The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewThe Saker Archive
Interesting Week for Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_514787815

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Putin’s latest move

I don’t follow the western corporate media so I don’t really know how much coverage this development has received in the West, but in Russia and the Ukraine the big news is the decision by Russia to begin recognizing official Novorussian documents such as passports, driver licenses, school and college diplomas, etc. The Russians were pretty specific in the way the made the announcement. They said that it was a temporary measure dictated by humanitarian considerations. They have a point. Until now, the residents of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics had to travel to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine to try to get their documents. Which, considering how the Ukronazis consider anybody from the Donbass was not only futile, but sometimes dangerous. This decision makes perfect sense practically. But, of course, it has a far-reaching symbolic dimension too. The timing is also crucial: by recognizing the documents issued by the DNR and LNR authorities, the Russians have de facto “semi-recognized” the authorities which issued them and that is just a fairly short step away from recognizing these republics.

Right now, the Kremlin is vehemently denying any such thoughts. But all the Kremlin-affiliated commentators are rather blunt about what this really means. According to them, the message for the junta in Kiev is simple: if you attack Novorussia or if you officially ditch the Minks agreements we will immediately recognize these two republics. And, once that happens, it’s over for the Ukronazis, these republics will be gone just like South Ossetia or Abkhazia. Of course, nobody will officially recognize the independence of these republics, but neither will anybody do anything meaningful about it. And, let’s be honest, the Russian authorities couldn’t care less about what western politicians or their corporate media have to say: they already heard it all and it’s not like they could be demonized much futher.

The next logical move would be to move the Russian border control from the Russian border to the line of contact. Or not. If the Russians don’t do it, this might be a sign that they support the official position of the Republics which is that they want to liberate the totality of the Doentsk and Lugansk regions. By the way, the Russian Border Guards are elite and highly militarized forces whose presence on the line of contact would in no way prevent a Novorussian (counter-)attack against the Ukronazi forces. So the decision about where to deploy them would have a primarily political dimension and no real military consequences.

Right now the Ukronazis have basically gone officially on record in declaring that they never intended to abide by the terms of the Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 agreements. Here is what Anton Gerashchenko, a special adviser to the Minister of internal Affairs of Ukraine and a member of the Board of the Ministry of internal Affairs of Ukraine openly declared on Ukrainian national TV: (emphasis added).

Let’s immediately say that the Minsk Agreements were not implemented from the day there were signed in Febuary 2015. This was a temporary measure on the side of the Ukraine and, I will be honest, a deliberate deception. Remember that the first Minsk Agreement was signed following the military disaster near Ialovaisk when we had no forces to defend the front from Donetsk to Mariupol. The second Mink Agreement was signed following the treacherous Russian aggression on Debaltsevo and the formationm of the “Debaltsevo Cauldron”. These agreements are not international agreements or anything else.

Needless to say, NOBODY in the West paid any attention to this statement, and why would they, after all, their line has always been that Russia is not abiding by the Minsk Agreement, even if Russia is not even a party to them (Russia is only a witness and guarantor). And if a senior Ukronazi official says otherwise, who cares?!

This amazing admission by Gerashchenko is only the latest in a series of steps taken and statements made by various Ukronazis to the effect that “we are done negotiating and from now on, we will solve this problem by force”. So far, the “force” applied has been primarily in the form of a total blockade of the Donbass which included the prevention of a large amount of vitally needed coal to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine from the Donbass even though this shipment had already been paid for. Officially Poroshenko does not condone this blockade, but in practice he is either unwilling or unable to prevent or stop it. Another sign that the Independent Banderastan is falling apart.

There is a strong feeling in Russia that Poroshenko is powerless and that the Ukronazi crazies are up to no good. Clearly, nobody in the Ukronazis elites has any intention of actually implementing the Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 agreements. That, by the way, might be a dangerous approach for a number of reasons:

First, these agreements were endorsed by the UNSC and every country out there, at least as far as I know. So Gerashchenko is wrong – the Minsk Agreements are binding under international law.

Second, the Ukrainian authorities recently found and released a document showing that Yanukovich had made an official request for a Russian intervention in the Ukraine. They wanted to show that he was a traitor. But in the process, they also showed that the last legitimate president of the Ukraine had made a legal request for a Russian intervention which might well mean that, at least in legal terms, any subsequent Russian intervention in the Ukraine would be 100% legal.

Even better, Yanukovich is still in Russia. And, from a legal point of view, you could make the case that he is still the legitimate president of the Ukraine. If the Yemeni President in exile Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi could ask the Saudis to intervene in Yemen, why would that no be an option for Poroshenko to ask for such an intervention in the Ukraine?

Right now, the Russians are making no such legalistic statements. But you can be sure that they have already aligned all their ducks in a neat row just in case they do decide to openly intervene in this civil war.

How realistic is the possibility of a Russian recognition of the breakaway republics or an overt Russian intervention in the Ukraine?

ORDER IT NOW

I think that it all depends on what the Ukronazis crazies do. If they really attack Novorussia I expect the Kremlin to recognize the DNR and LRN. A Russian intervention? I doubt it, but only because I believe that the DNR/LNR can handle a Nazi attack. So the only question for me is how long Poroshenko will stay in power and what the real crazies will do once they overthrow him. Right now this mostly depends on the US but since the US elites are locked in a desperate struggle for power, I don’t see the Trump Administration taking any dramatic decisions anyway, not in the Ukraine, not elsewhere. At least not as long as there is a question mark as to who is really in charge in the White House. Everybody is waiting for the outcome of that struggle, including Moscow and Kiev.

Trump – all words, no action, but good words

In the meantime, Trump has been busy giving speeches. Which sounds pretty bad until you realize that these are good speeches, very good ones even. For one thing, he still is holding very firmly to the line that the “fake news” (which in “Trumpese” means CNN & Co. + BBC) are the enemies of the people. The other good thing is that twice in a row now he has addressed himself directly to the people. Sounds like nothing, but I think that this is huge because the Neocons have now nicely boxed Trump in with advisors and aides who range from the mediocre to bad to outright evil. The firing of Flynn was a self-defeating disaster for Trump who now is more or less alone, with only one loyal ally left, Bannon. I am not sure how much Bannon can do or, for that matter, how long until the Neocons get to him too, but besides Bannon I see nobody loyal to Trump and his campaign promises. Nobody except those who put him in power of course, the millions of Americans who voted for him. And that is why Trump is doing the right thing speaking directly to them: they might well turn out to be his biggest weapon against the “DC swamp”.

Furthermore, by beating on the media, especially CNN and the rest of the main US TV channels, Trump is pushing the US public to turn to other information sources, including those sympathetic to him, primarily on the Internet. Good move – that is how he won the first time around and that is how he might win again.

The Neocons and the US ‘Deep State’ have to carefully weigh the risks of continuing their vendetta against Trump. Right now, they appear to be preparing to go after Bannon. But what will they do if Trump, instead of ditching Bannon like he ditched Flynn, decides to dig in and fight with everything he has got? Then what? If there is one thing the Neocons and the deep state hate is to have a powerful light pointed directly at them. They like to play in the dark, away from an always potentially hostile public eye. If Trump decides to fight back, really fight back, and if he appeals directly to the people for support, there is no saying what could happen next.

I strongly believe that the American general public is deeply frustrated and angry. Obama’s betrayal of all his campaign promises only made these feelings worse. But when Obama had just made it to the White House I remember thinking that if he really tried to take on the War Machine and if he came to the conclusion that the ‘deep state’ was not going to let him take action or threaten him he could simply make a public appeal for help and that millions of Americans would flood the streets of Washington DC in support of “their guy” against the “bastards in DC”. Obama was a fake. But Trump might not be. What if the Three Letter Agencies or Congress suddenly tried to, say, impeach Trump and what if he decided ask for the support of the people – would millions not flood the streets of DC? I bet you that Florida alone would send more than a million. Ditto for Texas. And I don’t exactly imagine the cops going out of their way to stop them. The bottom line is this: in any confrontation between Congress and Trump most of the people will back Trump. And, if it ever came to that, and for whatever it is worth, in any confrontation between Trump-haters and Trump-supporters the latter will easily defeat the former. The “basket of deplorables” are still, thank God, the majority in this country and they have a lot more power than the various minorities who backed the Clinton gang.

There are other, less dramatic but even more likely scenarios to consider. Say Congress tries to impeach Trump and he appeals to the people and declares that the “DC swamp” is trying to sabotage the outcome of the elections and impose its will upon the American people. Governors in states like Florida or Texas, pushed by their public opinion, might simply decide not to recognize the legitimacy of what would be an attempted coup by Congress against the Executive branch of government. Now you tell me – does Congress really have the means to impose its will against states like Florida or Texas? I don’t mean legally, I mean practically. Let me put it this way: if the states revolt against the federal government does the latter have the means to impose its authority? Are the creation of USNORTHCOM and the statutory exceptions from the Posse Comitatus Act (which makes it possible to use the National Guard to suppress insurrections, unlawful obstructions, assemblages, or rebellions) sufficient to guarantee that the “DC swamp” can impose its will on the rest of the country? I would remind any “DC swamp” members reading these lines that the KGB special forces refused not once, but twice, to open fire against the demonstrators in Moscow (in 1991 and 1993) even though they had received a direct order by the President to do just that. Is there any reason to believe that US cops and soldiers would be more willing than the KGB special forces to massacre their own people?

Donald Trump has probably lost most of his power in Washington DC, but that does not entail that this is the case in the rest of the USA. The Neocons can feel like the big guy on the block inside the Beltway, but beyond that they are mostly in “enemy territory” controlled by the “deplorables”, something to keep in mind before triggering a major crisis.

This week I got the feeling that Trump was reaching out and directly seeking for the support to the American people. I think he will get it if needed. If this is so, then the focus of his Presidency will be less on foreign affairs, where the US will be mostly paralyzed, than on internal US politics were he still might make a difference. On Russia the Neocons have basically beaten Trump – he won’t have the means to engage in any big negotiating with Vladimir Putin. But, at least, neither will he constantly be trying to make things worse. The more the US elites fight each other, the less venom they will have left for the rest of mankind. Thank God for small favors…

I can only hope that Trump will continue to appeal directly the people and try to bypass the immense machine which is currently trying to isolate him. Of course, I would much prefer that Trump take some strong and meaningful action against the deep state, but I am not holding my breath.

Tonight I spoke with a friend who knows a great deal more about Trump than I do and he told me that I have been too quick in judging Trump and that while the Flynn episode was definitely a setback, the struggle is far from over and that we are in for a very long war. I hope that my friend is right, but I will only breathe a sigh of relief if and when I see Trump hitting back and hitting hard. Only time will tell.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy, Ideology • Tags: Deep State, Donald Trump, Russia, Ukraine 
Hide 201 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Kiza says:

    An untidy article, not as good as the previous ones, but still ok. Some elementary mistakes:

    If the Yemeni President in exile Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi could ask the Saudis to intervene in Yemen, why would that no be an option for Poroshenko to ask for such an intervention in the Ukraine?

    Saker obviously means Yanukovich, not Poroshenko.

    Also, this conclusion about the free-will of the Ukronazis is shallow:

    I think that it all depends on what the Ukronazis crazies do. If they really attack Novorussia I expect the Kremlin to recognize the DNR and LRN.

    The Ukronazis may be crazy but they still know very well who is buttering their bread. Without getting a US go-ahead there will be no major attack on Donbass.

    As to what is going on in USA, it is blatantly clear that the only thing standing between Trump and his Deep State attackers is the Second Amendment. In other words, the US police and military would probably shoot protesters if they could not shoot back.

    Finally, the greatest danger of the internal fight in USA is that it spills over internationally and somebody presses the launch button. The same concern existed when SU/Russia was going through a similar turmoil.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Varenik
    "The Ukronazis may be crazy but they still know very well who is buttering their bread. Without getting a US go-ahead there will be no major attack on Donbass."
    They ARE that crazy.
    This is why Russians used to describe the Galicians with "Усрамся но не отдамся"...
    , @dykalg
    You are right kiza. Google "the kent state massacre 1970" to see how the national guard forces shot and killed students at Kent State.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /tsaker/interesting-week-for-vladimir-putin-and-donald-trump/#comment-1779582
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. However gingerly, Donald Trump is addressing a fundamental issue: the stranglehold upon the flow of information represented by the thoroughly-corrupt MSM. I don’t think he’ll win in a fight with the forces they represent, but it sure is gratifying to see such a battle in the offing.

    Trump needs his people to make noise in support of him. In the streets, frankly, even if it’s not in our nature. Yes, the MSM will misrepresent us, but that’s what they do. Die with your boots on, so to speak.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. If the Yemeni President in exile Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi could ask the Saudis to intervene in Yemen, why would that no be an option for Poroshenko to ask for such an intervention in the Ukraine?

    You mean for Yanukovich, right? Well, he could ask, and probably does, but the problem is, imho, that Putin is acting like a docile wuss.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Calling the people from Lviv and Kiev Ukronazis is certainly not going to help solving the Ukrainian’issue.

    Ukraine as it is today is fully an artificial country.
    Galicia was belonging to Austria until 1919 then to Poland until 1939. Bandera was first fighting the Poles then when the Soviet Union invaded Galicia in 1939, his movement joined forces with the Germans ones. For him, the Poles and the Soviet-Union were both ennemies of a free Galicia.
    Galicia had a large Jewish population which did not oppose the Soviet Union invasion and as such were considered as traitors by the Bandera people.
    The case of Galicia is a special case, they were nazis to fight the Jews, the Poles and the Soviet Union. They wanted to create a new Ukraine and the failed. Today, they are trying again and they seem to have quite some influence of Kiew.

    The remaining of Ukraine ( Little Russia) is another story. Stalin and Khrushchev got between 1931-1933 around 6 millions of people from Ukraine and Kuban to starve and die, so it is easy to understand some Ukrainian’s resentment towards Russia.

    The South NovoRussia, has always belonged to Russia. Odessa was created by Potemkine and developped by Richelieu and the eastern part the Donbass has always been Russian.

    It is obvious that Ukraine has to be splitted: the east and the South bording the Black sea have to be returned to Russia
    The western part including Galicia which is frustrated since 1919 should also be allowed to have a country including probably the western part of the little Russia populated by uniates, but they should understand also that the others have also a right to choose their future destiny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Robert Bruce
    I agree 100%.
    , @Vlad
    I fully agree with you. There is something called collective experience. After the experienced of daily shootings by Ukronazies the people of Donbas have already mentally broke with Ukraine. They are not one people any more even if ties to the rest of Ukraine remained. They now feel separate from Ukraine and close to Russia if not one with Russia. It seems the process is underway for Ukraine to be split along old division lines.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. S says:

    Miller and Sessions are still there

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. […] Written by TheSaker; Originally appeared at TheUnzReview […]

    Read More
  7. The time for a Russian intervention was in April 2014, or August latest.

    Nowadays Ukraine is far more united, militarily stronger, and the legal basis for intervention is far weaker. The kremlins gambled on a mnogokhodovka and it is now very evident that it has failed.

    The recognition of LDNR is a nice humanitarian gesture but it is politically irrelevant. Moreover, it should have been done ages ago (the fact that it wasn’t demonstrates that the kremlins were never serious about Novorossiya).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza

    Nowadays Ukraine is far more united, militarily stronger, and the legal basis for intervention is far weaker.
     
    You are probably correct about this, but the Ukrainian economy was probably never in a worse shape. Ukraine is just another US client state kept alive on an IMF drip, thanks to the US Petrodollar/reserve currency world status (almost limitless printing).

    Both Ukraine and the US dollar live on borrowed time, pun intended. Besides, this is not the first time that Ukraine has been taken over by US, the previous time it had to be relinquished. How long before the current Ukraine runs out if things to pawn to the West to keep the dollars flowing in? They spirited away the national gold that "corrupt" Yanukovich collected even before the "revolution" was over, then natural gas concessions, and so on and so on. I give up to three more years to the post coup regime in Kiev. The Ziocons know this as well and will try to play their Ukrainian card against Russia before the regime collapses financially.

    In summary, I do not see that Russia should have intervened before. Waiting and being prepared for the regime's collapse was the best strategy, although many Donbass civilians have paid with their lives. That is the only weakness of the current strategy.

    , @War for Blair Mountain
    Anatoly

    If what you are saying is true, then it means....with high probability...that if Putin does give the order to intervene military,it would be a head-on collision with NATO and the US Negro Military.

    Moreover, the Ukraino Nazis will be much more motivated to attack Crimea...And if Putin responds...which he would have to....a direct Military engagement with NATO-US Negro Military.

    I fully expect an incident in the Black Sea...like the Cuban Missile Crisis.....60 seconds......BINGO!!!!...usher in the 3 billion year era of the lowly cockroach(The JFK-SAMANTHA POWERS post-wedding consumation in HELL!! spawn)...

    , @5371
    Nope. The хохловоенщина would collapse immediately under serious attack, now as in 2014. No difference.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    Nowadays Ukraine is far more united, militarily stronger
     
    I did not notice this at all. Probably weaker. Ukraine simply has no resources to make her military "stronger" (whatever this vague term means). It is still same old decrepit army with some minor improvements along tactical lines. In terms of C4ISR this "force" is not even in the same universe with LDNR. It is sure more numerous--here the advantage is clear.

    The time for a Russian intervention was in April 2014, or August latest.
     
    Categorically disagree, albeit admit that great military "strategists" such as Girkin-Strelkov or Cassad, who are the "fathers" of this misconception, continue to pedal this point of view without any regard to reality. There was NO "mnogokhodovka"--the objective was Crimea, it is just that Donbass did take up arms and started to fight. The beaten to death "argument" about Putin having the right to use armed forces beyond Russia's borders is not a serious argument. Public sentiment (especially in the times of internet) and contingency planning by General Staff are not the same thing. Syria proved this beyond the shadow of a doubt.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. […] Written by TheSaker; Originally appeared at TheUnzReview […]

    Read More
  9. Even better, Yanukovich is still in Russia. And, from a legal point of view, you could make the case that he is still the legitimate president of the Ukraine. If the Yemeni President in exile Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi could ask the Saudis to intervene in Yemen, why would that no be an option for Poroshenko to ask for such an intervention in the Ukraine?

    Poroshenko to ask for Russian intervention?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Also a pity that the Saker's self indulgent carelessness or laziness extends to unsubstantiated waffle like his "from a legal point of view you could make the case that he is still the legitimate president of [the] Ukraine" and his suggestion that Yanukovich made an "official" request for Russian intervention which had legal weight.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. I’ve often wondered whether, in the United States, it will mostly come down to whose orders National Guard commanders follow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @prusmc
    The giard and active duty will follow the orders of he who pays them. The retirement ethic/sspiration is all powerful. After less than decisive encounters for 14 years in far off environments they will lust after massive and easy kills in CONUs. Remember as Blair Mountain notes it is the Negro military. Probably not too effective against the Russkies in Ukrain or against BLN and assorted hangers on domestically bit awesome against deplorables.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Kiza says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    The time for a Russian intervention was in April 2014, or August latest.

    Nowadays Ukraine is far more united, militarily stronger, and the legal basis for intervention is far weaker. The kremlins gambled on a mnogokhodovka and it is now very evident that it has failed.

    The recognition of LDNR is a nice humanitarian gesture but it is politically irrelevant. Moreover, it should have been done ages ago (the fact that it wasn't demonstrates that the kremlins were never serious about Novorossiya).

    Nowadays Ukraine is far more united, militarily stronger, and the legal basis for intervention is far weaker.

    You are probably correct about this, but the Ukrainian economy was probably never in a worse shape. Ukraine is just another US client state kept alive on an IMF drip, thanks to the US Petrodollar/reserve currency world status (almost limitless printing).

    Both Ukraine and the US dollar live on borrowed time, pun intended. Besides, this is not the first time that Ukraine has been taken over by US, the previous time it had to be relinquished. How long before the current Ukraine runs out if things to pawn to the West to keep the dollars flowing in? They spirited away the national gold that “corrupt” Yanukovich collected even before the “revolution” was over, then natural gas concessions, and so on and so on. I give up to three more years to the post coup regime in Kiev. The Ziocons know this as well and will try to play their Ukrainian card against Russia before the regime collapses financially.

    In summary, I do not see that Russia should have intervened before. Waiting and being prepared for the regime’s collapse was the best strategy, although many Donbass civilians have paid with their lives. That is the only weakness of the current strategy.

    Read More
    • Agree: Randal, Randal
    • Replies: @Randal

    In summary, I do not see that Russia should have intervened before. Waiting and being prepared for the regime’s collapse was the best strategy, although many Donbass civilians have paid with their lives. That is the only weakness of the current strategy.
     
    I agree with this - those who argue Russia might as well have gone the whole hog back in 2014 imo underestimate (perhaps misremembering) the degree to which the situation was poised on something of a knife-edge.

    An open Russian intervention would have run a serious risk of a more open US/NATO/EU intervention, escalating to an ongoing war that would likely have been disastrous in both PR, economic and political terms.

