated Russian capability in this war. Time for a re-think? Kiev is okay, Odessa is okay, the west of the country is okay. They are being pushed away from Kharkiv. The entirety of Ukraine is hardly at Russia's mercy. Thank goodness we provided the weapons we did or it would have been truly hideous. Thank goodness the Ukrainian forces have been as impressive as they have been. Imagine if Russian troops had got into Kiev proper. It doesn't bear thinking about.
I see Serbia & Hungary returned pro-Russian leaders in this weekend’s elections.
Hungary now not letting re supply of weaponry to Ukraine only food and Medicines via Hungary
It was interesting to see the British press entirely wrong-footed on Hungary.
Prior to the election, the press was reporting a stern test, close election, on a knife-edge, blah, blah. "Putinist" Orban would be punished and he would pay the price for not supporting Ukraine. It was all eagerly regurgitated on pb.com.
In fact, the result was a fourth consecutive landslide for Orban.
The proper conclusion is that few, if any, articles in the UK media on Eastern Europe are to be trusted.
I take no pleasure on the return of Orban -- but the biggest mistake, as aways, is to believe the bullshit in the UK press.
When similar genocides took place in Syria, Rwanda, Cambodia and indeed Bosnia we did very little.
They didn't have very good memes so fuck them, appears to be the line of thought.
If you want help in a war then make sure you've got clout on TikTok is the lesson to be learned.
Surely it's more that humanitarian interventionism is an unpopular foreign policy and has had pretty mixed success when tried? In the case of Russia vs Ukraine and countering Putin's imperialism, there is obvious national interest that just doesn't exist in getting too heavily involved in civil wars in Yemen, sub-Sahara etc... Namely that left unchecked in Ukraine, Putin has given every indication that he would thereafter threaten the territorial integrity of Nato members.
It's a lot easier to intervene in support of an existing state which is under external attack, than to do so in a civil war, or to topple an existing regime.
We don't have to worry so much about what happens after the war is won, because there's an existing state which will be able to organise that, with democratic means for the population to influence priorities.
On Russian TV - talk show says Bucha is part of an Anglosaxon campaign to discredit Russia. Macron also gets mentioned for his comments earlier about war crimes. Footage shown on a loop tagged “FAKE” in English.
Russian propaganda experts, and they are experts, probably understand that they need to have these images De-credibalised in the eyes of Russians, or they would seep in anyway people would be shocked, so its a case of getting ahead of events. will it work? Sadly probably yes.
For those imagining there is a compromise with Putin. https://mobile.twitter.com/francska1/status/1510898134481788930 An op-ed for state news agency RIA Novosti titled "What Russia should do with Ukraine" by pundit Timofei Sergeitsev has created quite a stir today
The rhetoric is truly horrific, even by the standards of what I'm used to seeing from pro-Kremlin media Below are a few quotes:
"Denazification is a set of measures aimed at the nazified mass of the population, which technically cannot be subjected to direct punishment as war criminals"
"However, besides the elite, a significant part of the masses of the people, who are passive nazis, are accomplices to Nazism. They have supported the Nazi authorities and indulged them..."
"...The just punishment for this part of the population is possible only as the bearing of the inevitable hardships of a just war against the Nazi system" ... "Denazification is inevitably also deukrainisation – a rejection of the large-scale artificial inflation of the ethnic element of self-identification of the population of the territories of the historical Malorossiya and Novorossiya begun by the Soviet authorities"
"Unlike, let’s say, Georgia or the Baltics, Ukraine, as history has shown, is unviable as a national state, and attempts to 'build' one logically lead to Nazism"...
Sadly, gonna be a lot more war before any kind of peace deal.
The implausibility of Russian propoganda reveals the horrendous mess they have got themselves in to.
Still don't understand why the Germans and Italians thought making themselves reliant on Russian gas was a good idea.
I forget who it was, but someone on here did provide a [link to a?] good explanation.
After WWII the object of economic integration between France and Germany was to make a war between the two countries impossible. After more than 75 years there has been no war between the two countries, and one is now unthinkable. In the previous 75 years there had been three major wars between the two countries.
So the intent was to create such a level of mutual economic dependence that war between Germany [and Europe more generally] and Russia would become impossible. This didn't work, and they should have realised earlier that it wasn't working, but put in those terms it doesn't seem like an entirely ridiculous idea.
When did it become unambiguous that Putin was unambiguously evil, rather than a strongman leader who we didn't like but could understand and do business with? My vague recollection of when he first came to power is it was a bit of a relief after the shambles of the Yeltsin years.
A bit like 1930's comments like "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" or "Dictators are very popular these days. We might want one in England before long"
Some folk seemed to have known all along. Well, that’s the impression they give now..