    Putin seems to have played it pretty well, and in line with his cautious but decisive when necessary general approach.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. So, the Saker is telling us to trust Trump, the Bilionaire by real-estate swindle and speculation, who made Goldman Sachs run the country again?

    What a joker.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tjm
    Exactly, how many times do I read how Trump and the media is at war, as if the media is anything other than another arm of the powerful Zionist conglomerate, Wall Street/Central Banking cartel.

    The media is just another arm of those which Trump (chose?) surrounded himself with, wall street, Hollywood and the MIC.

    I have always felt the Trump fight with the media was totally contrived to drive the right into Trump's arms. The American people always underestimate the intelligence of those who control us. They know the right hates the press, so having the press attack Trump with calls of racism, will only drive cause the right to support Trump, and conversely the left to hate Trump. I don't buy it for a minute, if the media really did not want Trump to win, they would have ignored him, like they did Ron Paul, or they would have attacked him with REAL accusations of unethical behavior of which there is a great deal. Instead the media attacked him with baseless and hyper simplified accusations of racism.

    The media is simply playing a role, the more they fight with Trump, the more the right wing in America believe Trump is one of them. Even has he does NOTHING that he promised, instead continues sable rattling with Iran, and serving other Zionist Jewish interests.
    , @LexRex
    Who is the alternative? Hillary? I missed her election.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. mcohen says:

    Diss the nuance

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. KA says:

    Events in Donbass -Russian directives did not register in the 24/7 media circus of news cycle because they are busy manufacturing the events they would like to be occurring ,happening,and building into reality .

    “Swedish military and foreign-affairs officials have said they know nothing about a man who appeared on Fox News in the US billed as a “Swedish defence and national security advisor

    Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly convened an on-air discussion on Thursday over Swedish immigration and crime between a Swedish newspaper reporter and a man identified on screen and verbally as a “Swedish defence and national security advisor”, Nils Bildt. But the Swedish defense ministry and foreign office told the newspaper Dagens Nyheter they knew nothing of Bildt. Calls to Swedish officials on Saturday were not immediately returned”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/26/fox-news-nils-bildt-swedish-defence-advisor-unknown-to-countrys-military-officials

    It shows their attitude to the American viewers . This is the way they treat their own citizen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Seeing Trump’s women, and his past as a spoilt rich kid, it’s a way more likely Trump has frequented Epstein’s “Lolita express” and therefore he’s under the CIA/FBI’s thumb, and ofcourse Sheldon Adelson.

    Mike Pence is running the show! And his pedophile ring.

    He probably ordered Churkin’s assassinatin, because Churkin gave a pedophile list of US VIP’s to Flynn (source: ex-CIA’s Robert Steele).

    Also, Sibel Edmonds, newsbud, is on the US congress pedophile, rapist trail.

    This is how one should report on Washingtong and Wallstreet: pedophiles, rapist, laundering drug money, tax evasion and embezzlements.

    The rest is fairy tale.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Just work with what we all know to be true at the moment.

    It is obvious that the Clinton's are trying to take down Trump.

    The moment of truth is comming around the bend for Donald Trump very soon..

    Donald Trump must UNEQUIVOCABLY state that Crimea belongs to Christian Russia and that America will be friends with Christian Russia...White Guy Trump Bros like me will rush to Donald's Defense when he states this in public...I am ready for violent warfare with the homosexual-pedophile Comet Pizza ANTIFAS who want to go to war with Christian Russia..

    Don't overdue do it with conspiracy theory shit....

    , @wow
    You're an unhinged lunatic. KYS!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Anatoly Karlin
    The time for a Russian intervention was in April 2014, or August latest.

    Nowadays Ukraine is far more united, militarily stronger, and the legal basis for intervention is far weaker. The kremlins gambled on a mnogokhodovka and it is now very evident that it has failed.

    The recognition of LDNR is a nice humanitarian gesture but it is politically irrelevant. Moreover, it should have been done ages ago (the fact that it wasn't demonstrates that the kremlins were never serious about Novorossiya).

    Anatoly

    If what you are saying is true, then it means….with high probability…that if Putin does give the order to intervene military,it would be a head-on collision with NATO and the US Negro Military.

    Moreover, the Ukraino Nazis will be much more motivated to attack Crimea…And if Putin responds…which he would have to….a direct Military engagement with NATO-US Negro Military.

    I fully expect an incident in the Black Sea…like the Cuban Missile Crisis…..60 seconds……BINGO!!!!…usher in the 3 billion year era of the lowly cockroach(The JFK-SAMANTHA POWERS post-wedding consumation in HELL!! spawn)…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Max Havelaar
    Seeing Trump's women, and his past as a spoilt rich kid, it's a way more likely Trump has frequented Epstein's "Lolita express" and therefore he's under the CIA/FBI's thumb, and ofcourse Sheldon Adelson.

    Mike Pence is running the show! And his pedophile ring.

    He probably ordered Churkin's assassinatin, because Churkin gave a pedophile list of US VIP's to Flynn (source: ex-CIA's Robert Steele).

    Also, Sibel Edmonds, newsbud, is on the US congress pedophile, rapist trail.

    This is how one should report on Washingtong and Wallstreet: pedophiles, rapist, laundering drug money, tax evasion and embezzlements.

    The rest is fairy tale.

    Just work with what we all know to be true at the moment.

    It is obvious that the Clinton’s are trying to take down Trump.

    The moment of truth is comming around the bend for Donald Trump very soon..

    Donald Trump must UNEQUIVOCABLY state that Crimea belongs to Christian Russia and that America will be friends with Christian Russia…White Guy Trump Bros like me will rush to Donald’s Defense when he states this in public…I am ready for violent warfare with the homosexual-pedophile Comet Pizza ANTIFAS who want to go to war with Christian Russia..

    Don’t overdue do it with conspiracy theory shit….

    Read More
    • Replies: @tjm
    Who exactly is the "homosexual-pedophile Comet Pizza ANTIFAS"?

    Talk about idiotic distraction.

    Just about as stupid as the idea that Clinton really wants to take Trump down.
    Clinton is playing a role, just as is Trump, yet they are both loyal to their Zionist masters.
    Not too familiar with Bill Clinton's actions in office, deregulating, Zionist Wall Street and the media, allowing consolidation. Or Bill giving control over America's phone routing system to Israeli companies...

    I am sorry, but the fact that every President serves the bankers, yet people still fall for the constant distractions, and miss the actual activities that serve the Zionist is simply astounding.

    Trump is a New York City Billionaire piece of shit who is close with casino filth like Sheldon Adleson, yet so many on the right think he will save the white man, BULL SHIT!

    The evil of those who control us, is only matched by the mind-numbing naivete which so many Americans, right and left perceive this governemnt, Obama and Trump included.

    There is NO war on Trump, its just a show, like the war on Obama from the birthers, it was just a distraction.
    , @Max Havelaar
    Good idea for Trump: declare Crimea belongs to Russia. That would tear EU Nato apart.

    Trump will never say that, Mike Pence won't allow it. He loves his pedophile friends to much (aka his money-base)!

    Check out the Robert Steele claim:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPYUWx0XyzU
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. eD says:

    This article is long, but pertinent to the last few Saker essays and provides additional information:

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/25/how-new-cold-warriors-cornered-trump/

    There are two takeaways. First the quality of the “intelligence” being fed to the public and policy-makers about Russia is about the same as the same stuff coming out about Iraq in 2001-3. Its that flimsy.

    Second, Trump gained nothing from removing Flynn and his removal seems to have increased the pressure on his administration.

    The common narrative about the Iraq invasion is that it was a personal project of Dubya, but I disagree. I think the presidency had been turned into a figurehead position by that point and he just went along with the program. What we are seeing now is an alternative history where George W Bush does not go along with the planned invasion of Iraq.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. metamars says: • Website

    Dear Saker: Please write a critique of ex-CIA David Robert Steele’s “Memorandum for the President”, wherein he lays out a game plan (“grand strategy”) for Trump to rescue democracy, as well as forge a trans-partisan alliance, defeat his political enemies, etc. See http://phibetaiota.net/2017/02/robert-steele-memorandum-for-the-president-warning-on-american-spring-riots-eight-actions-to-make-america-great-again/

    Personally, I think his suggestions are brilliant, even if I find his most dire predictions less compelling.

    A recent interview of Steele is here: http://phibetaiota.net/2017/02/special-robert-steele-on-hagmann-hagmann-report-deep-state-steve-bannon-googlegestapo-pedophilia-more/

    Apparently, his memorandum has been seen by President Trump, but Trump insiders like Bannon are not supportive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. The time for a Russian intervention was in April 2014, or August latest.

    The last days of February, immediately after the putsch, would’ve been the best time, I’d say.

    Nowadays Ukraine is far more united, militarily stronger, and the legal basis for intervention is far weaker.

    That’s what they would have you believe, but it doesn’t seem obvious to me at all. I have the impression that the population of Kiev-controlled territories is more disunited than ever.

    As for the legal basis, no one cares about any legal basis these days. It’s ‘might makes right’, all the way.

    As for the military, about 80% of the Ukrainian military stationed in Crimea switched sides in 2014: http://investigator.org.ua/news/150490/
    And I suspect this might be a good estimate of what would happen to the Kiev’s military (aside from the ‘national guard’ battalions), should RF invade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    "The time for a Russian intervention was in April 2014, or August latest."

    The last days of February, immediately after the putsch, would’ve been the best time, I’d say.
     

    Anytime in early 2014 would have been the time, if it were to happen. Ukraine had basically no functional military, local police forces etc. weren't yet vetted for loyalty, pro-Russian activists had free reign and there was no stopping local rebellion or foreign volunteers from having a huge impact , if the locals wanted it.

    "Nowadays Ukraine is far more united, militarily stronger, and the legal basis for intervention is far weaker."

    That’s what they would have you believe, but it doesn’t seem obvious to me at all. I have the impression that the population of Kiev-controlled territories is more disunited than ever.
     

    Do you have a basis for this opinion? Have you been to Ukraine lately?

    Ukraine is currently "disunited" in terms of its attitudes towards Poroshenko, vs. some other pro-Western political force (Tymoshenko, Samopomich, various right-wing nationalists). It is not so disunited in terms attitudes towards Russia. On the contrary, the most pro-Russian areas are gone, and most hardcore local pro-Russian activists have mostly left Ukraine, replaced by the pro-Ukrainian minority from Donbas or Crimea. Pro-Russian parties in Ukraine have about 25% support, skewed towards pensioners (who would not be of much help in an invasion/resistance situation). The experience of fighting people armed by Russia has hardened attitudes quite a bit, Kiev is now a lot like Galicia had once been, and places like Dnipropetrovsk have drifted towards how Kiev had been. Ironically the policies of the Russian government have done a lot for Ukrainian "nation-building."


    As for the military, about 80% of the Ukrainian military stationed in Crimea switched sides in 2014: http://investigator.org.ua/news/150490/
    And I suspect this might be a good estimate of what would happen to the Kiev’s military (aside from the ‘national guard’ battalions), should RF invad
     
    That's because people generally did their military service locally - so ethnic Russian troops of the Ukrainian military (the majority of whom, like the majority of Crimea's population, supported Russian annexation) from Crimea chose to switch sides and stay in Crimea rather than get themselves exiled from their Crimean homeland. Obviously it would be a very different story for the current Ukrainian military.

    That being said, although the Ukrainian military is much improved from 2014 I'm not sure that it could do much against a full-on Russian invasion. Russia has the capability of taking out Ukraine's anti-aircraft systems with missiles launched from places Ukraine can't reach, establishing control of Ukraine's skies, and then taking apart Ukraine's military using airpower. I suppose Ukraine could launch something into Crimea and along the eastern border in the first few days but overall destroying even the greatly improved Ukrainian military might not be so difficult for a country of Russia's capabilities.

    However, there would probably be an enormous cost to Russia in terms of urban warfare, partisan warfare, and occupation. Not every threat can be eliminated by missiles and planes, and through the various waves of mobilization there are now 100,000s of men with some military experience in Ukraine, and a population that would seethe with anti-Russian hatred, certainly in Kiev but even among non-insignificant segments in places like Dnipropetrovsk, Odessa or Kharkiv (a lot of the Azov battalion neo-Nazis are from Kharkiv).

    , @annamaria
    It seems that Kiev has been preparing a self-defeating legalese, inadvertently:
    "...Anton Gerashchenko, an special adviser to the Minister of internal Affairs of Ukraine and a member of the Board of the Ministry of internal Affairs of Ukraine openly declared on Ukrainian national TV:
    "Let’s immediately say that the Minsk Agreements were not implemented from the day they were signed in February 2015. This was a temporary measure on the side of the Ukraine and, I will be honest, a deliberate deception. Remember that the first Minsk Agreement was signed following the military disaster near Ialovaisk when we had no forces to defend the front from Donetsk to Mariupol. The second Minsk Agreement was signed following the treacherous Russian aggression on Debaltsevo and the formation of the “Debaltsevo Cauldron”. These agreements are not international agreements or anything else."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. anon says: • Disclaimer

    The existence of Neocon Mike Pence as vice president is a particular problem for Trump and might eventually directly lead to his downfall. Why did Trump make this absolutely idiotic decision on a running mate?

    The question that hasn’t yet been asked is who exactly recommended Pence for this position. Was Pence’s appointment the price that the allegedly “self funded” Trump had to pay to get actual hard campaign funding from Sheldon Adelson? Was Pence’s appointment that price that the Trumpster had to pay to get the support of the Republican leadership. Was Pence recommended by T’s nefarious, rabidly pro Israel son in law.

    We have yet to find out why and by whom Pence was chosen. It might be time to find out since Pence seems to be operating increasingly on his own without any attempts by trump to rein him in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @eD
    "Why did Trump make this absolutely idiotic decision on a running mate?"

    As you alluded to in the rest of your comment, he didn't have much choice. The Republican establishment had a scheme to release the delegates anyway and pick someone else, and though this was always sort of crazy and probably would have backfired, Trump's campaign organization was limited and he really needed the support of the established Republican parties.

    So he had to put in a GOP-e and/ or a Trucon as his running mate. Pence happened to be the best/ less bad among these candidates, he at least was something of a rebel in Congress and quarreled with the GOP establishment (the state legislature) in Indiana. Being viewed as a Trucon might also make the Democrats more reluctant to get onboard with impeachment proceedings.
    , @CalDre
    Pence leaves impeachment and assassination as viable solutions to the neo-con (Communist Globalist) cabal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. 5371 says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    The time for a Russian intervention was in April 2014, or August latest.

    Nowadays Ukraine is far more united, militarily stronger, and the legal basis for intervention is far weaker. The kremlins gambled on a mnogokhodovka and it is now very evident that it has failed.

    The recognition of LDNR is a nice humanitarian gesture but it is politically irrelevant. Moreover, it should have been done ages ago (the fact that it wasn't demonstrates that the kremlins were never serious about Novorossiya).

    Nope. The хохловоенщина would collapse immediately under serious attack, now as in 2014. No difference.

    Read More
    • Agree: Andrei Martyanov
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    Agree 100%.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. wow says:
    @Max Havelaar
    Seeing Trump's women, and his past as a spoilt rich kid, it's a way more likely Trump has frequented Epstein's "Lolita express" and therefore he's under the CIA/FBI's thumb, and ofcourse Sheldon Adelson.

    Mike Pence is running the show! And his pedophile ring.

    He probably ordered Churkin's assassinatin, because Churkin gave a pedophile list of US VIP's to Flynn (source: ex-CIA's Robert Steele).

    Also, Sibel Edmonds, newsbud, is on the US congress pedophile, rapist trail.

    This is how one should report on Washingtong and Wallstreet: pedophiles, rapist, laundering drug money, tax evasion and embezzlements.

    The rest is fairy tale.

    You’re an unhinged lunatic. KYS!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Max Havelaar
    So mr. unbiased Physics, can you explain why it impossible for ALU Jumbojet to penetrate steel on 9-11?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. baaadmoon says: • Website

    Kissinger would invite Tyahnybok, Kleech, Gerashchenko & the rest of the relevant ‘Hard Men” to DC, whore & dope ‘em righteously and then post the videos to YouTube – thus removing the problem. THAT’s how you regime-change, Bubala.

    IsKissingerDeadYet.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. tjm says:
    @Max Havelaar
    So, the Saker is telling us to trust Trump, the Bilionaire by real-estate swindle and speculation, who made Goldman Sachs run the country again?

    What a joker.

    Exactly, how many times do I read how Trump and the media is at war, as if the media is anything other than another arm of the powerful Zionist conglomerate, Wall Street/Central Banking cartel.

    The media is just another arm of those which Trump (chose?) surrounded himself with, wall street, Hollywood and the MIC.

    I have always felt the Trump fight with the media was totally contrived to drive the right into Trump’s arms. The American people always underestimate the intelligence of those who control us. They know the right hates the press, so having the press attack Trump with calls of racism, will only drive cause the right to support Trump, and conversely the left to hate Trump. I don’t buy it for a minute, if the media really did not want Trump to win, they would have ignored him, like they did Ron Paul, or they would have attacked him with REAL accusations of unethical behavior of which there is a great deal. Instead the media attacked him with baseless and hyper simplified accusations of racism.

    The media is simply playing a role, the more they fight with Trump, the more the right wing in America believe Trump is one of them. Even has he does NOTHING that he promised, instead continues sable rattling with Iran, and serving other Zionist Jewish interests.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LexRex
    What do you mean he does nothing he promised? He's kept more promises in 1 month, than Obama or GWB kept in 8 years.
    , @Max Havelaar
    The MSM is simply entertainment for masses, a show for distraction of really important issues for the large majority.

    Monetary policy is the single most important issue of power concentration and central controll of people's activities, this has to be speld out and cast in iron:

    A TRUE DEMOCRACY REQUIRES PARLEMENTARY CONTROLL OVER THE MONEY CREATION PROCESS TO ATTAIN FULL EMPLOYMENT BY PUBLIC PROJECTS SPENDING.

    If not so, like now, Amschel Bauer Rotschild get's his money power and corrupts the body politic.

    All war's are bankers wars (Rivero).
    And Bill Still's monetary solution: No national debt!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. tjm says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    Just work with what we all know to be true at the moment.

    It is obvious that the Clinton's are trying to take down Trump.

    The moment of truth is comming around the bend for Donald Trump very soon..

    Donald Trump must UNEQUIVOCABLY state that Crimea belongs to Christian Russia and that America will be friends with Christian Russia...White Guy Trump Bros like me will rush to Donald's Defense when he states this in public...I am ready for violent warfare with the homosexual-pedophile Comet Pizza ANTIFAS who want to go to war with Christian Russia..

    Don't overdue do it with conspiracy theory shit....

    Who exactly is the “homosexual-pedophile Comet Pizza ANTIFAS”?

    Talk about idiotic distraction.

    Just about as stupid as the idea that Clinton really wants to take Trump down.
    Clinton is playing a role, just as is Trump, yet they are both loyal to their Zionist masters.
    Not too familiar with Bill Clinton’s actions in office, deregulating, Zionist Wall Street and the media, allowing consolidation. Or Bill giving control over America’s phone routing system to Israeli companies…

    I am sorry, but the fact that every President serves the bankers, yet people still fall for the constant distractions, and miss the actual activities that serve the Zionist is simply astounding.

    Trump is a New York City Billionaire piece of shit who is close with casino filth like Sheldon Adleson, yet so many on the right think he will save the white man, BULL SHIT!

    The evil of those who control us, is only matched by the mind-numbing naivete which so many Americans, right and left perceive this governemnt, Obama and Trump included.

    There is NO war on Trump, its just a show, like the war on Obama from the birthers, it was just a distraction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    The evil of those who control us, is only matched by the mind-numbing naivete which so many Americans, right and left perceive this governemnt, Obama and Trump included.

    There is NO war on Trump, its just a show, like the war on Obama from the birthers, it was just a distraction.
     
    Well said.

    Not only mind numbing naivete, but also willful, insufferable, and ineffable ignorance and arrogance.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    How does it work? I mean how do those you say are in control get hundreds, indeed thousands, of journalists, editors, sub-editors, op-ed writers, guest columnists etc to lline up all that anti-Trump stuff that appears in the NY Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, Guardian etc etc?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Clear reasoning and good one concerning article.
    This is a little bit more than baby step.
    Worldwide Globalist will not stop until Trump is impeached.
    When it happens Russians and Polaks should get together and divide Ukraine into Polish part
    and Russian part, and annex them.
    Everlasting peace will follow.

    Read More
    • LOL: Wizard of Oz
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. El Dato says:

    Maybe someone should pick up the phone, call La Nikki Haley and tell her to maybe go read a book and stop being an obnoxious clownette?

    https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2017/02/26/us-ambassador-to-un-nikki-haley-we-must-sanction-assad-over-chemical-weapons/

    Recently, we had a look at the ways President Trump’s Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, is making her predecessor, “humanitarian bomber” Samantha Power, look like a model diplomat by comparison. It turns out Haley’s ghastly performance at the UN thus far is no fluke. Each time she opens her mouth she spews not the kind of foreign policy that President Trump campaigned on, but rather the boot-in-the-face know-nothingness that we have grown accustomed to in recent years.

    I’m saddened by all this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Anatoly Karlin
    The time for a Russian intervention was in April 2014, or August latest.

    Nowadays Ukraine is far more united, militarily stronger, and the legal basis for intervention is far weaker. The kremlins gambled on a mnogokhodovka and it is now very evident that it has failed.

    The recognition of LDNR is a nice humanitarian gesture but it is politically irrelevant. Moreover, it should have been done ages ago (the fact that it wasn't demonstrates that the kremlins were never serious about Novorossiya).

    Nowadays Ukraine is far more united, militarily stronger

    I did not notice this at all. Probably weaker. Ukraine simply has no resources to make her military “stronger” (whatever this vague term means). It is still same old decrepit army with some minor improvements along tactical lines. In terms of C4ISR this “force” is not even in the same universe with LDNR. It is sure more numerous–here the advantage is clear.

    The time for a Russian intervention was in April 2014, or August latest.

    Categorically disagree, albeit admit that great military “strategists” such as Girkin-Strelkov or Cassad, who are the “fathers” of this misconception, continue to pedal this point of view without any regard to reality. There was NO “mnogokhodovka”–the objective was Crimea, it is just that Donbass did take up arms and started to fight. The beaten to death “argument” about Putin having the right to use armed forces beyond Russia’s borders is not a serious argument. Public sentiment (especially in the times of internet) and contingency planning by General Staff are not the same thing. Syria proved this beyond the shadow of a doubt.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @5371
    Nope. The хохловоенщина would collapse immediately under serious attack, now as in 2014. No difference.

    Agree 100%.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @wow
    You're an unhinged lunatic. KYS!

    So mr. unbiased Physics, can you explain why it impossible for ALU Jumbojet to penetrate steel on 9-11?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @tjm
    Who exactly is the "homosexual-pedophile Comet Pizza ANTIFAS"?

    Talk about idiotic distraction.

    Just about as stupid as the idea that Clinton really wants to take Trump down.
    Clinton is playing a role, just as is Trump, yet they are both loyal to their Zionist masters.
    Not too familiar with Bill Clinton's actions in office, deregulating, Zionist Wall Street and the media, allowing consolidation. Or Bill giving control over America's phone routing system to Israeli companies...

    I am sorry, but the fact that every President serves the bankers, yet people still fall for the constant distractions, and miss the actual activities that serve the Zionist is simply astounding.

    Trump is a New York City Billionaire piece of shit who is close with casino filth like Sheldon Adleson, yet so many on the right think he will save the white man, BULL SHIT!

    The evil of those who control us, is only matched by the mind-numbing naivete which so many Americans, right and left perceive this governemnt, Obama and Trump included.

    There is NO war on Trump, its just a show, like the war on Obama from the birthers, it was just a distraction.

    The evil of those who control us, is only matched by the mind-numbing naivete which so many Americans, right and left perceive this governemnt, Obama and Trump included.

    There is NO war on Trump, its just a show, like the war on Obama from the birthers, it was just a distraction.

    Well said.

    Not only mind numbing naivete, but also willful, insufferable, and ineffable ignorance and arrogance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    None of the career fag -worshipers in .gov was capable of smashing the Svengalis in the MSM...

    It's worth the price of admission to see these traitorous scum EXPOSED on a daily basis, by a private citizen who earned his wages in the rough-and- tumble NY construction industry.

    I can understand some healthy skepticism, but it seems that your ego has put you out on a limb- and you are resorting to cynicism- in the hope that he does fail.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Randal says:
    @Kiza

    Nowadays Ukraine is far more united, militarily stronger, and the legal basis for intervention is far weaker.
     
    You are probably correct about this, but the Ukrainian economy was probably never in a worse shape. Ukraine is just another US client state kept alive on an IMF drip, thanks to the US Petrodollar/reserve currency world status (almost limitless printing).

    Both Ukraine and the US dollar live on borrowed time, pun intended. Besides, this is not the first time that Ukraine has been taken over by US, the previous time it had to be relinquished. How long before the current Ukraine runs out if things to pawn to the West to keep the dollars flowing in? They spirited away the national gold that "corrupt" Yanukovich collected even before the "revolution" was over, then natural gas concessions, and so on and so on. I give up to three more years to the post coup regime in Kiev. The Ziocons know this as well and will try to play their Ukrainian card against Russia before the regime collapses financially.

    In summary, I do not see that Russia should have intervened before. Waiting and being prepared for the regime's collapse was the best strategy, although many Donbass civilians have paid with their lives. That is the only weakness of the current strategy.

    In summary, I do not see that Russia should have intervened before. Waiting and being prepared for the regime’s collapse was the best strategy, although many Donbass civilians have paid with their lives. That is the only weakness of the current strategy.

    I agree with this – those who argue Russia might as well have gone the whole hog back in 2014 imo underestimate (perhaps misremembering) the degree to which the situation was poised on something of a knife-edge.

    An open Russian intervention would have run a serious risk of a more open US/NATO/EU intervention, escalating to an ongoing war that would likely have been disastrous in both PR, economic and political terms.

    Putin seems to have played it pretty well, and in line with his cautious but decisive when necessary general approach.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Varenik says:
    @Kiza
    An untidy article, not as good as the previous ones, but still ok. Some elementary mistakes:

    If the Yemeni President in exile Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi could ask the Saudis to intervene in Yemen, why would that no be an option for Poroshenko to ask for such an intervention in the Ukraine?
     
    Saker obviously means Yanukovich, not Poroshenko.

    Also, this conclusion about the free-will of the Ukronazis is shallow:

    I think that it all depends on what the Ukronazis crazies do. If they really attack Novorussia I expect the Kremlin to recognize the DNR and LRN.
     
    The Ukronazis may be crazy but they still know very well who is buttering their bread. Without getting a US go-ahead there will be no major attack on Donbass.

    As to what is going on in USA, it is blatantly clear that the only thing standing between Trump and his Deep State attackers is the Second Amendment. In other words, the US police and military would probably shoot protesters if they could not shoot back.

    Finally, the greatest danger of the internal fight in USA is that it spills over internationally and somebody presses the launch button. The same concern existed when SU/Russia was going through a similar turmoil.

    “The Ukronazis may be crazy but they still know very well who is buttering their bread. Without getting a US go-ahead there will be no major attack on Donbass.”
    They ARE that crazy.
    This is why Russians used to describe the Galicians with “Усрамся но не отдамся”…

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    At most two percent of people here can read Russian. How about a translation?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. AP says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    The time for a Russian intervention was in April 2014, or August latest.
     
    The last days of February, immediately after the putsch, would've been the best time, I'd say.

    Nowadays Ukraine is far more united, militarily stronger, and the legal basis for intervention is far weaker.
     
    That's what they would have you believe, but it doesn't seem obvious to me at all. I have the impression that the population of Kiev-controlled territories is more disunited than ever.

    As for the legal basis, no one cares about any legal basis these days. It's 'might makes right', all the way.

    As for the military, about 80% of the Ukrainian military stationed in Crimea switched sides in 2014: http://investigator.org.ua/news/150490/
    And I suspect this might be a good estimate of what would happen to the Kiev's military (aside from the 'national guard' battalions), should RF invade.

    “The time for a Russian intervention was in April 2014, or August latest.”

    The last days of February, immediately after the putsch, would’ve been the best time, I’d say.

    Anytime in early 2014 would have been the time, if it were to happen. Ukraine had basically no functional military, local police forces etc. weren’t yet vetted for loyalty, pro-Russian activists had free reign and there was no stopping local rebellion or foreign volunteers from having a huge impact , if the locals wanted it.

    “Nowadays Ukraine is far more united, militarily stronger, and the legal basis for intervention is far weaker.”

    That’s what they would have you believe, but it doesn’t seem obvious to me at all. I have the impression that the population of Kiev-controlled territories is more disunited than ever.

    Do you have a basis for this opinion? Have you been to Ukraine lately?

    Ukraine is currently “disunited” in terms of its attitudes towards Poroshenko, vs. some other pro-Western political force (Tymoshenko, Samopomich, various right-wing nationalists). It is not so disunited in terms attitudes towards Russia. On the contrary, the most pro-Russian areas are gone, and most hardcore local pro-Russian activists have mostly left Ukraine, replaced by the pro-Ukrainian minority from Donbas or Crimea. Pro-Russian parties in Ukraine have about 25% support, skewed towards pensioners (who would not be of much help in an invasion/resistance situation). The experience of fighting people armed by Russia has hardened attitudes quite a bit, Kiev is now a lot like Galicia had once been, and places like Dnipropetrovsk have drifted towards how Kiev had been. Ironically the policies of the Russian government have done a lot for Ukrainian “nation-building.”

    As for the military, about 80% of the Ukrainian military stationed in Crimea switched sides in 2014: http://investigator.org.ua/news/150490/
    And I suspect this might be a good estimate of what would happen to the Kiev’s military (aside from the ‘national guard’ battalions), should RF invad

    That’s because people generally did their military service locally – so ethnic Russian troops of the Ukrainian military (the majority of whom, like the majority of Crimea’s population, supported Russian annexation) from Crimea chose to switch sides and stay in Crimea rather than get themselves exiled from their Crimean homeland. Obviously it would be a very different story for the current Ukrainian military.

    That being said, although the Ukrainian military is much improved from 2014 I’m not sure that it could do much against a full-on Russian invasion. Russia has the capability of taking out Ukraine’s anti-aircraft systems with missiles launched from places Ukraine can’t reach, establishing control of Ukraine’s skies, and then taking apart Ukraine’s military using airpower. I suppose Ukraine could launch something into Crimea and along the eastern border in the first few days but overall destroying even the greatly improved Ukrainian military might not be so difficult for a country of Russia’s capabilities.

    However, there would probably be an enormous cost to Russia in terms of urban warfare, partisan warfare, and occupation. Not every threat can be eliminated by missiles and planes, and through the various waves of mobilization there are now 100,000s of men with some military experience in Ukraine, and a population that would seethe with anti-Russian hatred, certainly in Kiev but even among non-insignificant segments in places like Dnipropetrovsk, Odessa or Kharkiv (a lot of the Azov battalion neo-Nazis are from Kharkiv).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Do you have a basis for this opinion? Have you been to Ukraine lately?
     
    I did spend a few days in Zakarpatie last summer, but I didn't start any political conversations, so no anecdotal evidence here. My basis is opinion polls, the press, and I watch Ukrainian shows, listen what their talking heads have to say.

    Ukraine is currently “disunited” in terms of its attitudes towards Poroshenko, vs. some other pro-Western political force (Tymoshenko, Samopomich, various right-wing nationalists).
     
    Nah, as far as I can tell, there's no division in this respect at all: all current politicians are intensely hated. The common joke is: 'how do you fix all the country's problems in 2 steps? Step 1: shoot all politicians. Step 2: shoot everyone who comes to the funerals.' It's that bad.

    That’s because people generally did their military service locally
     
    Point taken. So, yes, not 80%, let's say 50%. Hell, surely even 30% of turncoats would cause the army to self-destruct...

    and a population that would seethe with anti-Russian hatred
     
    My guess is, people in the east do hold a grudge against Russia, precisely because it doesn't intervene. Putin said, back in 2014, that he won't need to invade because no Ukrainian general would ever give the order to shoot Ukrainian population ('women and children'). Well, obviously he was wrong, but RF still does nothing. Now, that is a real bad PR.
    , @observer4
    Russia has no desire or intention of invading Ukraine and taking over Kiev, etc.
    No one really wants to own and be responsible for supporting and fixing a huge failed state like Ukraine.
    Russia also knows it can't occupy a huge hostile nation where the locals are indistinguishable from Russians..
    Russia is no threat to Ukraine, and is doing everything it can to not go to war with its neighbor, despite endless provocations from Ukraine at the behest of US/NATO.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. eD says:
    @anon
    The existence of Neocon Mike Pence as vice president is a particular problem for Trump and might eventually directly lead to his downfall. Why did Trump make this absolutely idiotic decision on a running mate?

    The question that hasn't yet been asked is who exactly recommended Pence for this position. Was Pence's appointment the price that the allegedly "self funded" Trump had to pay to get actual hard campaign funding from Sheldon Adelson? Was Pence's appointment that price that the Trumpster had to pay to get the support of the Republican leadership. Was Pence recommended by T's nefarious, rabidly pro Israel son in law.

    We have yet to find out why and by whom Pence was chosen. It might be time to find out since Pence seems to be operating increasingly on his own without any attempts by trump to rein him in.

    “Why did Trump make this absolutely idiotic decision on a running mate?”

    As you alluded to in the rest of your comment, he didn’t have much choice. The Republican establishment had a scheme to release the delegates anyway and pick someone else, and though this was always sort of crazy and probably would have backfired, Trump’s campaign organization was limited and he really needed the support of the established Republican parties.

    So he had to put in a GOP-e and/ or a Trucon as his running mate. Pence happened to be the best/ less bad among these candidates, he at least was something of a rebel in Congress and quarreled with the GOP establishment (the state legislature) in Indiana. Being viewed as a Trucon might also make the Democrats more reluctant to get onboard with impeachment proceedings.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stonehands
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @From The Hague
    Even better, Yanukovich is still in Russia. And, from a legal point of view, you could make the case that he is still the legitimate president of the Ukraine. If the Yemeni President in exile Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi could ask the Saudis to intervene in Yemen, why would that no be an option for Poroshenko to ask for such an intervention in the Ukraine?


    Poroshenko to ask for Russian intervention?

    Also a pity that the Saker’s self indulgent carelessness or laziness extends to unsubstantiated waffle like his “from a legal point of view you could make the case that he is still the legitimate president of [the] Ukraine” and his suggestion that Yanukovich made an “official” request for Russian intervention which had legal weight.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. All reports, including Saker’s here, say that the Flynn affair and subsequent departure is a Trump defeat. Despite going against this overwhelming consensus, I see it differently. Flynn had one moderate “good” point: despite his rise to the rank of general in the hierarchical yes-man culture of the military, he retained an admirable independence of mind, even when it threatened and then ended his military career. Kudos on independence of mind.

    Then he had one massive “bad” point: he was front man and suck-up to Michael Ledeen, an arch Neocon whose death-worshipping worldview makes Machiavelli look like Princess Di. When Neocons Bolton, Woolsey, and Abrams were dismissed before they even got to the door — Bolton twice — I gave Trump full credit, the highest possible marks, and breathed a huge sigh of relief. The “perfect resume” traitorous Israel-firsters, who had looted and bankrupted America in wars to make the world safe for Israel, were gone. Hallelujah! Only one remained. Hidden behind Flynn however, lurked poison-pill Ledeen. So when Flynn left, taking Ledeen with him, I saw it as a victory for Trump. We may never know whether Trump came to realize the “Ledeen problem” and took the opportunity of Flynn’s misstep to “fix” the problem, or whether Trump — and the rest of us — just got lucky. Whatever, the last of the Neocon treasonous mind-poisoners is gone, and that for me is, as Trump would say, “yuuuge”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "The “perfect resume” traitorous Israel-firsters, who had looted and bankrupted America in wars to make the world safe for Israel, were gone. Hallelujah! Only one remained. Hidden behind Flynn however, lurked poison-pill Ledeen. So when Flynn left, taking Ledeen with him, I saw it as a victory for Trump.'
    Agree
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Agent76 says:

    Mar 18, 2014 US support of violent neo-Nazis in Ukraine: Video Compilation

    Shocking and insightful videos detailing the neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, ultra-nationalist movement in Ukraine. The videos examine the ongoing US support of these groups, including the Svoboda party and Right Sector.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. @Jean de Peyrelongue
    Calling the people from Lviv and Kiev Ukronazis is certainly not going to help solving the Ukrainian'issue.

    Ukraine as it is today is fully an artificial country.
    Galicia was belonging to Austria until 1919 then to Poland until 1939. Bandera was first fighting the Poles then when the Soviet Union invaded Galicia in 1939, his movement joined forces with the Germans ones. For him, the Poles and the Soviet-Union were both ennemies of a free Galicia.
    Galicia had a large Jewish population which did not oppose the Soviet Union invasion and as such were considered as traitors by the Bandera people.
    The case of Galicia is a special case, they were nazis to fight the Jews, the Poles and the Soviet Union. They wanted to create a new Ukraine and the failed. Today, they are trying again and they seem to have quite some influence of Kiew.

    The remaining of Ukraine ( Little Russia) is another story. Stalin and Khrushchev got between 1931-1933 around 6 millions of people from Ukraine and Kuban to starve and die, so it is easy to understand some Ukrainian’s resentment towards Russia.

    The South NovoRussia, has always belonged to Russia. Odessa was created by Potemkine and developped by Richelieu and the eastern part the Donbass has always been Russian.

    It is obvious that Ukraine has to be splitted: the east and the South bording the Black sea have to be returned to Russia
    The western part including Galicia which is frustrated since 1919 should also be allowed to have a country including probably the western part of the little Russia populated by uniates, but they should understand also that the others have also a right to choose their future destiny.

    I agree 100%.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. LexRex says:
    @Max Havelaar
    So, the Saker is telling us to trust Trump, the Bilionaire by real-estate swindle and speculation, who made Goldman Sachs run the country again?

    What a joker.

    Who is the alternative? Hillary? I missed her election.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Max Havelaar
    Ralph Nader or Jesse Ventura :D

    Even better Robert Steele, very bright and informed:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeeD_CbmtpI

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. LexRex says:
    @tjm
    Exactly, how many times do I read how Trump and the media is at war, as if the media is anything other than another arm of the powerful Zionist conglomerate, Wall Street/Central Banking cartel.

    The media is just another arm of those which Trump (chose?) surrounded himself with, wall street, Hollywood and the MIC.

    I have always felt the Trump fight with the media was totally contrived to drive the right into Trump's arms. The American people always underestimate the intelligence of those who control us. They know the right hates the press, so having the press attack Trump with calls of racism, will only drive cause the right to support Trump, and conversely the left to hate Trump. I don't buy it for a minute, if the media really did not want Trump to win, they would have ignored him, like they did Ron Paul, or they would have attacked him with REAL accusations of unethical behavior of which there is a great deal. Instead the media attacked him with baseless and hyper simplified accusations of racism.

    The media is simply playing a role, the more they fight with Trump, the more the right wing in America believe Trump is one of them. Even has he does NOTHING that he promised, instead continues sable rattling with Iran, and serving other Zionist Jewish interests.

    What do you mean he does nothing he promised? He’s kept more promises in 1 month, than Obama or GWB kept in 8 years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @tjm
    Who exactly is the "homosexual-pedophile Comet Pizza ANTIFAS"?

    Talk about idiotic distraction.

    Just about as stupid as the idea that Clinton really wants to take Trump down.
    Clinton is playing a role, just as is Trump, yet they are both loyal to their Zionist masters.
    Not too familiar with Bill Clinton's actions in office, deregulating, Zionist Wall Street and the media, allowing consolidation. Or Bill giving control over America's phone routing system to Israeli companies...

    I am sorry, but the fact that every President serves the bankers, yet people still fall for the constant distractions, and miss the actual activities that serve the Zionist is simply astounding.

    Trump is a New York City Billionaire piece of shit who is close with casino filth like Sheldon Adleson, yet so many on the right think he will save the white man, BULL SHIT!

    The evil of those who control us, is only matched by the mind-numbing naivete which so many Americans, right and left perceive this governemnt, Obama and Trump included.

    There is NO war on Trump, its just a show, like the war on Obama from the birthers, it was just a distraction.

    How does it work? I mean how do those you say are in control get hundreds, indeed thousands, of journalists, editors, sub-editors, op-ed writers, guest columnists etc to lline up all that anti-Trump stuff that appears in the NY Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, Guardian etc etc?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seua2557
    Wiz, check out Operation Mockingbird, the CIA's plan to essentially "take over" every prominent news outlet in the world. Started in he early 1970s, it now controls or at least deeply influences what the media report. Reporters, editors, etc are either willing helpers or intimidated, blackmailed or coerced. This has been admitted by at least one CIA head quite openly. So, controlling the media is not that hard and they'll all sing the the same tune.
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/10/16/cia-owns-everyone-significance-major-media/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Varenik
    "The Ukronazis may be crazy but they still know very well who is buttering their bread. Without getting a US go-ahead there will be no major attack on Donbass."
    They ARE that crazy.
    This is why Russians used to describe the Galicians with "Усрамся но не отдамся"...

    At most two percent of people here can read Russian. How about a translation?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    I cannot read Russian much but I have Internet to translate. My understanding is that this phrase is a little bit vulgar, therefore, better left in Russian. It relates to someone who is stubbornly working towards his own demise.
    , @Varenik
    @RadicalCenter
    It roughly translates into 'to crap one's own pants to spite the enemy'.
    , @Kilo 4/11
    "How about a translation."