Speaking for myself, I think you'll find posts on here talking about it for many years, perhaps as far back as 2014. I was certainly (ahem) sceptical of out failure to intervene in Syria, and allowing Russia to do so.
Thanks, I had seen that tweet actually! Been a fan of Depardon for a while. Unworthily when I first saw his photos I'd assumed he'd manipulated the palette in some cases but apparently not. Enough born and bred Glaswegians have said no, that was actually the way it was to confirm that.
There's a twitter account @GrimArtGroup that I follow enthusiastically, I received the most likes and rts ever for a tweet when I posted one of his photos on one of their threads.
Was this not down to Merkel and her party believing that their Ostpolitik would still work?
There were several Plan B projects for LNG terminals on the German coast early in the 2010s that were cancelled.
I suspect that there are significant numbers in eastern Eurpean countries where the 'cultural centre ground' is somewhat to the right of western Europe. Indeed in rural parts of most European countries the same will be found. Social media - including PB at times gives a rather skewed take on these matters - hence why some posters are so baffled by countries like Hungary, people like Le Pen, parties like Vox - no 2 in the polls in Spain now and of course not to mentiuon events in the UK in 2016. Of course all these things are not the same in their degree or detail but they really should not surprise.
I'd agree with that, and argue that it extends beyond Europe. The city/rural divide in much of the world is, I suspect, pronounced, with city dwellers more likely to be culturally progressive and rural dwellers culturally conservative. Towns are somewhere in between. It certainly seems to apply in the USA, and I'd be surprised if it doesn't apply in countries as diverse as Australia and China, for example.
I'd probably disagree with you on the political implications, though. Where cities lead, rural areas follow.
Except when they don't - normally when the push to change is a step too far - and the backlash can be quite severe.
In the short term, yes; people outside cities don't like rapid change. Hence the backlash against globalisation, and on a smaller scale the 'trans' debate.
But in the longer term, I'd argue progressive values tend to win over. To give just three examples of 'progressive values' that have become broadly accepted throughout western cultures, even by the conservative (small c) members/rural dwellers: changes in the role of women; changed attitudes to homosexuality; strong disapproval of racism.
Again though. Difficult to separate out the cultural change from the technological. The countryside doesn't really like either. But it is difficult to discern where the boundary is. And, of course, the two feed off each other.
For those imagining there is a compromise with Putin. https://mobile.twitter.com/francska1/status/1510898134481788930 An op-ed for state news agency RIA Novosti titled "What Russia should do with Ukraine" by pundit Timofei Sergeitsev has created quite a stir today
The rhetoric is truly horrific, even by the standards of what I'm used to seeing from pro-Kremlin media Below are a few quotes:
"Denazification is a set of measures aimed at the nazified mass of the population, which technically cannot be subjected to direct punishment as war criminals"
"However, besides the elite, a significant part of the masses of the people, who are passive nazis, are accomplices to Nazism. They have supported the Nazi authorities and indulged them..."
"...The just punishment for this part of the population is possible only as the bearing of the inevitable hardships of a just war against the Nazi system" ... "Denazification is inevitably also deukrainisation – a rejection of the large-scale artificial inflation of the ethnic element of self-identification of the population of the territories of the historical Malorossiya and Novorossiya begun by the Soviet authorities"
"Unlike, let’s say, Georgia or the Baltics, Ukraine, as history has shown, is unviable as a national state, and attempts to 'build' one logically lead to Nazism"...
Sadly, gonna be a lot more war before any kind of peace deal.
The implausibility of Russian propoganda reveals the horrendous mess they have got themselves in to.
Yes.Think they've pretty much given up on propagandising abroad now. It is all for domestic consumption. With the aim of saving the regime. A pretty sad comment on the scale of the miscalculation.
When did it become unambiguous that Putin was unambiguously evil, rather than a strongman leader who we didn't like but could understand and do business with? My vague recollection of when he first came to power is it was a bit of a relief after the shambles of the Yeltsin years.
A bit like 1930's comments like "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" or "Dictators are very popular these days. We might want one in England before long"
I keep thinking back to the sinking of the Kursk submarine in 2000. That public narrative up to then had been that if we weren't allies of Russia there was at least a degree of friendship between Russia and the West. When Russia rebuffed the intial offers of help from Britain and Norway, and blamed a US submarine at first, it was clear that the relations were a lot frostier than generally realised.
Putin was hugely supportive of the US over 9/11. That bought him lots of time and kudos with the West. That it was because it was in his interests, not because he was a supporter of democracy and opponent of terror, doesn't appear to have been much considered.
Oh the US and the West in general misread a lot of the support and apparent realignment after 9/11. A lot of countries were simply happy to get the US off their backs and aimed at their enemies.
Indeed. Putin was simply happy that US attention was turned elsewhere for a few years, towards a different enemy.