    The aggressive, disruptive use of Russian among populations that do not speak Russian is no surprise to anyone familiar with Ukrainian history. Which excludes 99.9% of the commenters on Unz.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @War for Blair Mountain
    Just work with what we all know to be true at the moment.

    It is obvious that the Clinton's are trying to take down Trump.

    The moment of truth is comming around the bend for Donald Trump very soon..

    Donald Trump must UNEQUIVOCABLY state that Crimea belongs to Christian Russia and that America will be friends with Christian Russia...White Guy Trump Bros like me will rush to Donald's Defense when he states this in public...I am ready for violent warfare with the homosexual-pedophile Comet Pizza ANTIFAS who want to go to war with Christian Russia..

    Don't overdue do it with conspiracy theory shit....

    Good idea for Trump: declare Crimea belongs to Russia. That would tear EU Nato apart.

    Trump will never say that, Mike Pence won’t allow it. He loves his pedophile friends to much (aka his money-base)!

    Check out the Robert Steele claim:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @tjm
    Exactly, how many times do I read how Trump and the media is at war, as if the media is anything other than another arm of the powerful Zionist conglomerate, Wall Street/Central Banking cartel.

    The media is just another arm of those which Trump (chose?) surrounded himself with, wall street, Hollywood and the MIC.

    I have always felt the Trump fight with the media was totally contrived to drive the right into Trump's arms. The American people always underestimate the intelligence of those who control us. They know the right hates the press, so having the press attack Trump with calls of racism, will only drive cause the right to support Trump, and conversely the left to hate Trump. I don't buy it for a minute, if the media really did not want Trump to win, they would have ignored him, like they did Ron Paul, or they would have attacked him with REAL accusations of unethical behavior of which there is a great deal. Instead the media attacked him with baseless and hyper simplified accusations of racism.

    The media is simply playing a role, the more they fight with Trump, the more the right wing in America believe Trump is one of them. Even has he does NOTHING that he promised, instead continues sable rattling with Iran, and serving other Zionist Jewish interests.

    The MSM is simply entertainment for masses, a show for distraction of really important issues for the large majority.

    Monetary policy is the single most important issue of power concentration and central controll of people’s activities, this has to be speld out and cast in iron:

    A TRUE DEMOCRACY REQUIRES PARLEMENTARY CONTROLL OVER THE MONEY CREATION PROCESS TO ATTAIN FULL EMPLOYMENT BY PUBLIC PROJECTS SPENDING.

    If not so, like now, Amschel Bauer Rotschild get’s his money power and corrupts the body politic.

    All war’s are bankers wars (Rivero).
    And Bill Still’s monetary solution: No national debt!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. m___ says:

    It might boil down to above, the piece analysis is dead right.

    The US needs a lucid (as Castro Fidel) Trump, who on purpose, and with insight (his few trusted advisers who know his cognitive limits and weighted his balls), to “parley”, the thing he does best, because he is what he is, a simple guy (making money allows for being cognitively simple, better requires it), to the people, the deplorables, made ever more deplorable by any elites over the last fifty years, and they will stand at the Trump side regardless, will come out when asked, will be a ‘theoretical’ menace, as they are already.

    Starting with Flynn, Trump was dead weak, he should back-door him in again, as a real test to a stand-of, if not, the nagging will become worse, and yes, deep-state, corporate global gluttons, will try to get rid of him ultimately.

    The easy road, a Trump shutting up on issues, being a “Obama land post”, counting on the argument that the elites have no interest in having the brand “United States” losing face globally, as they are doing now, then why ambition Washington and the Presidency in the first place.

    Castro Fidel should be your inspiration Sir Trump, talk to the deplorables using tone (you Sir master that so well, SwartzenEgger was half as good as you in wit to the people), and leave content to your trusted advisers (some have more then a zest for vengeance, but real convictions that hold up to the realm of today). We know you have balls, Obama had none, we know you can talk to the average American, as Obama could for a while. You have within your vicinity a few individuals who can stand up to rational verities, Obama had opportunistic short term-focus rats and none.

    Castro kept talking to the people, emotionally bonding, for an inspirational while. No leaks, hard-handed, and a through-sight that made him survive in power many a US president. The Clinton and Bush dynasty are not up to par in political reach, keep your back-office decided, you have only that Sir Trump, then keep getting out there, put on a public face and make complex things look simple to the masses, the importance is tone, you do that well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. @LexRex
    Who is the alternative? Hillary? I missed her election.

    Ralph Nader or Jesse Ventura :D

    Even better Robert Steele, very bright and informed:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    And where exactly did they campaign?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @AP

    "The time for a Russian intervention was in April 2014, or August latest."

    The last days of February, immediately after the putsch, would’ve been the best time, I’d say.
     

    Anytime in early 2014 would have been the time, if it were to happen. Ukraine had basically no functional military, local police forces etc. weren't yet vetted for loyalty, pro-Russian activists had free reign and there was no stopping local rebellion or foreign volunteers from having a huge impact , if the locals wanted it.

    "Nowadays Ukraine is far more united, militarily stronger, and the legal basis for intervention is far weaker."

    That’s what they would have you believe, but it doesn’t seem obvious to me at all. I have the impression that the population of Kiev-controlled territories is more disunited than ever.
     

    Do you have a basis for this opinion? Have you been to Ukraine lately?

    Ukraine is currently "disunited" in terms of its attitudes towards Poroshenko, vs. some other pro-Western political force (Tymoshenko, Samopomich, various right-wing nationalists). It is not so disunited in terms attitudes towards Russia. On the contrary, the most pro-Russian areas are gone, and most hardcore local pro-Russian activists have mostly left Ukraine, replaced by the pro-Ukrainian minority from Donbas or Crimea. Pro-Russian parties in Ukraine have about 25% support, skewed towards pensioners (who would not be of much help in an invasion/resistance situation). The experience of fighting people armed by Russia has hardened attitudes quite a bit, Kiev is now a lot like Galicia had once been, and places like Dnipropetrovsk have drifted towards how Kiev had been. Ironically the policies of the Russian government have done a lot for Ukrainian "nation-building."


    As for the military, about 80% of the Ukrainian military stationed in Crimea switched sides in 2014: http://investigator.org.ua/news/150490/
    And I suspect this might be a good estimate of what would happen to the Kiev’s military (aside from the ‘national guard’ battalions), should RF invad
     
    That's because people generally did their military service locally - so ethnic Russian troops of the Ukrainian military (the majority of whom, like the majority of Crimea's population, supported Russian annexation) from Crimea chose to switch sides and stay in Crimea rather than get themselves exiled from their Crimean homeland. Obviously it would be a very different story for the current Ukrainian military.

    That being said, although the Ukrainian military is much improved from 2014 I'm not sure that it could do much against a full-on Russian invasion. Russia has the capability of taking out Ukraine's anti-aircraft systems with missiles launched from places Ukraine can't reach, establishing control of Ukraine's skies, and then taking apart Ukraine's military using airpower. I suppose Ukraine could launch something into Crimea and along the eastern border in the first few days but overall destroying even the greatly improved Ukrainian military might not be so difficult for a country of Russia's capabilities.

    However, there would probably be an enormous cost to Russia in terms of urban warfare, partisan warfare, and occupation. Not every threat can be eliminated by missiles and planes, and through the various waves of mobilization there are now 100,000s of men with some military experience in Ukraine, and a population that would seethe with anti-Russian hatred, certainly in Kiev but even among non-insignificant segments in places like Dnipropetrovsk, Odessa or Kharkiv (a lot of the Azov battalion neo-Nazis are from Kharkiv).

    Do you have a basis for this opinion? Have you been to Ukraine lately?

    I did spend a few days in Zakarpatie last summer, but I didn’t start any political conversations, so no anecdotal evidence here. My basis is opinion polls, the press, and I watch Ukrainian shows, listen what their talking heads have to say.

    Ukraine is currently “disunited” in terms of its attitudes towards Poroshenko, vs. some other pro-Western political force (Tymoshenko, Samopomich, various right-wing nationalists).

    Nah, as far as I can tell, there’s no division in this respect at all: all current politicians are intensely hated. The common joke is: ‘how do you fix all the country’s problems in 2 steps? Step 1: shoot all politicians. Step 2: shoot everyone who comes to the funerals.’ It’s that bad.

    That’s because people generally did their military service locally

    Point taken. So, yes, not 80%, let’s say 50%. Hell, surely even 30% of turncoats would cause the army to self-destruct…

    and a population that would seethe with anti-Russian hatred

    My guess is, people in the east do hold a grudge against Russia, precisely because it doesn’t intervene. Putin said, back in 2014, that he won’t need to invade because no Ukrainian general would ever give the order to shoot Ukrainian population (‘women and children’). Well, obviously he was wrong, but RF still does nothing. Now, that is a real bad PR.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    My guess is, people in the east do hold a grudge against Russia, precisely because it doesn’t intervene
     
    This is precisely why Russia didn't intervene. Events in Odessa demonstrated it in full, as much as it sounds cynical. Путин придэ--порядок наведеэ--Putin will come and will restore the order. Donbass took up arms, why didn't Odessa or Kharkov? I am extremely well versed in the excuses for why it didn't happen--at some point of time I stopped counting them.
    , @Kiza
    A point to keep in mind is that the best indicator of the bad state of Ukrainian military is the fact that it has not started a wide scale operation against Donbass yet. The US/NATO instructors embedded into the Ukrainian military know the state of what they are training very well. I am certain that US/NATO have a plan to unleash both Ukronazis and Ukrainian military on Donbass, when they are sufficiently ready but before Ukraine collapses financially. This is the Georgia scenario repeated. Unfortunately for the US/NATO instructors, training the Ukrainian military for an attack on Russia is as futile as training the five "moderate" rebbels in Syria at a cost of $500M. The Ukrainian military will never be ready for the civil war that its masters want.

    If the West wants Ukraine to attack Donbass, they will have to rely on Ukronazis and Polish mercenaires again, just as in all previous military offensives.

    , @AP

    "Ukraine is currently “disunited” in terms of its attitudes towards Poroshenko, vs. some other pro-Western political force (Tymoshenko, Samopomich, various right-wing nationalists)."

    Nah, as far as I can tell, there’s no division in this respect at all: all current politicians are intensely hated. The common joke is: ‘how do you fix all the country’s problems in 2 steps? Step 1: shoot all politicians. Step 2: shoot everyone who comes to the funerals.’ It’s that bad.
     
    You are right, but I was speaking of the pro-West vs. pro-Russia division. Poroshenko's popularity has plummeted but it's not because the population's political position has swung pro-Russian. Poroshenko will lose the election to some other pro-Western party. Tymoshenko's seems to be the most popular at the moment. From this perspective Ukraine is rather united, certainly more so than before recent events.

    [about 80% of Ukrainian troops in Crimea switching sides and joining Russia] "That’s because people generally did their military service locally"

    Point taken. So, yes, not 80%, let’s say 50%. Hell, surely even 30% of turncoats would cause the army to self-destruct…
     
    50% would suggest that Ukrainians outside Crimea are about 62% as pro-Russian as the ethnic Russians in Crimea are. That's incredibly optimistically pro-Russian thinking.

    25% or so not willing to fight Russia is more realistic. That makes it much harder to desert. With a rate of 80% as in Crimea entire units can go over or refuse to fight and nobody can stop them. 1 in 4 embedded among loyal troops, facing punishment for attempted desertion, are much less likely to act. Since 2014 the Ukrainian government has purged its officers of potentially disloyal elements and had made it more difficult for the military to disintegrate due to desertion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Sean says:

    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/thaad-the-fear-of-china-anxiety-of-russia/articleshow/57273866.cms

    Trump will give China and Russia a lot more to worry about before he is done, and as long as Trump is doing everything he can to keep America on top militarily and in productive capacity (same thing) the deep state will support him. The clue is in the name: deep state, because the function of the state is to survive as a state and the best way to survive is to achieve hegemony and KEEP it. The wellbeing of the system, the people, or even the elites making up the personnel of the deep state, is not the primary motivation of the deep state. Trump is a nationalist, and that is something the unfathomable recesses of the US (still basically a nation-state) can work with.

    The only danger for Trump is he begins to take all this media pundit talk of a deep state coup crap seriously and orders precipitate surveillance. That is just what Trump’s opponents are praying for. Ignore them and watch them wither as their chattering becomes obvious to all as a desperate ploy by those powerless to reverse the people’s will.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. annamaria says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    The time for a Russian intervention was in April 2014, or August latest.
     
    The last days of February, immediately after the putsch, would've been the best time, I'd say.

    Nowadays Ukraine is far more united, militarily stronger, and the legal basis for intervention is far weaker.
     
    That's what they would have you believe, but it doesn't seem obvious to me at all. I have the impression that the population of Kiev-controlled territories is more disunited than ever.

    As for the legal basis, no one cares about any legal basis these days. It's 'might makes right', all the way.

    As for the military, about 80% of the Ukrainian military stationed in Crimea switched sides in 2014: http://investigator.org.ua/news/150490/
    And I suspect this might be a good estimate of what would happen to the Kiev's military (aside from the 'national guard' battalions), should RF invade.

    It seems that Kiev has been preparing a self-defeating legalese, inadvertently:
    “…Anton Gerashchenko, an special adviser to the Minister of internal Affairs of Ukraine and a member of the Board of the Ministry of internal Affairs of Ukraine openly declared on Ukrainian national TV:
    “Let’s immediately say that the Minsk Agreements were not implemented from the day they were signed in February 2015. This was a temporary measure on the side of the Ukraine and, I will be honest, a deliberate deception. Remember that the first Minsk Agreement was signed following the military disaster near Ialovaisk when we had no forces to defend the front from Donetsk to Mariupol. The second Minsk Agreement was signed following the treacherous Russian aggression on Debaltsevo and the formation of the “Debaltsevo Cauldron”. These agreements are not international agreements or anything else.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. annamaria says:
    @Jeff Davis
    All reports, including Saker's here, say that the Flynn affair and subsequent departure is a Trump defeat. Despite going against this overwhelming consensus, I see it differently. Flynn had one moderate "good" point: despite his rise to the rank of general in the hierarchical yes-man culture of the military, he retained an admirable independence of mind, even when it threatened and then ended his military career. Kudos on independence of mind.

    Then he had one massive "bad" point: he was front man and suck-up to Michael Ledeen, an arch Neocon whose death-worshipping worldview makes Machiavelli look like Princess Di. When Neocons Bolton, Woolsey, and Abrams were dismissed before they even got to the door -- Bolton twice -- I gave Trump full credit, the highest possible marks, and breathed a huge sigh of relief. The "perfect resume" traitorous Israel-firsters, who had looted and bankrupted America in wars to make the world safe for Israel, were gone. Hallelujah! Only one remained. Hidden behind Flynn however, lurked poison-pill Ledeen. So when Flynn left, taking Ledeen with him, I saw it as a victory for Trump. We may never know whether Trump came to realize the "Ledeen problem" and took the opportunity of Flynn's misstep to "fix" the problem, or whether Trump -- and the rest of us -- just got lucky. Whatever, the last of the Neocon treasonous mind-poisoners is gone, and that for me is, as Trump would say, "yuuuge".

    “The “perfect resume” traitorous Israel-firsters, who had looted and bankrupted America in wars to make the world safe for Israel, were gone. Hallelujah! Only one remained. Hidden behind Flynn however, lurked poison-pill Ledeen. So when Flynn left, taking Ledeen with him, I saw it as a victory for Trump.’
    Agree

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Do you have a basis for this opinion? Have you been to Ukraine lately?
     
    I did spend a few days in Zakarpatie last summer, but I didn't start any political conversations, so no anecdotal evidence here. My basis is opinion polls, the press, and I watch Ukrainian shows, listen what their talking heads have to say.

    Ukraine is currently “disunited” in terms of its attitudes towards Poroshenko, vs. some other pro-Western political force (Tymoshenko, Samopomich, various right-wing nationalists).
     
    Nah, as far as I can tell, there's no division in this respect at all: all current politicians are intensely hated. The common joke is: 'how do you fix all the country's problems in 2 steps? Step 1: shoot all politicians. Step 2: shoot everyone who comes to the funerals.' It's that bad.

    That’s because people generally did their military service locally
     
    Point taken. So, yes, not 80%, let's say 50%. Hell, surely even 30% of turncoats would cause the army to self-destruct...

    and a population that would seethe with anti-Russian hatred
     
    My guess is, people in the east do hold a grudge against Russia, precisely because it doesn't intervene. Putin said, back in 2014, that he won't need to invade because no Ukrainian general would ever give the order to shoot Ukrainian population ('women and children'). Well, obviously he was wrong, but RF still does nothing. Now, that is a real bad PR.

    My guess is, people in the east do hold a grudge against Russia, precisely because it doesn’t intervene

    This is precisely why Russia didn’t intervene. Events in Odessa demonstrated it in full, as much as it sounds cynical. Путин придэ–порядок наведеэ–Putin will come and will restore the order. Donbass took up arms, why didn’t Odessa or Kharkov? I am extremely well versed in the excuses for why it didn’t happen–at some point of time I stopped counting them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Kiza says:
    @RadicalCenter
    At most two percent of people here can read Russian. How about a translation?

    I cannot read Russian much but I have Internet to translate. My understanding is that this phrase is a little bit vulgar, therefore, better left in Russian. It relates to someone who is stubbornly working towards his own demise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. prusmc says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    I've often wondered whether, in the United States, it will mostly come down to whose orders National Guard commanders follow.

    The giard and active duty will follow the orders of he who pays them. The retirement ethic/sspiration is all powerful. After less than decisive encounters for 14 years in far off environments they will lust after massive and easy kills in CONUs. Remember as Blair Mountain notes it is the Negro military. Probably not too effective against the Russkies in Ukrain or against BLN and assorted hangers on domestically bit awesome against deplorables.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    A TV appeal to National Guardsmen by President Trump would be very hard to prevent and almost certainly very effective would it not?
    , @RadicalCenter
    "Our" Army apparently about 20% African. Frightening fact. Problem is, how can we encourage OUR sons to join the US Military when it's certain that their lives will be risked and squandered in wars that benefit the military contractors and their investors, sometime benefit Israel, and NEVER are necessary for our defense or even legitimate retribution or preemption.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Seua2557 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    How does it work? I mean how do those you say are in control get hundreds, indeed thousands, of journalists, editors, sub-editors, op-ed writers, guest columnists etc to lline up all that anti-Trump stuff that appears in the NY Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, Guardian etc etc?

    Wiz, check out Operation Mockingbird, the CIA’s plan to essentially “take over” every prominent news outlet in the world. Started in he early 1970s, it now controls or at least deeply influences what the media report. Reporters, editors, etc are either willing helpers or intimidated, blackmailed or coerced. This has been admitted by at least one CIA head quite openly. So, controlling the media is not that hard and they’ll all sing the the same tune.

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/10/16/cia-owns-everyone-significance-major-media/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thank you, but in return I suggest you read the Wikipedia entry for Operation Mockingbird from which it appears that, in the 1960s surveillance of some journalists was authorised targetting just two in particular. The CIAs attempts to use the media are well known as having started in the 1950s not 70s and were part of the Cold War countering of Soviet Communism's global outreach. (Plenty of respectable journals like Encounter and Quadrant received financial subsidy).

    As for PCR's typical crap it even includes that famously fraudulent no-primary-source "quote" of William Colby. And the rest of it gets absolutely nowhere near covering the tens of thousands of media people who need to be controlled or how it could be done either for particular messages or a blanket coverage of assertion and denial or even just basic mythology which, after all, changes remarkably rapidly as anyone over 60 would be very conscious of. I wonder if those who believe in this kind of media control myth actually know media people apart from the assistant advertising manager of the Hicksville Daily Watchman. You only have to have some proud journalists and/or TV producers in your family and remember your uncles who were lefty editorialists, reporters and feature writers to continue to wonder how a few hundred CIA operatives are going to keep all these cats herded.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Kiza says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Do you have a basis for this opinion? Have you been to Ukraine lately?
     
    I did spend a few days in Zakarpatie last summer, but I didn't start any political conversations, so no anecdotal evidence here. My basis is opinion polls, the press, and I watch Ukrainian shows, listen what their talking heads have to say.

    Ukraine is currently “disunited” in terms of its attitudes towards Poroshenko, vs. some other pro-Western political force (Tymoshenko, Samopomich, various right-wing nationalists).
     
    Nah, as far as I can tell, there's no division in this respect at all: all current politicians are intensely hated. The common joke is: 'how do you fix all the country's problems in 2 steps? Step 1: shoot all politicians. Step 2: shoot everyone who comes to the funerals.' It's that bad.

    That’s because people generally did their military service locally
     
    Point taken. So, yes, not 80%, let's say 50%. Hell, surely even 30% of turncoats would cause the army to self-destruct...

    and a population that would seethe with anti-Russian hatred
     
    My guess is, people in the east do hold a grudge against Russia, precisely because it doesn't intervene. Putin said, back in 2014, that he won't need to invade because no Ukrainian general would ever give the order to shoot Ukrainian population ('women and children'). Well, obviously he was wrong, but RF still does nothing. Now, that is a real bad PR.

    A point to keep in mind is that the best indicator of the bad state of Ukrainian military is the fact that it has not started a wide scale operation against Donbass yet. The US/NATO instructors embedded into the Ukrainian military know the state of what they are training very well. I am certain that US/NATO have a plan to unleash both Ukronazis and Ukrainian military on Donbass, when they are sufficiently ready but before Ukraine collapses financially. This is the Georgia scenario repeated. Unfortunately for the US/NATO instructors, training the Ukrainian military for an attack on Russia is as futile as training the five “moderate” rebbels in Syria at a cost of $500M. The Ukrainian military will never be ready for the civil war that its masters want.

    If the West wants Ukraine to attack Donbass, they will have to rely on Ukronazis and Polish mercenaires again, just as in all previous military offensives.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @prusmc
    The giard and active duty will follow the orders of he who pays them. The retirement ethic/sspiration is all powerful. After less than decisive encounters for 14 years in far off environments they will lust after massive and easy kills in CONUs. Remember as Blair Mountain notes it is the Negro military. Probably not too effective against the Russkies in Ukrain or against BLN and assorted hangers on domestically bit awesome against deplorables.

    A TV appeal to National Guardsmen by President Trump would be very hard to prevent and almost certainly very effective would it not?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Great idea.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Rurik says:

    the images are worth a thousand words

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. @Seua2557
    Wiz, check out Operation Mockingbird, the CIA's plan to essentially "take over" every prominent news outlet in the world. Started in he early 1970s, it now controls or at least deeply influences what the media report. Reporters, editors, etc are either willing helpers or intimidated, blackmailed or coerced. This has been admitted by at least one CIA head quite openly. So, controlling the media is not that hard and they'll all sing the the same tune.
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/10/16/cia-owns-everyone-significance-major-media/

    Thank you, but in return I suggest you read the Wikipedia entry for Operation Mockingbird from which it appears that, in the 1960s surveillance of some journalists was authorised targetting just two in particular. The CIAs attempts to use the media are well known as having started in the 1950s not 70s and were part of the Cold War countering of Soviet Communism’s global outreach. (Plenty of respectable journals like Encounter and Quadrant received financial subsidy).

    As for PCR’s typical crap it even includes that famously fraudulent no-primary-source “quote” of William Colby. And the rest of it gets absolutely nowhere near covering the tens of thousands of media people who need to be controlled or how it could be done either for particular messages or a blanket coverage of assertion and denial or even just basic mythology which, after all, changes remarkably rapidly as anyone over 60 would be very conscious of. I wonder if those who believe in this kind of media control myth actually know media people apart from the assistant advertising manager of the Hicksville Daily Watchman. You only have to have some proud journalists and/or TV producers in your family and remember your uncles who were lefty editorialists, reporters and feature writers to continue to wonder how a few hundred CIA operatives are going to keep all these cats herded.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands

    You only have to have some proud journalists and/or TV producers in your family and remember your uncles who were lefty editorialists, reporters and feature writers to continue to wonder how a few hundred CIA operatives are going to keep all these cats herded.
     
    Gee, I wonder how a "few hundred" CIA operatives assassinate heads of State and install puppet govs all over the world?
    , @bluedog
    Hmm you don't have to control thousands of people in the media but just the few that sit on top, and the thousands on the bottom will follow their dictates if they wish to collect their weekly paycheck,I once read where the C.I.A. have people embedded in every news organizations in fact they once bragged that they could get any news item pulled and insert their own version of what they wanted the people to read and hear,in fact the one reporter who worked for the Hearst publications stated that any article he wrote about Korea during the Korean war always made its way to the wastebasket of the editor,as he said it was a waste of his time sending them but he was still paid...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @jacques sheete

    The evil of those who control us, is only matched by the mind-numbing naivete which so many Americans, right and left perceive this governemnt, Obama and Trump included.

    There is NO war on Trump, its just a show, like the war on Obama from the birthers, it was just a distraction.
     
    Well said.

    Not only mind numbing naivete, but also willful, insufferable, and ineffable ignorance and arrogance.

    None of the career fag -worshipers in .gov was capable of smashing the Svengalis in the MSM…

    It’s worth the price of admission to see these traitorous scum EXPOSED on a daily basis, by a private citizen who earned his wages in the rough-and- tumble NY construction industry.

    I can understand some healthy skepticism, but it seems that your ego has put you out on a limb- and you are resorting to cynicism- in the hope that he does fail.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    Exposed is a bit premature. Trump has his own battles with facts, and hence, he is an entirely unsuitable character to play that role. By design, me thinks. Nor is he attacking the media at the core of their lies, instead focusing on their unfair coverage of "him", making it more about his ego than about the fake news that has justified war after war and manipulated Americans to abandon history and tradition in favor of Communist nihilism.

    As to Trump "earning" his money, he made his money by (i) inheritance, (ii) investments of the Communist banking cartel, (iii) support from the Communist mass media, and (iv) shady (if not blatantly unlawful) business practices.

    No doubt he is far better than Hillary, but now he is speaking bout increasing military spending, saber-rattling with Iran, kissing NutAndYahoo's butt, and all of the other things that a typical Communist Globalist stooge would do. Aside from a few egotistical (rather than principled) attacks on the media and an ill-conceived, wrong-headed and designedt-t0-fail executive order on immigration, he has done nothing (which makes the Communist media's hysterical shrieking ever the more ridiculous).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Wizard of Oz
    Thank you, but in return I suggest you read the Wikipedia entry for Operation Mockingbird from which it appears that, in the 1960s surveillance of some journalists was authorised targetting just two in particular. The CIAs attempts to use the media are well known as having started in the 1950s not 70s and were part of the Cold War countering of Soviet Communism's global outreach. (Plenty of respectable journals like Encounter and Quadrant received financial subsidy).

    As for PCR's typical crap it even includes that famously fraudulent no-primary-source "quote" of William Colby. And the rest of it gets absolutely nowhere near covering the tens of thousands of media people who need to be controlled or how it could be done either for particular messages or a blanket coverage of assertion and denial or even just basic mythology which, after all, changes remarkably rapidly as anyone over 60 would be very conscious of. I wonder if those who believe in this kind of media control myth actually know media people apart from the assistant advertising manager of the Hicksville Daily Watchman. You only have to have some proud journalists and/or TV producers in your family and remember your uncles who were lefty editorialists, reporters and feature writers to continue to wonder how a few hundred CIA operatives are going to keep all these cats herded.

    You only have to have some proud journalists and/or TV producers in your family and remember your uncles who were lefty editorialists, reporters and feature writers to continue to wonder how a few hundred CIA operatives are going to keep all these cats herded.

    Gee, I wonder how a “few hundred” CIA operatives assassinate heads of State and install puppet govs all over the world?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Excal says:

    Let me put it this way: if the states revolt against the federal government does the latter have the means to impose its authority?

    Yes: the most well-known means being highway money — specifically, the federal share of the money used for the upkeep of the federal interstate highway system. When states get out of line, the threat of pulling interstate highway funds always pulls them back in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Unless the majority in those States stops paying federal income, FICA, and Medicare taxes. At the least, it's legal to stop withholding, and ten million or more people stopping withholding would be noticed by the Feds.

    A sufficiently large number of people flouting federal taxes, and the system would be utterly unable to arrest, house, prosecute them all, or even a quarter of them.

    To uphold the US Constitution and restore our liberties, we will likely need State national guard and police to actively resist and impede federal thugs in their enforcement of unconstitutional "laws" (which is most of the US Code). A terrible prospect, but that's where we are.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Without necessarily accepting your premises I note that once a person is assassinated they stay dead and once you install what starts as a puppet government you have a whole lot of people whose interest it is to remain in government. Once you get a favourable story out of a journalist you have someone who has got something on you as much as you have something on him and you are anyway dealing with someone in an industry which notoriously values the scoop and a scoop which isn’t just more of the same at that.

    Also, pulling a trigger or delivering a fatal blow is a lot less intellectually demanding than manipulating fairly high IQ people over a long period…

    So maybe you know more hit men than writers and journalists?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Wiz, your presumption that media value scoop is old, worn out and trite, that is totally wrong. The concept of media valuing "a scoop" originates from pre-internet times, even from the time of the domination of the press (pre-electronic times). This was the time when you could publish some discovery in the morning edition and your competitors had to wait till the afternoon at best or even the next morning to publish the same news. The importance of "a scoop" reduced in TV age, although scoop still existed, because it still took a couple of hours to match it. In the age of the Internet, the lifetime of "a scoop" is less than an hour, often just minutes. Besides, in the mean time, most broadcast media (from single point to the broad audience, which is press, TV, radio) have been placed in the political harness - they broadcast only what the owners and the regime want them to. A great example is NYT sitting on an explosive scoop for a whole year, simply because the Bush Administration asked them to.

    Therefore, please shake off that irrelevant concept of media dying for a scoop. The new frontier are the distributed, politically incorrect bloggers and Alt-News sites, which the regime is trying to find a way to control, whilst the traditional media are in a death spiral of less and less truth/scoop and more and more propaganda.

    These days, I get most of my information from "people in the know" online, with a lot of cross-checking and everything filtered through my critical mind. I consume MSM only to know what the regime wants me to know and think. This information gathering strategy works like magic.

    , @Stonehands
    The permanent gov and the MSM are one and the same...the cowards in the lugenpresse all take their marching orders from the editor, who in turn answer to the corporate master.
    If it wasn't for the internet, we would be completely consumed by the scum corporate propagandists.

    in your family and remember your uncles who were lefty editorialists, reporters and feature writers

     

    Oh yes, those paragons of virtue- your leftard uncles.

    The pressure the CIA imposes on the media amounts to political warfare.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. CalDre says:
    @anon
    The existence of Neocon Mike Pence as vice president is a particular problem for Trump and might eventually directly lead to his downfall. Why did Trump make this absolutely idiotic decision on a running mate?

    The question that hasn't yet been asked is who exactly recommended Pence for this position. Was Pence's appointment the price that the allegedly "self funded" Trump had to pay to get actual hard campaign funding from Sheldon Adelson? Was Pence's appointment that price that the Trumpster had to pay to get the support of the Republican leadership. Was Pence recommended by T's nefarious, rabidly pro Israel son in law.

    We have yet to find out why and by whom Pence was chosen. It might be time to find out since Pence seems to be operating increasingly on his own without any attempts by trump to rein him in.

    Pence leaves impeachment and assassination as viable solutions to the neo-con (Communist Globalist) cabal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. NS says:

    Saker U suck.

    U may be right about the Neocons and all that, but your constant passive aggressive attacks on National Socialists by calling the Ukraine Nazi occupied territory is foul play. Go and die!

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    National Socialists did a lot of terrible things (the Holohoax not being one of them), particularly to Russians. That does not mean they were all bad, but when you are on the receiving end of 20 million dead in a war, they don't look so good. That said, the "UkroNazis" are not Nazis at all. Saker, while having some insights into things, is an utter simpleton when it comes to understanding National Socialism or the "UkroNazis".

    The only real mystery is why a lot of Russians still respect/idolize the Bolsheviks and Stalinists, who among them, not only killed vastly more Russians than the Nazis (and for far more nefarious purposes), but whose brutality, aggressiveness (including the Soviet plan to invade and enslave all of Europe) and utter disregard for humanity and human rights is the reason Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in the first place. Had Russia still been ruled by the Tsars, such an invasion would have been unimaginable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. CalDre says:
    @Stonehands
    None of the career fag -worshipers in .gov was capable of smashing the Svengalis in the MSM...

    It's worth the price of admission to see these traitorous scum EXPOSED on a daily basis, by a private citizen who earned his wages in the rough-and- tumble NY construction industry.

    I can understand some healthy skepticism, but it seems that your ego has put you out on a limb- and you are resorting to cynicism- in the hope that he does fail.

    Exposed is a bit premature. Trump has his own battles with facts, and hence, he is an entirely unsuitable character to play that role. By design, me thinks. Nor is he attacking the media at the core of their lies, instead focusing on their unfair coverage of “him”, making it more about his ego than about the fake news that has justified war after war and manipulated Americans to abandon history and tradition in favor of Communist nihilism.

    As to Trump “earning” his money, he made his money by (i) inheritance, (ii) investments of the Communist banking cartel, (iii) support from the Communist mass media, and (iv) shady (if not blatantly unlawful) business practices.

    No doubt he is far better than Hillary, but now he is speaking bout increasing military spending, saber-rattling with Iran, kissing NutAndYahoo’s butt, and all of the other things that a typical Communist Globalist stooge would do. Aside from a few egotistical (rather than principled) attacks on the media and an ill-conceived, wrong-headed and designedt-t0-fail executive order on immigration, he has done nothing (which makes the Communist media’s hysterical shrieking ever the more ridiculous).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    Cal, both parties are anti- white until Trump came along.

    Give it time, solidify this Supreme Court nomination.
    The 9th Circus Court loses 79 per cent upon appeal.

    TPP is dead, and NAFTA is up for renegotiation.

    Revisiting the Iran deal was a campaign pledge, saber rattling is hopefully just part of the process.

    Trump inherited money and grew it into a fortune. To suggest otherwise, that this is somehow un-fair, is in fact communism- or just plain ol' green envy...

    v) shady (if not blatantly unlawful) business practices.

     

    The business of America is business. You must have the mechanism in place to say NO, often. That's why most people are employees and not Employers, like DT.
    I hope he treats these miserable GS 7's and above who think they are the "Deep State"- the "permanent gov"- I hope Trump gives them all the air traffic controller treatment... YOU'RE FIRED!!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. CalDre says:
    @NS
    Saker U suck.

    U may be right about the Neocons and all that, but your constant passive aggressive attacks on National Socialists by calling the Ukraine Nazi occupied territory is foul play. Go and die!

    National Socialists did a lot of terrible things (the Holohoax not being one of them), particularly to Russians. That does not mean they were all bad, but when you are on the receiving end of 20 million dead in a war, they don’t look so good. That said, the “UkroNazis” are not Nazis at all. Saker, while having some insights into things, is an utter simpleton when it comes to understanding National Socialism or the “UkroNazis”.

    The only real mystery is why a lot of Russians still respect/idolize the Bolsheviks and Stalinists, who among them, not only killed vastly more Russians than the Nazis (and for far more nefarious purposes), but whose brutality, aggressiveness (including the Soviet plan to invade and enslave all of Europe) and utter disregard for humanity and human rights is the reason Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in the first place. Had Russia still been ruled by the Tsars, such an invasion would have been unimaginable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Wally says:
    @Max Havelaar
    Ralph Nader or Jesse Ventura :D

    Even better Robert Steele, very bright and informed:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeeD_CbmtpI

    And where exactly did they campaign?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Max Havelaar
    Trump could have asked Jesse Ventura, who offered himself as VP. Way better than pedophile Pence (source Robert Steel-ex-CIA).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. dykalg says:
    @Kiza
    An untidy article, not as good as the previous ones, but still ok. Some elementary mistakes:

    If the Yemeni President in exile Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi could ask the Saudis to intervene in Yemen, why would that no be an option for Poroshenko to ask for such an intervention in the Ukraine?
     
    Saker obviously means Yanukovich, not Poroshenko.

    Also, this conclusion about the free-will of the Ukronazis is shallow:

    I think that it all depends on what the Ukronazis crazies do. If they really attack Novorussia I expect the Kremlin to recognize the DNR and LRN.
     
    The Ukronazis may be crazy but they still know very well who is buttering their bread. Without getting a US go-ahead there will be no major attack on Donbass.

    As to what is going on in USA, it is blatantly clear that the only thing standing between Trump and his Deep State attackers is the Second Amendment. In other words, the US police and military would probably shoot protesters if they could not shoot back.

    Finally, the greatest danger of the internal fight in USA is that it spills over internationally and somebody presses the launch button. The same concern existed when SU/Russia was going through a similar turmoil.

    You are right kiza. Google “the kent state massacre 1970″ to see how the national guard forces shot and killed students at Kent State.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    The "Kent State massacre" was a result of a majority of outsiders and some students rioting (for what? the reasons are unclear).
    The local businesses had had enough of the rioters and demanded action. Hence the National Guard was activated.
    Of course, the actions of the rioters and so-called "students" were underplayed. The rioting had been going on for a week. Of course the "lugenpresse" of the day would not see fit to state that fact.
    , @Kiza
    I do not need to Google it, I was a teenager at the time and I remember it. What Saker fails to appreciate is that the Western regimes use psychology to get their human drones with guns to pull the trigger on protesters and then even to deal with PTSD afterwards.

    When I read his KGB not shooting protesters story, I imagined the DC Swamp manager exclaiming: "Wortless pussies! This is why they almost lost their country to us."

    As I wrote above, only the Second Amendment stands between the armed drones of the swamp and the protesters' blood.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Varenik says:
    @RadicalCenter
    At most two percent of people here can read Russian. How about a translation?


    It roughly translates into ‘to crap one’s own pants to spite the enemy’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. bluedog says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Thank you, but in return I suggest you read the Wikipedia entry for Operation Mockingbird from which it appears that, in the 1960s surveillance of some journalists was authorised targetting just two in particular. The CIAs attempts to use the media are well known as having started in the 1950s not 70s and were part of the Cold War countering of Soviet Communism's global outreach. (Plenty of respectable journals like Encounter and Quadrant received financial subsidy).

    As for PCR's typical crap it even includes that famously fraudulent no-primary-source "quote" of William Colby. And the rest of it gets absolutely nowhere near covering the tens of thousands of media people who need to be controlled or how it could be done either for particular messages or a blanket coverage of assertion and denial or even just basic mythology which, after all, changes remarkably rapidly as anyone over 60 would be very conscious of. I wonder if those who believe in this kind of media control myth actually know media people apart from the assistant advertising manager of the Hicksville Daily Watchman. You only have to have some proud journalists and/or TV producers in your family and remember your uncles who were lefty editorialists, reporters and feature writers to continue to wonder how a few hundred CIA operatives are going to keep all these cats herded.

    Hmm you don’t have to control thousands of people in the media but just the few that sit on top, and the thousands on the bottom will follow their dictates if they wish to collect their weekly paycheck,I once read where the C.I.A. have people embedded in every news organizations in fact they once bragged that they could get any news item pulled and insert their own version of what they wanted the people to read and hear,in fact the one reporter who worked for the Hearst publications stated that any article he wrote about Korea during the Korean war always made its way to the wastebasket of the editor,as he said it was a waste of his time sending them but he was still paid…

    Read More
    • Replies: @observer4
    Yes, if you had worked in a news room you would be aware that as journalists are being fired all around you, you write what the assignment editor tells you to write, and spin it the way the want it spinned, and then you have to let them re-write your copy to suit them and their agenda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. anarchyst says:
    @dykalg
    You are right kiza. Google "the kent state massacre 1970" to see how the national guard forces shot and killed students at Kent State.

    The “Kent State massacre” was a result of a majority of outsiders and some students rioting (for what? the reasons are unclear).
    The local businesses had had enough of the rioters and demanded action. Hence the National Guard was activated.
    Of course, the actions of the rioters and so-called “students” were underplayed. The rioting had been going on for a week. Of course the “lugenpresse” of the day would not see fit to state that fact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    No business had very little to do with it but ole trick dick was pulling his hair out over the demonstrations and those orders at Kent came right from him, for no N.G. troops are ever ordered to a public demonstration with loaded weapons...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. observer4 says:
    @AP

    "The time for a Russian intervention was in April 2014, or August latest."

    The last days of February, immediately after the putsch, would’ve been the best time, I’d say.
     

    Anytime in early 2014 would have been the time, if it were to happen. Ukraine had basically no functional military, local police forces etc. weren't yet vetted for loyalty, pro-Russian activists had free reign and there was no stopping local rebellion or foreign volunteers from having a huge impact , if the locals wanted it.

    "Nowadays Ukraine is far more united, militarily stronger, and the legal basis for intervention is far weaker."

    That’s what they would have you believe, but it doesn’t seem obvious to me at all. I have the impression that the population of Kiev-controlled territories is more disunited than ever.
     

    Do you have a basis for this opinion? Have you been to Ukraine lately?

    Ukraine is currently "disunited" in terms of its attitudes towards Poroshenko, vs. some other pro-Western political force (Tymoshenko, Samopomich, various right-wing nationalists). It is not so disunited in terms attitudes towards Russia. On the contrary, the most pro-Russian areas are gone, and most hardcore local pro-Russian activists have mostly left Ukraine, replaced by the pro-Ukrainian minority from Donbas or Crimea. Pro-Russian parties in Ukraine have about 25% support, skewed towards pensioners (who would not be of much help in an invasion/resistance situation). The experience of fighting people armed by Russia has hardened attitudes quite a bit, Kiev is now a lot like Galicia had once been, and places like Dnipropetrovsk have drifted towards how Kiev had been. Ironically the policies of the Russian government have done a lot for Ukrainian "nation-building."