It was of course turned towards an enemy that "we" thought we could beat easily. That is the defining difference between previous incursions and this one. Hand wringing aside there is simply nothing we can do short of actually calling the nuclear bluff that is likely to arrest the activities we are seeing.
Do I like it? Of course not. Should Putin face sanction, well yes. But we are seeing from the wrong side how the doctrine of might is right plays out.
You've repeatedly overestimated Russian capability in this war. Time for a re-think? Kiev is okay, Odessa is okay, the west of the country is okay. They are being pushed away from Kharkiv. The entirety of Ukraine is hardly at Russia's mercy. Thank goodness we provided the weapons we did or it would have been truly hideous. Thank goodness the Ukrainian forces have been as impressive as they have been. Imagine if Russian troops had got into Kiev proper. It doesn't bear thinking about.
I haven't overestimated anything; I have counselled against jumping to conclusions based upon twitter feeds.
I have no idea how this will play out, what is Putin's endgame or plan such as it was or is, or anything much else.
I do note a couple of things, that said. First that vituperation heaped upon those who do not tow, or perhaps worse still question the PB Russa-Ukraine line. Secondly, the latching onto particular twitter feeds as if they give the gospel truth.
Whether these latter do or not it is not imo a good habit to get into to so slavishly and without question treat them as the only true source of information.
Thankfully, the decision of the Russians to regroup has led to large parts of the country now no longer being in immediate danger, including where most of my family and friends are based. We still know a few refugees from Kiev in various places around Europe, but hopefully they will be able to start to return home soon to start the long process of rebuilding their country.
Those in Eastern and Southern regions are not so lucky, the stories of what happened in the towns near the capital, are almost certainly replicated in other areas, but we just haven’t heard about them yet.
For those imagining there is a compromise with Putin. https://mobile.twitter.com/francska1/status/1510898134481788930 An op-ed for state news agency RIA Novosti titled "What Russia should do with Ukraine" by pundit Timofei Sergeitsev has created quite a stir today
The rhetoric is truly horrific, even by the standards of what I'm used to seeing from pro-Kremlin media Below are a few quotes:
"Denazification is a set of measures aimed at the nazified mass of the population, which technically cannot be subjected to direct punishment as war criminals"
"However, besides the elite, a significant part of the masses of the people, who are passive nazis, are accomplices to Nazism. They have supported the Nazi authorities and indulged them..."
"...The just punishment for this part of the population is possible only as the bearing of the inevitable hardships of a just war against the Nazi system" ... "Denazification is inevitably also deukrainisation – a rejection of the large-scale artificial inflation of the ethnic element of self-identification of the population of the territories of the historical Malorossiya and Novorossiya begun by the Soviet authorities"
"Unlike, let’s say, Georgia or the Baltics, Ukraine, as history has shown, is unviable as a national state, and attempts to 'build' one logically lead to Nazism"...
What does Putin (etc) mean by 'Nazi'? I know there was, initially some co-operation between the Nazis and Ukrainian 'patriots' in WWII, until the Nazis showed they were, if anything, worse than the Soviets, but it was Nationalist, rather than National Socialist, and I'm not aware of any 'hatred' of Ukrainians for Russians, part from now towasrfds Russian troops.
It is, pure and simple, imperialist propaganda to justify the actions of the Russian state. Up to and including genocide.
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 52m Plummeting Rishi. Sunak drops to third bottom in ConHome’s new cabinet minister rankings (based on the views of Tory members). Spring Statement taking its toll.
I was chatting to my next door neighbour who has bought an MG ev and he said he had been to Betwys Coed on one charge which is just 41 miles round trip
He had plugged it into his garage power socket to charge it overnight, as he said that an electrician had indicated that his electric wiring would not be capable of using a fast charger and as his supply was joint with next door his next doors neighbour's drive would need to be excavated, this just after they have had a complete replacement drive installed in the last few weeks
The theory on EV s is fine, but the practice is not so and also how does a Chancellor replace the 35 billion pounds raised in fuel tax annually
We all talk about who we want to win GE24 but whoever does the problems it will face will be astronomical and the solutions way beyond current political discourse
Hope it works out for your neighbour. If I was to buy an EV i'd go for a Nissan Leaf or a Tesla. Not one that has just put on the market by a manufacturer with little history of making EVs.
Possibly unfair to Macron, Germany, bang to rights:
Very tough like from the Polish PM this morning on Germany and France. He calls out Macron’s “failed diplomacy” and says German energy policy for past 12 years has put Europe on back foot.
No, it's fair wrt Macron who likes to cast himself in the role of making or keeping the peace but has done no such thing. He's a fraud and his time would have been better spent working on the EU side of things to bring about a Russian oil and gas embargo.
Remember that Macron was being told by his intelligence agency that Putin wouldn't invade, so he must have thought he could get a PR win as the peacemaker.