    As for the military, about 80% of the Ukrainian military stationed in Crimea switched sides in 2014: http://investigator.org.ua/news/150490/
    And I suspect this might be a good estimate of what would happen to the Kiev’s military (aside from the ‘national guard’ battalions), should RF invad
     
    That's because people generally did their military service locally - so ethnic Russian troops of the Ukrainian military (the majority of whom, like the majority of Crimea's population, supported Russian annexation) from Crimea chose to switch sides and stay in Crimea rather than get themselves exiled from their Crimean homeland. Obviously it would be a very different story for the current Ukrainian military.

    That being said, although the Ukrainian military is much improved from 2014 I'm not sure that it could do much against a full-on Russian invasion. Russia has the capability of taking out Ukraine's anti-aircraft systems with missiles launched from places Ukraine can't reach, establishing control of Ukraine's skies, and then taking apart Ukraine's military using airpower. I suppose Ukraine could launch something into Crimea and along the eastern border in the first few days but overall destroying even the greatly improved Ukrainian military might not be so difficult for a country of Russia's capabilities.

    However, there would probably be an enormous cost to Russia in terms of urban warfare, partisan warfare, and occupation. Not every threat can be eliminated by missiles and planes, and through the various waves of mobilization there are now 100,000s of men with some military experience in Ukraine, and a population that would seethe with anti-Russian hatred, certainly in Kiev but even among non-insignificant segments in places like Dnipropetrovsk, Odessa or Kharkiv (a lot of the Azov battalion neo-Nazis are from Kharkiv).

    Russia has no desire or intention of invading Ukraine and taking over Kiev, etc.
    No one really wants to own and be responsible for supporting and fixing a huge failed state like Ukraine.
    Russia also knows it can’t occupy a huge hostile nation where the locals are indistinguishable from Russians..
    Russia is no threat to Ukraine, and is doing everything it can to not go to war with its neighbor, despite endless provocations from Ukraine at the behest of US/NATO.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Kiza says:
    @dykalg
    You are right kiza. Google "the kent state massacre 1970" to see how the national guard forces shot and killed students at Kent State.

    I do not need to Google it, I was a teenager at the time and I remember it. What Saker fails to appreciate is that the Western regimes use psychology to get their human drones with guns to pull the trigger on protesters and then even to deal with PTSD afterwards.

    When I read his KGB not shooting protesters story, I imagined the DC Swamp manager exclaiming: “Wortless pussies! This is why they almost lost their country to us.”

    As I wrote above, only the Second Amendment stands between the armed drones of the swamp and the protesters’ blood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. wootendw says:

    “…why would that no be an option for Poroshenko to ask for such an intervention in the Ukraine?”

    Typo? I believe the author meant “…why would that not be an option for Yanukovich to ask for such an intervention in the Ukraine? (emphasis added).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. Kiza says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Without necessarily accepting your premises I note that once a person is assassinated they stay dead and once you install what starts as a puppet government you have a whole lot of people whose interest it is to remain in government. Once you get a favourable story out of a journalist you have someone who has got something on you as much as you have something on him and you are anyway dealing with someone in an industry which notoriously values the scoop and a scoop which isn't just more of the same at that.

    Also, pulling a trigger or delivering a fatal blow is a lot less intellectually demanding than manipulating fairly high IQ people over a long period...

    So maybe you know more hit men than writers and journalists?

    Wiz, your presumption that media value scoop is old, worn out and trite, that is totally wrong. The concept of media valuing “a scoop” originates from pre-internet times, even from the time of the domination of the press (pre-electronic times). This was the time when you could publish some discovery in the morning edition and your competitors had to wait till the afternoon at best or even the next morning to publish the same news. The importance of “a scoop” reduced in TV age, although scoop still existed, because it still took a couple of hours to match it. In the age of the Internet, the lifetime of “a scoop” is less than an hour, often just minutes. Besides, in the mean time, most broadcast media (from single point to the broad audience, which is press, TV, radio) have been placed in the political harness – they broadcast only what the owners and the regime want them to. A great example is NYT sitting on an explosive scoop for a whole year, simply because the Bush Administration asked them to.

    Therefore, please shake off that irrelevant concept of media dying for a scoop. The new frontier are the distributed, politically incorrect bloggers and Alt-News sites, which the regime is trying to find a way to control, whilst the traditional media are in a death spiral of less and less truth/scoop and more and more propaganda.

    These days, I get most of my information from “people in the know” online, with a lot of cross-checking and everything filtered through my critical mind. I consume MSM only to know what the regime wants me to know and think. This information gathering strategy works like magic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I'll give this more thought but I note that you wrote of the "media" not being interested in scoops which is not a comment on the face of it about journalists as individuals. I have known enough individuals working in the Anglophone media to make some empirical judgments about their behavioural probabilities. I sense that your judgment is more based on theorising and reading. Of course I do detect biases from contemporary fashions like PC which often obscures media people's clear thinking and clear view.

    Anyway most media people want to find whatever ways there are to stand out.

    An example of nonempirical theorising, or at least some evidence of it, is a reference by another commenter to "their weekly paychecks". I wonder if as many as 1 per cent of US journalists get their salaries weekly!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. observer4 says:
    @bluedog
    Hmm you don't have to control thousands of people in the media but just the few that sit on top, and the thousands on the bottom will follow their dictates if they wish to collect their weekly paycheck,I once read where the C.I.A. have people embedded in every news organizations in fact they once bragged that they could get any news item pulled and insert their own version of what they wanted the people to read and hear,in fact the one reporter who worked for the Hearst publications stated that any article he wrote about Korea during the Korean war always made its way to the wastebasket of the editor,as he said it was a waste of his time sending them but he was still paid...

    Yes, if you had worked in a news room you would be aware that as journalists are being fired all around you, you write what the assignment editor tells you to write, and spin it the way the want it spinned, and then you have to let them re-write your copy to suit them and their agenda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @prusmc
    The giard and active duty will follow the orders of he who pays them. The retirement ethic/sspiration is all powerful. After less than decisive encounters for 14 years in far off environments they will lust after massive and easy kills in CONUs. Remember as Blair Mountain notes it is the Negro military. Probably not too effective against the Russkies in Ukrain or against BLN and assorted hangers on domestically bit awesome against deplorables.

    “Our” Army apparently about 20% African. Frightening fact. Problem is, how can we encourage OUR sons to join the US Military when it’s certain that their lives will be risked and squandered in wars that benefit the military contractors and their investors, sometime benefit Israel, and NEVER are necessary for our defense or even legitimate retribution or preemption.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Wizard of Oz
    A TV appeal to National Guardsmen by President Trump would be very hard to prevent and almost certainly very effective would it not?

    Great idea.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Excal

    Let me put it this way: if the states revolt against the federal government does the latter have the means to impose its authority?
     
    Yes: the most well-known means being highway money -- specifically, the federal share of the money used for the upkeep of the federal interstate highway system. When states get out of line, the threat of pulling interstate highway funds always pulls them back in.

    Unless the majority in those States stops paying federal income, FICA, and Medicare taxes. At the least, it’s legal to stop withholding, and ten million or more people stopping withholding would be noticed by the Feds.

    A sufficiently large number of people flouting federal taxes, and the system would be utterly unable to arrest, house, prosecute them all, or even a quarter of them.

    To uphold the US Constitution and restore our liberties, we will likely need State national guard and police to actively resist and impede federal thugs in their enforcement of unconstitutional “laws” (which is most of the US Code). A terrible prospect, but that’s where we are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Wally
    And where exactly did they campaign?

    Trump could have asked Jesse Ventura, who offered himself as VP. Way better than pedophile Pence (source Robert Steel-ex-CIA).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Wizard of Oz
    Without necessarily accepting your premises I note that once a person is assassinated they stay dead and once you install what starts as a puppet government you have a whole lot of people whose interest it is to remain in government. Once you get a favourable story out of a journalist you have someone who has got something on you as much as you have something on him and you are anyway dealing with someone in an industry which notoriously values the scoop and a scoop which isn't just more of the same at that.

    Also, pulling a trigger or delivering a fatal blow is a lot less intellectually demanding than manipulating fairly high IQ people over a long period...

    So maybe you know more hit men than writers and journalists?

    The permanent gov and the MSM are one and the same…the cowards in the lugenpresse all take their marching orders from the editor, who in turn answer to the corporate master.
    If it wasn’t for the internet, we would be completely consumed by the scum corporate propagandists.

    in your family and remember your uncles who were lefty editorialists, reporters and feature writers

    Oh yes, those paragons of virtue- your leftard uncles.

    The pressure the CIA imposes on the media amounts to political warfare.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @CalDre
    Exposed is a bit premature. Trump has his own battles with facts, and hence, he is an entirely unsuitable character to play that role. By design, me thinks. Nor is he attacking the media at the core of their lies, instead focusing on their unfair coverage of "him", making it more about his ego than about the fake news that has justified war after war and manipulated Americans to abandon history and tradition in favor of Communist nihilism.

    As to Trump "earning" his money, he made his money by (i) inheritance, (ii) investments of the Communist banking cartel, (iii) support from the Communist mass media, and (iv) shady (if not blatantly unlawful) business practices.

    No doubt he is far better than Hillary, but now he is speaking bout increasing military spending, saber-rattling with Iran, kissing NutAndYahoo's butt, and all of the other things that a typical Communist Globalist stooge would do. Aside from a few egotistical (rather than principled) attacks on the media and an ill-conceived, wrong-headed and designedt-t0-fail executive order on immigration, he has done nothing (which makes the Communist media's hysterical shrieking ever the more ridiculous).

    Cal, both parties are anti- white until Trump came along.

    Give it time, solidify this Supreme Court nomination.
    The 9th Circus Court loses 79 per cent upon appeal.

    TPP is dead, and NAFTA is up for renegotiation.

    Revisiting the Iran deal was a campaign pledge, saber rattling is hopefully just part of the process.

    Trump inherited money and grew it into a fortune. To suggest otherwise, that this is somehow un-fair, is in fact communism- or just plain ol’ green envy…

    v) shady (if not blatantly unlawful) business practices.

    The business of America is business. You must have the mechanism in place to say NO, often. That’s why most people are employees and not Employers, like DT.
    I hope he treats these miserable GS 7′s and above who think they are the “Deep State”- the “permanent gov”- I hope Trump gives them all the air traffic controller treatment… YOU’RE FIRED!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    "To suggest otherwise, that this is somehow un-fair, is in fact communism- or just plain ol’ green envy". The fact that Trump was completely supported by the Globalist banks is utterly obvious if you dig down into the financing he used to make his real estate bets; that the Globalist mass media gave him a lot of free attention - including in the Republican primaries, where they gave more true conservatives like Rand Paul zero attention - is another reason he is where he is. And lots of luck and inheritance went along with it.

    And no, I am not "green with envy", I would never amass as much wealth as he has as I believe it is fundamentally corrupt and evil. I don't need his bought plastic wives or his gold gilded toilets or his narcissism, no thanks, no envy here at all. Simply making the point that the Establishment made him what he is, he is NOT an outsider and to me his adventure appears extremely likely to be just more political theater of the kind we've seen over the last century ever since Woodrow Wilson sold this country out to the Globalists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. bluedog says:
    @anarchyst
    The "Kent State massacre" was a result of a majority of outsiders and some students rioting (for what? the reasons are unclear).
    The local businesses had had enough of the rioters and demanded action. Hence the National Guard was activated.
    Of course, the actions of the rioters and so-called "students" were underplayed. The rioting had been going on for a week. Of course the "lugenpresse" of the day would not see fit to state that fact.

    No business had very little to do with it but ole trick dick was pulling his hair out over the demonstrations and those orders at Kent came right from him, for no N.G. troops are ever ordered to a public demonstration with loaded weapons…

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    They couldn't be "troops" without loaded guns. Ridiculous.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Kiza
    Wiz, your presumption that media value scoop is old, worn out and trite, that is totally wrong. The concept of media valuing "a scoop" originates from pre-internet times, even from the time of the domination of the press (pre-electronic times). This was the time when you could publish some discovery in the morning edition and your competitors had to wait till the afternoon at best or even the next morning to publish the same news. The importance of "a scoop" reduced in TV age, although scoop still existed, because it still took a couple of hours to match it. In the age of the Internet, the lifetime of "a scoop" is less than an hour, often just minutes. Besides, in the mean time, most broadcast media (from single point to the broad audience, which is press, TV, radio) have been placed in the political harness - they broadcast only what the owners and the regime want them to. A great example is NYT sitting on an explosive scoop for a whole year, simply because the Bush Administration asked them to.

    Therefore, please shake off that irrelevant concept of media dying for a scoop. The new frontier are the distributed, politically incorrect bloggers and Alt-News sites, which the regime is trying to find a way to control, whilst the traditional media are in a death spiral of less and less truth/scoop and more and more propaganda.

    These days, I get most of my information from "people in the know" online, with a lot of cross-checking and everything filtered through my critical mind. I consume MSM only to know what the regime wants me to know and think. This information gathering strategy works like magic.

    I’ll give this more thought but I note that you wrote of the “media” not being interested in scoops which is not a comment on the face of it about journalists as individuals. I have known enough individuals working in the Anglophone media to make some empirical judgments about their behavioural probabilities. I sense that your judgment is more based on theorising and reading. Of course I do detect biases from contemporary fashions like PC which often obscures media people’s clear thinking and clear view.

    Anyway most media people want to find whatever ways there are to stand out.

    An example of nonempirical theorising, or at least some evidence of it, is a reference by another commenter to “their weekly paychecks”. I wonder if as many as 1 per cent of US journalists get their salaries weekly!

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Hmm I wonder what difference it could make if they get their pay checks weekly bi-weekly monthly or yearly,I have read of no reporter bringing out any big scoops in a long long time for most of it is simply rehashed garbage from the week before and it starts and ends with Russia did it,any honest reporting died somewhere in Vietnam along with most of the morals of America as the one said somewhere in the jungles of Vietnam America lost it soul and no truer words were ever uttered...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Kiza says:

    You would utilise your time better by finding out about that example when NYT set on a “scoop” for a whole year at the request of the Bush administration, which is likely to be only the tip of the media control iceberg. This does not dispute your notion that individual journalists may want scoops, which their editors will not pass through to publication.

    In other words, the big, corporate media still like a “scoop” even in the age of Internet, but only if approved by the owners and the authorities in power. Which, a kind of, cuts out 100% of the usual scoops on corruption, misuse and graft. The big media have become a get-out-of-jail-free ticket for their owners and the government power structure behind.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. bluedog says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I'll give this more thought but I note that you wrote of the "media" not being interested in scoops which is not a comment on the face of it about journalists as individuals. I have known enough individuals working in the Anglophone media to make some empirical judgments about their behavioural probabilities. I sense that your judgment is more based on theorising and reading. Of course I do detect biases from contemporary fashions like PC which often obscures media people's clear thinking and clear view.

    Anyway most media people want to find whatever ways there are to stand out.

    An example of nonempirical theorising, or at least some evidence of it, is a reference by another commenter to "their weekly paychecks". I wonder if as many as 1 per cent of US journalists get their salaries weekly!

    Hmm I wonder what difference it could make if they get their pay checks weekly bi-weekly monthly or yearly,I have read of no reporter bringing out any big scoops in a long long time for most of it is simply rehashed garbage from the week before and it starts and ends with Russia did it,any honest reporting died somewhere in Vietnam along with most of the morals of America as the one said somewhere in the jungles of Vietnam America lost it soul and no truer words were ever uttered…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    One of my markers of changing times in my lifetime is the comparison of casualty figures in Vietnam and Iraq. The tolerance level seems to have been cut by about 90 per cent despite there being no draft for Bush's ME wars.

    (From an earlier time I like to quote 2 million Germans and 5 million Russians born in 1913. Why would Hitler and Stalin be still lamenting the millions killed in WW1 when they had all the manpower they needed for the re-run by 1933?)

    , @Wizard of Oz
    I remember a very distinguished lawyer on the board of a major media enterprise opining about 35 years ago that the newspapers had long since been corrupted by giving so many of their staff bylines (and later of course treating them all as op-ed pundits he might have added). He preferred "From our Washington/Westminster/Canberra correspondent" to suppress ego and showing off.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. CalDre says:
    @Stonehands
    Cal, both parties are anti- white until Trump came along.

    Give it time, solidify this Supreme Court nomination.
    The 9th Circus Court loses 79 per cent upon appeal.

    TPP is dead, and NAFTA is up for renegotiation.

    Revisiting the Iran deal was a campaign pledge, saber rattling is hopefully just part of the process.

    Trump inherited money and grew it into a fortune. To suggest otherwise, that this is somehow un-fair, is in fact communism- or just plain ol' green envy...

    v) shady (if not blatantly unlawful) business practices.

     

    The business of America is business. You must have the mechanism in place to say NO, often. That's why most people are employees and not Employers, like DT.
    I hope he treats these miserable GS 7's and above who think they are the "Deep State"- the "permanent gov"- I hope Trump gives them all the air traffic controller treatment... YOU'RE FIRED!!!

    To suggest otherwise, that this is somehow un-fair, is in fact communism- or just plain ol’ green envy“. The fact that Trump was completely supported by the Globalist banks is utterly obvious if you dig down into the financing he used to make his real estate bets; that the Globalist mass media gave him a lot of free attention – including in the Republican primaries, where they gave more true conservatives like Rand Paul zero attention – is another reason he is where he is. And lots of luck and inheritance went along with it.

    And no, I am not “green with envy”, I would never amass as much wealth as he has as I believe it is fundamentally corrupt and evil. I don’t need his bought plastic wives or his gold gilded toilets or his narcissism, no thanks, no envy here at all. Simply making the point that the Establishment made him what he is, he is NOT an outsider and to me his adventure appears extremely likely to be just more political theater of the kind we’ve seen over the last century ever since Woodrow Wilson sold this country out to the Globalists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    Rand Paul left a foot print on his fallen father's chest, in his haste to endorse the establishment candidate Willard "slippery as an eel" Romney. This was the beginning of the alt- rt., and the reason Romney was defeated- and Trump eventually elected.

    I don't buy your vast conspiracy of banks and media surreptitiously ushering in the Trumpen Reich....

    The Trump election is the greatest FUCK YOU ever recorded in human history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @bluedog
    Hmm I wonder what difference it could make if they get their pay checks weekly bi-weekly monthly or yearly,I have read of no reporter bringing out any big scoops in a long long time for most of it is simply rehashed garbage from the week before and it starts and ends with Russia did it,any honest reporting died somewhere in Vietnam along with most of the morals of America as the one said somewhere in the jungles of Vietnam America lost it soul and no truer words were ever uttered...

    One of my markers of changing times in my lifetime is the comparison of casualty figures in Vietnam and Iraq. The tolerance level seems to have been cut by about 90 per cent despite there being no draft for Bush’s ME wars.

    (From an earlier time I like to quote 2 million Germans and 5 million Russians born in 1913. Why would Hitler and Stalin be still lamenting the millions killed in WW1 when they had all the manpower they needed for the re-run by 1933?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Well of course there are no comparison of figures between Nam and Iraq for many reasons, and of course the press and media did a very good job of keeping the killed and maimed off the front pages, as the media did to keep all those dead bodies coming back and you never saw a little girl in Iraq running down the road with her clothes on fire from a napalm bomb nor the effect of WP.
    As far as Germany and Russia well they are just like us we didn't learn from WW11 and run into a buzz saw in Korea, from Korea it was Vietnam and onto the Mid-East perhaps its those bordering on insanity that we keep electing time and time again, and always thinking it going to be a little different, it won't any more than the currant occupant of the oval office for without war we would be just like any other country...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @bluedog
    Hmm I wonder what difference it could make if they get their pay checks weekly bi-weekly monthly or yearly,I have read of no reporter bringing out any big scoops in a long long time for most of it is simply rehashed garbage from the week before and it starts and ends with Russia did it,any honest reporting died somewhere in Vietnam along with most of the morals of America as the one said somewhere in the jungles of Vietnam America lost it soul and no truer words were ever uttered...

    I remember a very distinguished lawyer on the board of a major media enterprise opining about 35 years ago that the newspapers had long since been corrupted by giving so many of their staff bylines (and later of course treating them all as op-ed pundits he might have added). He preferred “From our Washington/Westminster/Canberra correspondent” to suppress ego and showing off.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @CalDre
    "To suggest otherwise, that this is somehow un-fair, is in fact communism- or just plain ol’ green envy". The fact that Trump was completely supported by the Globalist banks is utterly obvious if you dig down into the financing he used to make his real estate bets; that the Globalist mass media gave him a lot of free attention - including in the Republican primaries, where they gave more true conservatives like Rand Paul zero attention - is another reason he is where he is. And lots of luck and inheritance went along with it.

    And no, I am not "green with envy", I would never amass as much wealth as he has as I believe it is fundamentally corrupt and evil. I don't need his bought plastic wives or his gold gilded toilets or his narcissism, no thanks, no envy here at all. Simply making the point that the Establishment made him what he is, he is NOT an outsider and to me his adventure appears extremely likely to be just more political theater of the kind we've seen over the last century ever since Woodrow Wilson sold this country out to the Globalists.

    Rand Paul left a foot print on his fallen father’s chest, in his haste to endorse the establishment candidate Willard “slippery as an eel” Romney. This was the beginning of the alt- rt., and the reason Romney was defeated- and Trump eventually elected.

    I don’t buy your vast conspiracy of banks and media surreptitiously ushering in the Trumpen Reich….

    The Trump election is the greatest FUCK YOU ever recorded in human history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. CalDre says:

    This was the beginning of the alt- rt., and the reason Romney was defeated- and Trump eventually elected.” Not that facts seem to matter to you, but Trump endorsed Romney as well.

    I don’t buy your vast conspiracy of banks and media surreptitiously ushering in…” Buy what you want, but, I never referred to either a “vast conspiracy” or the banks and media doing anything “surreptitiously”, though both are possible. The points I made – massive funding / enrichment of Trump by the largest commercial and investment banks and massive promotion of Trump by the largest media giants is an indisputable fact. And since you cannot begin to dispute these obvious facts, you resort to creating some strawman about “vast conspiracies” that you so pompously elect not to buy, lol.

    The Trump election is the greatest FUCK YOU ever recorded in human history.” If that is the case it’s most likely said Globalist Banks and said Globalist Mass Media giving the big Fuck You to Trump supporters, as there’s no way in hell that narcissistic billionaire is going to do crap for you. He’s too busy surrounding himself with other globalist billionaires and neo-cons. But we’ll see ….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    He automatically killed TPP- you are a globalist so this bothers you.

    Trump largely financed his own primary campaign.



    massive funding / enrichment of Trump by the largest commercial and investment banks

     

    During the presidential campaign, more than 50% of donations were 200 dollars or less.
    Where are you getting your numbers from?

    You sound just like the defeatists who said stay home on election night. The president has done more unravelling of bullshit, then all of the previous lifetime .gov parasites put together.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Vlad says:
    @Jean de Peyrelongue
    Calling the people from Lviv and Kiev Ukronazis is certainly not going to help solving the Ukrainian'issue.

    Ukraine as it is today is fully an artificial country.
    Galicia was belonging to Austria until 1919 then to Poland until 1939. Bandera was first fighting the Poles then when the Soviet Union invaded Galicia in 1939, his movement joined forces with the Germans ones. For him, the Poles and the Soviet-Union were both ennemies of a free Galicia.
    Galicia had a large Jewish population which did not oppose the Soviet Union invasion and as such were considered as traitors by the Bandera people.
    The case of Galicia is a special case, they were nazis to fight the Jews, the Poles and the Soviet Union. They wanted to create a new Ukraine and the failed. Today, they are trying again and they seem to have quite some influence of Kiew.

    The remaining of Ukraine ( Little Russia) is another story. Stalin and Khrushchev got between 1931-1933 around 6 millions of people from Ukraine and Kuban to starve and die, so it is easy to understand some Ukrainian’s resentment towards Russia.

    The South NovoRussia, has always belonged to Russia. Odessa was created by Potemkine and developped by Richelieu and the eastern part the Donbass has always been Russian.

    It is obvious that Ukraine has to be splitted: the east and the South bording the Black sea have to be returned to Russia
    The western part including Galicia which is frustrated since 1919 should also be allowed to have a country including probably the western part of the little Russia populated by uniates, but they should understand also that the others have also a right to choose their future destiny.

    I fully agree with you. There is something called collective experience. After the experienced of daily shootings by Ukronazies the people of Donbas have already mentally broke with Ukraine. They are not one people any more even if ties to the rest of Ukraine remained. They now feel separate from Ukraine and close to Russia if not one with Russia. It seems the process is underway for Ukraine to be split along old division lines.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Correct but this goes both ways. I've heard former Yanukovich voters from Dnipropetrovsk who had opposed Maidan, speak very bitterly about Russia due to Crimea and due to Russian bullets and volunteers killing boys from their city, fighting in Donbas.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. AP says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Do you have a basis for this opinion? Have you been to Ukraine lately?
     
    I did spend a few days in Zakarpatie last summer, but I didn't start any political conversations, so no anecdotal evidence here. My basis is opinion polls, the press, and I watch Ukrainian shows, listen what their talking heads have to say.

    Ukraine is currently “disunited” in terms of its attitudes towards Poroshenko, vs. some other pro-Western political force (Tymoshenko, Samopomich, various right-wing nationalists).
     
    Nah, as far as I can tell, there's no division in this respect at all: all current politicians are intensely hated. The common joke is: 'how do you fix all the country's problems in 2 steps? Step 1: shoot all politicians. Step 2: shoot everyone who comes to the funerals.' It's that bad.

    That’s because people generally did their military service locally
     
    Point taken. So, yes, not 80%, let's say 50%. Hell, surely even 30% of turncoats would cause the army to self-destruct...

    and a population that would seethe with anti-Russian hatred
     
    My guess is, people in the east do hold a grudge against Russia, precisely because it doesn't intervene. Putin said, back in 2014, that he won't need to invade because no Ukrainian general would ever give the order to shoot Ukrainian population ('women and children'). Well, obviously he was wrong, but RF still does nothing. Now, that is a real bad PR.

    “Ukraine is currently “disunited” in terms of its attitudes towards Poroshenko, vs. some other pro-Western political force (Tymoshenko, Samopomich, various right-wing nationalists).”

    Nah, as far as I can tell, there’s no division in this respect at all: all current politicians are intensely hated. The common joke is: ‘how do you fix all the country’s problems in 2 steps? Step 1: shoot all politicians. Step 2: shoot everyone who comes to the funerals.’ It’s that bad.

    You are right, but I was speaking of the pro-West vs. pro-Russia division. Poroshenko’s popularity has plummeted but it’s not because the population’s political position has swung pro-Russian. Poroshenko will lose the election to some other pro-Western party. Tymoshenko’s seems to be the most popular at the moment. From this perspective Ukraine is rather united, certainly more so than before recent events.

    [about 80% of Ukrainian troops in Crimea switching sides and joining Russia] “That’s because people generally did their military service locally”

    Point taken. So, yes, not 80%, let’s say 50%. Hell, surely even 30% of turncoats would cause the army to self-destruct…

    50% would suggest that Ukrainians outside Crimea are about 62% as pro-Russian as the ethnic Russians in Crimea are. That’s incredibly optimistically pro-Russian thinking.

    25% or so not willing to fight Russia is more realistic. That makes it much harder to desert. With a rate of 80% as in Crimea entire units can go over or refuse to fight and nobody can stop them. 1 in 4 embedded among loyal troops, facing punishment for attempted desertion, are much less likely to act. Since 2014 the Ukrainian government has purged its officers of potentially disloyal elements and had made it more difficult for the military to disintegrate due to desertion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    You say "pro-Russian", but what do you mean by that, really?

    I watch their TV, they run call-in opinion polls (where I imagine only those vote who feel strongly), and from these polls I get the impression that the country is 85% pro-Russian.

    There aren't as many crazies as it may seem. Some people are opportunistic and they talk crazy, but they'd change the tune in a second. And most, a vast majority of people are normal: of course they are all 'pro-Russian'.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. AP says:
    @Vlad
    I fully agree with you. There is something called collective experience. After the experienced of daily shootings by Ukronazies the people of Donbas have already mentally broke with Ukraine. They are not one people any more even if ties to the rest of Ukraine remained. They now feel separate from Ukraine and close to Russia if not one with Russia. It seems the process is underway for Ukraine to be split along old division lines.

    Correct but this goes both ways. I’ve heard former Yanukovich voters from Dnipropetrovsk who had opposed Maidan, speak very bitterly about Russia due to Crimea and due to Russian bullets and volunteers killing boys from their city, fighting in Donbas.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL
    This works both ways as well. I imagine there are more than a few non-Yanukovich voters from Lvov who are resentful towards the current Kiev regime for having their boys sent to kill their own fellow countrymen in a clearly unwinnable war at the behest of a foreign imperial power. Not to mention, people's minds can change depending on where the front lines of a war happen to be at any given time. Hell, I've changed my mind before, even when my life didn't depend on it.

    Vlad's right, division lines are being sharpened. The paradox of the Ukraine situation is that probably the best outcome for the people of Ukraine, not to mention the West, would be to break up the country Yugoslavia style. This would also be the worst outcome for Russia. And yet, the picture painted to the Western public is just the opposite, that Russia wants to break it up and only Western support is keeping it together. And so the country is essentially being held together by stubborn pride and people fight and die as a result. It's actually a quintessentially Ukrainian conundrum, if you think about it.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Oh, killing "boys", eh? Are they playing with toys as Russian thugs gun them down in their kindergartens?

    You mean six-foot-tall 18-30-year-old "boys" who are trying to kill and maim other "boys" -- of almost identical genetic stock, speaking the same or extremely similar languages -- who have done nothing to harm or threaten them or the rest of Ukraine?

    , @gerad

    Correct but this goes both ways. I’ve heard former Yanukovich voters from Dnipropetrovsk who had opposed Maidan, speak very bitterly about Russia due to Crimea and due to Russian bullets and volunteers killing boys from their city, fighting in Donbas.
     
    errrmmm.......those on the payroll of Kolomoisky and other business related reasons you fantasist dipshit liar prick. If there was no American backing for the coup then the war would not be in existence you idiot,,the ukrainians can bareky mobilise enough people to fight there you cretin
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @CalDre
    "This was the beginning of the alt- rt., and the reason Romney was defeated- and Trump eventually elected." Not that facts seem to matter to you, but Trump endorsed Romney as well.

    "I don’t buy your vast conspiracy of banks and media surreptitiously ushering in..." Buy what you want, but, I never referred to either a "vast conspiracy" or the banks and media doing anything "surreptitiously", though both are possible. The points I made - massive funding / enrichment of Trump by the largest commercial and investment banks and massive promotion of Trump by the largest media giants is an indisputable fact. And since you cannot begin to dispute these obvious facts, you resort to creating some strawman about "vast conspiracies" that you so pompously elect not to buy, lol.

    "The Trump election is the greatest FUCK YOU ever recorded in human history." If that is the case it's most likely said Globalist Banks and said Globalist Mass Media giving the big Fuck You to Trump supporters, as there's no way in hell that narcissistic billionaire is going to do crap for you. He's too busy surrounding himself with other globalist billionaires and neo-cons. But we'll see ....

    He automatically killed TPP- you are a globalist so this bothers you.

    Trump largely financed his own primary campaign.

    massive funding / enrichment of Trump by the largest commercial and investment banks

    During the presidential campaign, more than 50% of donations were 200 dollars or less.
    Where are you getting your numbers from?

    You sound just like the defeatists who said stay home on election night. The president has done more unravelling of bullshit, then all of the previous lifetime .gov parasites put together.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    "He automatically killed TPP" Right, even though many say it was dead anyway. And many others opposed it - even the Nefarious Bitch from Arkansas pledged to put it to bed.

    "you are a globalist so this bothers you". You are an idiot and that bothers me.

    "Trump largely financed his own primary campaign" From the money he made from the Mega-Banks and the Mega-Mass-Media. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

    "Where are you getting your numbers from?" I've worked on Wall Street, I know how Donald (and any other large real estate project) is funded. No, it's not his own money (only a small portion of it is - Trump's largest lender, by the way, is Deutsche Bank, one of the biggest, baddest, Globalist banks in the world).

    "The president has done more unravelling of bullshit, then all of the previous lifetime .gov parasites put together." I agree he had a great opportunity, and did something, but he has done it miserably. Instead of focusing on the fundamental lies and hypocrisies of the mass media, he gets into pissing contests with celebrities and complains about unfair coverage of him (which of course is a perfect fit for his abject narcissism).

    "You sound just like the defeatists". So, am I a "defeatist", or a "globalist"? Make up your mind! What I'm not going to do is fall for the Obama trap (the powers that be did the same thing with Obama, promising the Left "Hope and Change" and delivering nothing, since June of last year I have called Trump "the Right's Obama"). I'm not supporting someone until he has earned my support and Trump clearly has not. He is a Globalist stooge from all the evidence and I will be scientific and keep that theory until there is actual evidence to controvert it. (For example he does something serious about illegal immigration rather than arbitrarily ban innocent people from seven countries in a clearly unconstitutional and idiotic Executive Order that, from all appearances, is so idiotic that it was designed to fail - e.g., foreigners already in the US, including very distinguished ones, could not leave and return because they are a "threat", how stupid is that?)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Kilo 4/11 says:
    @RadicalCenter
    At most two percent of people here can read Russian. How about a translation?

    “How about a translation.”

    The aggressive, disruptive use of Russian among populations that do not speak Russian is no surprise to anyone familiar with Ukrainian history. Which excludes 99.9% of the commenters on Unz.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Because you resent the use of Russian somewhere, sometime -- I'm not clear what you mean -- you can't explain what you mean by words from a language that almost none of us can understand?

    Should we each just use whatever foreign languages we know, and not explain to the rest of the commenters / readers? I'll use German, some people will use Spanish or French or Italian or Tagalog, it will be a really useful experience.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. CalDre says:
    @Stonehands
    He automatically killed TPP- you are a globalist so this bothers you.

    Trump largely financed his own primary campaign.



    massive funding / enrichment of Trump by the largest commercial and investment banks

     

    During the presidential campaign, more than 50% of donations were 200 dollars or less.
    Where are you getting your numbers from?

    You sound just like the defeatists who said stay home on election night. The president has done more unravelling of bullshit, then all of the previous lifetime .gov parasites put together.

    He automatically killed TPP” Right, even though many say it was dead anyway. And many others opposed it – even the Nefarious Bitch from Arkansas pledged to put it to bed.

    you are a globalist so this bothers you“. You are an idiot and that bothers me.

    Trump largely financed his own primary campaign” From the money he made from the Mega-Banks and the Mega-Mass-Media. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

    Where are you getting your numbers from?” I’ve worked on Wall Street, I know how Donald (and any other large real estate project) is funded. No, it’s not his own money (only a small portion of it is – Trump’s largest lender, by the way, is Deutsche Bank, one of the biggest, baddest, Globalist banks in the world).

    The president has done more unravelling of bullshit, then all of the previous lifetime .gov parasites put together.” I agree he had a great opportunity, and did something, but he has done it miserably. Instead of focusing on the fundamental lies and hypocrisies of the mass media, he gets into pissing contests with celebrities and complains about unfair coverage of him (which of course is a perfect fit for his abject narcissism).

    You sound just like the defeatists“. So, am I a “defeatist”, or a “globalist”? Make up your mind! What I’m not going to do is fall for the Obama trap (the powers that be did the same thing with Obama, promising the Left “Hope and Change” and delivering nothing, since June of last year I have called Trump “the Right’s Obama”). I’m not supporting someone until he has earned my support and Trump clearly has not. He is a Globalist stooge from all the evidence and I will be scientific and keep that theory until there is actual evidence to controvert it. (For example he does something serious about illegal immigration rather than arbitrarily ban innocent people from seven countries in a clearly unconstitutional and idiotic Executive Order that, from all appearances, is so idiotic that it was designed to fail – e.g., foreigners already in the US, including very distinguished ones, could not leave and return because they are a “threat”, how stupid is that?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    "All the evidence" suggests that President Trump is a globalist stooge? Including his killing off TPP and calling to renegotiate or repeal NAFTA? His proposal to impose tariffs or a border-adjusted tax to favor American manufacturers over foreign ones in our market?

    He may sell us out yet, but it's not the case that all evidence shows him to be a globalist so far.

    By the way, what Shrillery promised during the campaign on trade had little relation to her stated views over many years. Not so with Trump.

    , @RadicalCenter
    You're right that the travel order was incompetently and foolishly written and implemented.

    President Trump should have exempted people who are already legal permanent residents, and he could have given everyone else least some few weeks of advance warning to minimize disruption to prepaid business, tourism, and family travel.

    But his basic premise is absolutely sound. The travel ban should include anyone from many more countries than the seven listed, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey, not one of which is a civilized country by our lights and not one of which can be trusted.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. The points I made – massive funding / enrichment of Trump by the largest commercial and investment banks

    Show me numbers. I showed you numbers regarding the majority of donations being under 200 bucks. Nobody wants to hear you bloviate about inside information you attained while “trying out”for the Wall St. Scumbags.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    I'd show you numbers but the Fraudster Trumpster has refused to release his tax returns.

    You didn't show any numbers, you made some claim nobody can verify. The mass media gave Trump billions in free publicity. Did you calculate that in your "formula"? Did you calculate the effect of PACs and the hundreds of millions spent by Ziofascists like Sheldon Adelson to promote Trump?

    If you want to know how Trump got rich, read about his deals. I know about it because I saw it as it happened, I'm not researching it for you now, even if you weren't a hopelessly deluded sycophant. But I'm sure even someone like you can type "Trump Deutsche Bank" or "Trump real estate lenders" into your favorite search engine and start reading.

    And you do know about the "Apprentice", SNL and other media appearances/interviews Trump has had? They don't do that for people they don't like.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. CalDre says:
    @Stonehands

    The points I made – massive funding / enrichment of Trump by the largest commercial and investment banks
     
    Show me numbers. I showed you numbers regarding the majority of donations being under 200 bucks. Nobody wants to hear you bloviate about inside information you attained while "trying out"for the Wall St. Scumbags.

    I’d show you numbers but the Fraudster Trumpster has refused to release his tax returns.

    You didn’t show any numbers, you made some claim nobody can verify. The mass media gave Trump billions in free publicity. Did you calculate that in your “formula”? Did you calculate the effect of PACs and the hundreds of millions spent by Ziofascists like Sheldon Adelson to promote Trump?

    If you want to know how Trump got rich, read about his deals. I know about it because I saw it as it happened, I’m not researching it for you now, even if you weren’t a hopelessly deluded sycophant. But I’m sure even someone like you can type “Trump Deutsche Bank” or “Trump real estate lenders” into your favorite search engine and start reading.

    And you do know about the “Apprentice”, SNL and other media appearances/interviews Trump has had? They don’t do that for people they don’t like.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    Time will tell. I am enjoying seeing dems jumping out the window here in Philly.
    Huge rally by snowflakes and cranky dingbats in front of my store tomorrow as Toomey moves into the Federal building across the street.
    I think you are wrong about Trump, I lived in Queens for 42 years and a buddy of mine was a transit cop and bodyguard for Trump. He always spoke highly of him back then.What exactly would you propose?[ Instead of Trump] Rand Paul? I dont think he has the balls to be the Boss- but I certainly agree with his fathers stance.

    I have read your prior comments-you seemed to have a better assessment of the implications of Supreme Court appointments, etc.Give him time...
    , @RadicalCenter
    He shouldn't release his tax returns. He has never been charged with any individual-income tax violation, has he? What is the relevance?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @CalDre
    I'd show you numbers but the Fraudster Trumpster has refused to release his tax returns.

    You didn't show any numbers, you made some claim nobody can verify. The mass media gave Trump billions in free publicity. Did you calculate that in your "formula"? Did you calculate the effect of PACs and the hundreds of millions spent by Ziofascists like Sheldon Adelson to promote Trump?

    If you want to know how Trump got rich, read about his deals. I know about it because I saw it as it happened, I'm not researching it for you now, even if you weren't a hopelessly deluded sycophant. But I'm sure even someone like you can type "Trump Deutsche Bank" or "Trump real estate lenders" into your favorite search engine and start reading.

    And you do know about the "Apprentice", SNL and other media appearances/interviews Trump has had? They don't do that for people they don't like.

    Time will tell. I am enjoying seeing dems jumping out the window here in Philly.
    Huge rally by snowflakes and cranky dingbats in front of my store tomorrow as Toomey moves into the Federal building across the street.
    I think you are wrong about Trump, I lived in Queens for 42 years and a buddy of mine was a transit cop and bodyguard for Trump. He always spoke highly of him back then.What exactly would you propose?[ Instead of Trump] Rand Paul? I dont think he has the balls to be the Boss- but I certainly agree with his fathers stance.

    I have read your prior comments-you seemed to have a better assessment of the implications of Supreme Court appointments, etc.Give him time…

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    Some people speak highly of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama too. It's anecdotal.

    I do, unfortunately, feel a bit vindicated when Trump tonight came out swinging on immigration, his "signature" issue. And his new solution is ... wait for it ... AMNESTY! Just like"conservative" (well, NEO-"conservative") Reagan!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. bluedog says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    One of my markers of changing times in my lifetime is the comparison of casualty figures in Vietnam and Iraq. The tolerance level seems to have been cut by about 90 per cent despite there being no draft for Bush's ME wars.

    (From an earlier time I like to quote 2 million Germans and 5 million Russians born in 1913. Why would Hitler and Stalin be still lamenting the millions killed in WW1 when they had all the manpower they needed for the re-run by 1933?)