For those imagining there is a compromise with Putin. https://mobile.twitter.com/francska1/status/1510898134481788930 An op-ed for state news agency RIA Novosti titled "What Russia should do with Ukraine" by pundit Timofei Sergeitsev has created quite a stir today
The rhetoric is truly horrific, even by the standards of what I'm used to seeing from pro-Kremlin media Below are a few quotes:
"Denazification is a set of measures aimed at the nazified mass of the population, which technically cannot be subjected to direct punishment as war criminals"
"However, besides the elite, a significant part of the masses of the people, who are passive nazis, are accomplices to Nazism. They have supported the Nazi authorities and indulged them..."
"...The just punishment for this part of the population is possible only as the bearing of the inevitable hardships of a just war against the Nazi system" ... "Denazification is inevitably also deukrainisation – a rejection of the large-scale artificial inflation of the ethnic element of self-identification of the population of the territories of the historical Malorossiya and Novorossiya begun by the Soviet authorities"
"Unlike, let’s say, Georgia or the Baltics, Ukraine, as history has shown, is unviable as a national state, and attempts to 'build' one logically lead to Nazism"...
What does Putin (etc) mean by 'Nazi'? I know there was, initially some co-operation between the Nazis and Ukrainian 'patriots' in WWII, until the Nazis showed they were, if anything, worse than the Soviets, but it was Nationalist, rather than National Socialist, and I'm not aware of any 'hatred' of Ukrainians for Russians, part from now towasrfds Russian troops.
There was quite substantial co-operation between Ukrainian Galicians, in the West of the country, and the Nazis - they had their own SS battalion. Putin is also obsessed with the Azov Battalion in and around Mariupol, most of whom probably no longer even exist now.
I think these show signs of being both propaganda pretexts, on a large scale in the media, and to brainwash young army recruits into the kind of atrocities we've seen today, and also personal, psychological obsessions for Putin.
Comments
Thus anyone opposing them is by definition a Nazi.
This will be new period of conflict either hot or cold for decades to come.
But in the longer term, I'd argue progressive values tend to win over. To give just three examples of 'progressive values' that have become broadly accepted throughout western cultures, even by the conservative (small c) members/rural dwellers: changes in the role of women; changed attitudes to homosexuality; strong disapproval of racism.
That 650 is 20% of all the tanks owned by Russia, including all the unserviceable WWII relics.
'Something' needs to be replaced by a list of realisable options.
'Surely' frequently means 'Not surely'. As it does here.
Despite being correct the article scores 2 out of 2.
People outside inner cities are now generally accepting of homosexuality, they are not yet fully behind gender neutral toilets however. They may also disapprove of racism, that does not mean however they want to trash Churchill or Theodore Roosevelt and tear down statues
How's the wife's family doing?
Prior to the election, the press was reporting a stern test, close election, on a knife-edge, blah, blah. "Putinist" Orban would be punished and he would pay the price for not supporting Ukraine. It was all eagerly regurgitated on pb.com.
In fact, the result was a fourth consecutive landslide for Orban.
The proper conclusion is that few, if any, articles in the UK media on Eastern Europe are to be trusted.
I take no pleasure on the return of Orban -- but the biggest mistake, as aways, is to believe the bullshit in the UK press.
We don't have to worry so much about what happens after the war is won, because there's an existing state which will be able to organise that, with democratic means for the population to influence priorities.
There were several Plan B projects for LNG terminals on the German coast early in the 2010s that were cancelled.
The countryside doesn't really like either. But it is difficult to discern where the boundary is.
And, of course, the two feed off each other.
Del Boy watches an aircraft carrier from his amphibious Transit van.
A pretty sad comment on the scale of the miscalculation.
I want to be trans
I am in a psychiatric hospital
MI6 will investigate
I have no idea how this will play out, what is Putin's endgame or plan such as it was or is, or anything much else.
I do note a couple of things, that said. First that vituperation heaped upon those who do not tow, or perhaps worse still question the PB Russa-Ukraine line. Secondly, the latching onto particular twitter feeds as if they give the gospel truth.
Whether these latter do or not it is not imo a good habit to get into to so slavishly and without question treat them as the only true source of information.
https://www.minusrus.com/en
Thankfully, the decision of the Russians to regroup has led to large parts of the country now no longer being in immediate danger, including where most of my family and friends are based. We still know a few refugees from Kiev in various places around Europe, but hopefully they will be able to start to return home soon to start the long process of rebuilding their country.
Those in Eastern and Southern regions are not so lucky, the stories of what happened in the towns near the capital, are almost certainly replicated in other areas, but we just haven’t heard about them yet.
I think these show signs of being both propaganda pretexts, on a large scale in the media, and to brainwash young army recruits into the kind of atrocities we've seen today, and also personal, psychological obsessions for Putin.