    Well of course there are no comparison of figures between Nam and Iraq for many reasons, and of course the press and media did a very good job of keeping the killed and maimed off the front pages, as the media did to keep all those dead bodies coming back and you never saw a little girl in Iraq running down the road with her clothes on fire from a napalm bomb nor the effect of WP.
    As far as Germany and Russia well they are just like us we didn’t learn from WW11 and run into a buzz saw in Korea, from Korea it was Vietnam and onto the Mid-East perhaps its those bordering on insanity that we keep electing time and time again, and always thinking it going to be a little different, it won’t any more than the currant occupant of the oval office for without war we would be just like any other country…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Without wishing to suggest that the Korean war didn't provide examples of very bad decisions would you really suggest that the Soviet Union's proxy and little brother should have been allowed to take over the whole of Korea?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @bluedog
    Well of course there are no comparison of figures between Nam and Iraq for many reasons, and of course the press and media did a very good job of keeping the killed and maimed off the front pages, as the media did to keep all those dead bodies coming back and you never saw a little girl in Iraq running down the road with her clothes on fire from a napalm bomb nor the effect of WP.
    As far as Germany and Russia well they are just like us we didn't learn from WW11 and run into a buzz saw in Korea, from Korea it was Vietnam and onto the Mid-East perhaps its those bordering on insanity that we keep electing time and time again, and always thinking it going to be a little different, it won't any more than the currant occupant of the oval office for without war we would be just like any other country...

    Without wishing to suggest that the Korean war didn’t provide examples of very bad decisions would you really suggest that the Soviet Union’s proxy and little brother should have been allowed to take over the whole of Korea?

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Hmm much like Nam a civil war which we involved ourselves in, we lost and did it change a thing outside of the millions we killed, and if we had stopped in Korea where General Ridgeway advised us to China would never have entered the war instead we listened to the Free China group and as they say the rest is history...
    , @RadicalCenter
    Yes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. CalDre says:
    @Stonehands
    Time will tell. I am enjoying seeing dems jumping out the window here in Philly.
    Huge rally by snowflakes and cranky dingbats in front of my store tomorrow as Toomey moves into the Federal building across the street.
    I think you are wrong about Trump, I lived in Queens for 42 years and a buddy of mine was a transit cop and bodyguard for Trump. He always spoke highly of him back then.What exactly would you propose?[ Instead of Trump] Rand Paul? I dont think he has the balls to be the Boss- but I certainly agree with his fathers stance.

    I have read your prior comments-you seemed to have a better assessment of the implications of Supreme Court appointments, etc.Give him time...

    Some people speak highly of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama too. It’s anecdotal.

    I do, unfortunately, feel a bit vindicated when Trump tonight came out swinging on immigration, his “signature” issue. And his new solution is … wait for it … AMNESTY! Just like”conservative” (well, NEO-”conservative”) Reagan!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. JL says:
    @AP
    Correct but this goes both ways. I've heard former Yanukovich voters from Dnipropetrovsk who had opposed Maidan, speak very bitterly about Russia due to Crimea and due to Russian bullets and volunteers killing boys from their city, fighting in Donbas.

    This works both ways as well. I imagine there are more than a few non-Yanukovich voters from Lvov who are resentful towards the current Kiev regime for having their boys sent to kill their own fellow countrymen in a clearly unwinnable war at the behest of a foreign imperial power. Not to mention, people’s minds can change depending on where the front lines of a war happen to be at any given time. Hell, I’ve changed my mind before, even when my life didn’t depend on it.

    Vlad’s right, division lines are being sharpened. The paradox of the Ukraine situation is that probably the best outcome for the people of Ukraine, not to mention the West, would be to break up the country Yugoslavia style. This would also be the worst outcome for Russia. And yet, the picture painted to the Western public is just the opposite, that Russia wants to break it up and only Western support is keeping it together. And so the country is essentially being held together by stubborn pride and people fight and die as a result. It’s actually a quintessentially Ukrainian conundrum, if you think about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    I generally agree with your post. However:

    I imagine there are more than a few non-Yanukovich voters from Lvov who are resentful towards the current Kiev regime for having their boys sent to kill their own fellow countrymen in a clearly unwinnable war at the behest of a foreign imperial power.
     
    There is some of that - they notice that people from Donbas themselves aren't fighting to get their territory back to Ukraine, so why should they themselves risk their lives to do so? This leads to resentment against Donbas refugees (particularly fighting-age males). However the general sentiment - accurate or not - is, "We didn't do anything in Crimea, so they took it. If we don't stop them at Donbas, they'll go for Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk. If we don't sop them there, they'll make a play for Kiev next."

    Back in 2015 I spoke to a few regular people I met from Dnipropetrovsk. Former Yanukovich voters, opposed to Maidan, their sentiment about Russia was that the country they had thought of as a Slavic brother had stabbed them in the back and taken Crimea when Ukraine became unstable (they come to view Crimea as an integral part of their country). They viewed the war in Donbas as a terrible necessity - "our boys have to fight there because if they don't our own city would become a warzone." They blamed Russia for this (because indeed if Russia has cut off all support, stemmed the flow of volunteers and weapons, the war would be over). I don't know how widespread that sort of sentiment is, but I suspect it is rather common. There was no love whatsoever for Ukraine's political leadership. Being angry at Russia and "pro-Ukraine" is not tied to support for Poroshenko or other politicians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. AP says:
    @JL
    This works both ways as well. I imagine there are more than a few non-Yanukovich voters from Lvov who are resentful towards the current Kiev regime for having their boys sent to kill their own fellow countrymen in a clearly unwinnable war at the behest of a foreign imperial power. Not to mention, people's minds can change depending on where the front lines of a war happen to be at any given time. Hell, I've changed my mind before, even when my life didn't depend on it.

    Vlad's right, division lines are being sharpened. The paradox of the Ukraine situation is that probably the best outcome for the people of Ukraine, not to mention the West, would be to break up the country Yugoslavia style. This would also be the worst outcome for Russia. And yet, the picture painted to the Western public is just the opposite, that Russia wants to break it up and only Western support is keeping it together. And so the country is essentially being held together by stubborn pride and people fight and die as a result. It's actually a quintessentially Ukrainian conundrum, if you think about it.

    I generally agree with your post. However:

    I imagine there are more than a few non-Yanukovich voters from Lvov who are resentful towards the current Kiev regime for having their boys sent to kill their own fellow countrymen in a clearly unwinnable war at the behest of a foreign imperial power.

    There is some of that – they notice that people from Donbas themselves aren’t fighting to get their territory back to Ukraine, so why should they themselves risk their lives to do so? This leads to resentment against Donbas refugees (particularly fighting-age males). However the general sentiment – accurate or not – is, “We didn’t do anything in Crimea, so they took it. If we don’t stop them at Donbas, they’ll go for Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk. If we don’t sop them there, they’ll make a play for Kiev next.”

    Back in 2015 I spoke to a few regular people I met from Dnipropetrovsk. Former Yanukovich voters, opposed to Maidan, their sentiment about Russia was that the country they had thought of as a Slavic brother had stabbed them in the back and taken Crimea when Ukraine became unstable (they come to view Crimea as an integral part of their country). They viewed the war in Donbas as a terrible necessity – “our boys have to fight there because if they don’t our own city would become a warzone.” They blamed Russia for this (because indeed if Russia has cut off all support, stemmed the flow of volunteers and weapons, the war would be over). I don’t know how widespread that sort of sentiment is, but I suspect it is rather common. There was no love whatsoever for Ukraine’s political leadership. Being angry at Russia and “pro-Ukraine” is not tied to support for Poroshenko or other politicians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "...if Russia has cut off all support..."
    Right. And if only Russia offered help to NATO to install more weaponry in Ukraine, closer to the Russian borders. Again, what country was the most powerful supporter of the Maidan revolution that has brought to power the chocolate king, Groysman, and the 2%-approval rating Yatz? And why exactly the Russian federation rushed to bring Crimea back to her fold? According to your tone, that was a fancy by Russians.
    In case you are not aware, there are "Sevastopol Sketches" by Leo Tolstoy, which could help you to get some perspective on the history of Crimea. Closer to our time, have you really never had a thought that Russian federation needs to protect her southern borders from the obsessive regime-changers?
    The conflict in Ukraine could have been solved without blood if (IF) the "revolutionaries" in Kiev agreed on federalization (you know, like in the US), but such outcome - without a civil war - would be unacceptable to the "investors" (see Nulnd-Kagan's presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=450). Or you are so incredibly naive that you do believe that the US has been investing money in Ukraine because of the "democracy on the march?" And look, what a great march the "investors" have arranged there, with neo-Nazis leading the crowd. So much for the ziocons' squealing about antisemitism everywhere: http://www.salon.com/2014/02/25/is_the_us_backing_neo_nazis_in_ukraine_partner/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. […] Article original publié par UNZ Review […]

    Read More
  109. bluedog says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Without wishing to suggest that the Korean war didn't provide examples of very bad decisions would you really suggest that the Soviet Union's proxy and little brother should have been allowed to take over the whole of Korea?

    Hmm much like Nam a civil war which we involved ourselves in, we lost and did it change a thing outside of the millions we killed, and if we had stopped in Korea where General Ridgeway advised us to China would never have entered the war instead we listened to the Free China group and as they say the rest is history…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Getting China involved was one of the mistakes I referred to but I wonder if you and Radical Center are conscious of South Korea's remarkable development economically, socially, scientifically and even politically and contrasted it with North Korea which has to be presumed to be what South Korea would look like now...
    , @Wizard of Oz
    You think the US lost the Vietnam war and didn't change a thing! Tell that to the people of East Asia and especially South East Asia and Oceania. Forget about the disgraceful scuttle and refusal to help allies/clients in the mid 70s. What would the world have been like if Soviet backed Communism had swept through SE Asia in 1963?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @AP

    "Ukraine is currently “disunited” in terms of its attitudes towards Poroshenko, vs. some other pro-Western political force (Tymoshenko, Samopomich, various right-wing nationalists)."

    Nah, as far as I can tell, there’s no division in this respect at all: all current politicians are intensely hated. The common joke is: ‘how do you fix all the country’s problems in 2 steps? Step 1: shoot all politicians. Step 2: shoot everyone who comes to the funerals.’ It’s that bad.
     
    You are right, but I was speaking of the pro-West vs. pro-Russia division. Poroshenko's popularity has plummeted but it's not because the population's political position has swung pro-Russian. Poroshenko will lose the election to some other pro-Western party. Tymoshenko's seems to be the most popular at the moment. From this perspective Ukraine is rather united, certainly more so than before recent events.

    [about 80% of Ukrainian troops in Crimea switching sides and joining Russia] "That’s because people generally did their military service locally"

    Point taken. So, yes, not 80%, let’s say 50%. Hell, surely even 30% of turncoats would cause the army to self-destruct…
     
    50% would suggest that Ukrainians outside Crimea are about 62% as pro-Russian as the ethnic Russians in Crimea are. That's incredibly optimistically pro-Russian thinking.

    25% or so not willing to fight Russia is more realistic. That makes it much harder to desert. With a rate of 80% as in Crimea entire units can go over or refuse to fight and nobody can stop them. 1 in 4 embedded among loyal troops, facing punishment for attempted desertion, are much less likely to act. Since 2014 the Ukrainian government has purged its officers of potentially disloyal elements and had made it more difficult for the military to disintegrate due to desertion.

    You say “pro-Russian”, but what do you mean by that, really?

    I watch their TV, they run call-in opinion polls (where I imagine only those vote who feel strongly), and from these polls I get the impression that the country is 85% pro-Russian.

    There aren’t as many crazies as it may seem. Some people are opportunistic and they talk crazy, but they’d change the tune in a second. And most, a vast majority of people are normal: of course they are all ‘pro-Russian’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    You say “pro-Russian”, but what do you mean by that, really
     
    In the context of military conflict, I meant solders in the Ukrainian military who were willing to betray the Ukrainian military and join the Russian one instead. 80% of Crimean soldiers (mostly ethnic Russians from Crimea) did so. Your claim that 50% of the regular Ukrainian army would do this suggests that Ukrainians are 2/3 as pro-Russian as those Crimeans were - which is absurdly optimistic.

    I watch their TV, they run call-in opinion polls (where I imagine only those vote who feel strongly), and from these polls I get the impression that the country is 85% pro-Russian.

    There aren’t as many crazies as it may seem. Some people are opportunistic and they talk crazy, but they’d change the tune in a second. And most, a vast majority of people are normal: of course they are all ‘pro-Russian’.
     

    Sorry, but that's traditional Russian wishful thinking which leads to disappointment and inevitable turn to conspiracy theories (neoc0n/Zionist/America/Polish/whatever plot) in order to explain why the country did something that was contrary to the wishful thinking.

    Various opinion polls consistently show no significant turn towards Russia or pro-Russian parties, and support for Russia as low and much lower than in 2013. This pretty much matches what I see among my dozens of friends and relatives in Ukraine (the west and center) and people I've come across from other regions such as Dnipropetrovsk. I'll be spending a lot of time there this summer so I'll see for myself how it looks on the ground. Of course, the eternal Russian optimist will claim all those polls are fake, and when the election matches those poll results - that the election was rigged. Because the optimist "knows" that no matter what, the Ukrainian people really are pro-Russian.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. AP says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    You say "pro-Russian", but what do you mean by that, really?

    I watch their TV, they run call-in opinion polls (where I imagine only those vote who feel strongly), and from these polls I get the impression that the country is 85% pro-Russian.

    There aren't as many crazies as it may seem. Some people are opportunistic and they talk crazy, but they'd change the tune in a second. And most, a vast majority of people are normal: of course they are all 'pro-Russian'.

    You say “pro-Russian”, but what do you mean by that, really

    In the context of military conflict, I meant solders in the Ukrainian military who were willing to betray the Ukrainian military and join the Russian one instead. 80% of Crimean soldiers (mostly ethnic Russians from Crimea) did so. Your claim that 50% of the regular Ukrainian army would do this suggests that Ukrainians are 2/3 as pro-Russian as those Crimeans were – which is absurdly optimistic.

    I watch their TV, they run call-in opinion polls (where I imagine only those vote who feel strongly), and from these polls I get the impression that the country is 85% pro-Russian.

    There aren’t as many crazies as it may seem. Some people are opportunistic and they talk crazy, but they’d change the tune in a second. And most, a vast majority of people are normal: of course they are all ‘pro-Russian’.

    Sorry, but that’s traditional Russian wishful thinking which leads to disappointment and inevitable turn to conspiracy theories (neoc0n/Zionist/America/Polish/whatever plot) in order to explain why the country did something that was contrary to the wishful thinking.

    Various opinion polls consistently show no significant turn towards Russia or pro-Russian parties, and support for Russia as low and much lower than in 2013. This pretty much matches what I see among my dozens of friends and relatives in Ukraine (the west and center) and people I’ve come across from other regions such as Dnipropetrovsk. I’ll be spending a lot of time there this summer so I’ll see for myself how it looks on the ground. Of course, the eternal Russian optimist will claim all those polls are fake, and when the election matches those poll results – that the election was rigged. Because the optimist “knows” that no matter what, the Ukrainian people really are pro-Russian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    In the context of military conflict, I meant solders in the Ukrainian military who were willing to betray the Ukrainian military and join the Russian one instead.
     
    That's not necessary. More realistic is to desert, to surrender, to shoot in the air. This is what happened a lot in 2014, when rebels were taking military bases in Donbass: everyone would shoot up into the air for a while, and then the military would declare that they're out of ammo, and ask for a free passage. End of story.

    In other words, you don't really need to be 'pro-Russian'. You might feel that the regime in Kiev isn't worth defending, and that RF is likely to help.


    Various opinion polls consistently show no significant turn towards Russia or pro-Russian parties
     
    I don't know what a "pro-Russian" party outside Russia would look like. But, again, from watching their TV I get the impression that most people, unlike your friends, feel no hatred towards Russia and want good relation with Russia. Watch this, for example, the opinion poll ~25 minutes in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYtzIzgNq5E
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @bluedog
    No business had very little to do with it but ole trick dick was pulling his hair out over the demonstrations and those orders at Kent came right from him, for no N.G. troops are ever ordered to a public demonstration with loaded weapons...

    They couldn’t be “troops” without loaded guns. Ridiculous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Did the TROOPS in Ark. have loaded guns at the school or use bayonets which should answer your own lingering question...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Kilo 4/11
    "How about a translation."

    The aggressive, disruptive use of Russian among populations that do not speak Russian is no surprise to anyone familiar with Ukrainian history. Which excludes 99.9% of the commenters on Unz.

    Because you resent the use of Russian somewhere, sometime — I’m not clear what you mean — you can’t explain what you mean by words from a language that almost none of us can understand?

    Should we each just use whatever foreign languages we know, and not explain to the rest of the commenters / readers? I’ll use German, some people will use Spanish or French or Italian or Tagalog, it will be a really useful experience.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @CalDre
    "He automatically killed TPP" Right, even though many say it was dead anyway. And many others opposed it - even the Nefarious Bitch from Arkansas pledged to put it to bed.

    "you are a globalist so this bothers you". You are an idiot and that bothers me.

    "Trump largely financed his own primary campaign" From the money he made from the Mega-Banks and the Mega-Mass-Media. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

    "Where are you getting your numbers from?" I've worked on Wall Street, I know how Donald (and any other large real estate project) is funded. No, it's not his own money (only a small portion of it is - Trump's largest lender, by the way, is Deutsche Bank, one of the biggest, baddest, Globalist banks in the world).

    "The president has done more unravelling of bullshit, then all of the previous lifetime .gov parasites put together." I agree he had a great opportunity, and did something, but he has done it miserably. Instead of focusing on the fundamental lies and hypocrisies of the mass media, he gets into pissing contests with celebrities and complains about unfair coverage of him (which of course is a perfect fit for his abject narcissism).

    "You sound just like the defeatists". So, am I a "defeatist", or a "globalist"? Make up your mind! What I'm not going to do is fall for the Obama trap (the powers that be did the same thing with Obama, promising the Left "Hope and Change" and delivering nothing, since June of last year I have called Trump "the Right's Obama"). I'm not supporting someone until he has earned my support and Trump clearly has not. He is a Globalist stooge from all the evidence and I will be scientific and keep that theory until there is actual evidence to controvert it. (For example he does something serious about illegal immigration rather than arbitrarily ban innocent people from seven countries in a clearly unconstitutional and idiotic Executive Order that, from all appearances, is so idiotic that it was designed to fail - e.g., foreigners already in the US, including very distinguished ones, could not leave and return because they are a "threat", how stupid is that?)

    “All the evidence” suggests that President Trump is a globalist stooge? Including his killing off TPP and calling to renegotiate or repeal NAFTA? His proposal to impose tariffs or a border-adjusted tax to favor American manufacturers over foreign ones in our market?

    He may sell us out yet, but it’s not the case that all evidence shows him to be a globalist so far.

    By the way, what Shrillery promised during the campaign on trade had little relation to her stated views over many years. Not so with Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    "Including his killing off TPP". That was already dead (McConnell in Aug. 2016), though yes, that he went through with withdrawing is one exception to my comment.

    "and calling to renegotiate or repeal NAFTA? His proposal to impose tariffs or a border-adjusted tax to favor American manufacturers over foreign ones in our market?" Talk, talk, talk - means absolutely nothing (and by absolutely nothing, I mean, absolutely nothing). I ignore talk, and look at actions.

    Besides, renegotiating NAFTA does not make Trump not a globalist stooge. It all depends on the details of the renegotiation and a lot of other context. Even globalists re-negotiate agreements. Indeed the WTO agreements are constantly being renegotiated (and AFAIK Trump hasn't even talked about exiting that organization). Indeed, the WTO, the World Bank, the IMF, the ITO, the UN and many other organizations are central to establishing a global government and global control.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @CalDre
    "He automatically killed TPP" Right, even though many say it was dead anyway. And many others opposed it - even the Nefarious Bitch from Arkansas pledged to put it to bed.

    "you are a globalist so this bothers you". You are an idiot and that bothers me.

    "Trump largely financed his own primary campaign" From the money he made from the Mega-Banks and the Mega-Mass-Media. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

    "Where are you getting your numbers from?" I've worked on Wall Street, I know how Donald (and any other large real estate project) is funded. No, it's not his own money (only a small portion of it is - Trump's largest lender, by the way, is Deutsche Bank, one of the biggest, baddest, Globalist banks in the world).

    "The president has done more unravelling of bullshit, then all of the previous lifetime .gov parasites put together." I agree he had a great opportunity, and did something, but he has done it miserably. Instead of focusing on the fundamental lies and hypocrisies of the mass media, he gets into pissing contests with celebrities and complains about unfair coverage of him (which of course is a perfect fit for his abject narcissism).

    "You sound just like the defeatists". So, am I a "defeatist", or a "globalist"? Make up your mind! What I'm not going to do is fall for the Obama trap (the powers that be did the same thing with Obama, promising the Left "Hope and Change" and delivering nothing, since June of last year I have called Trump "the Right's Obama"). I'm not supporting someone until he has earned my support and Trump clearly has not. He is a Globalist stooge from all the evidence and I will be scientific and keep that theory until there is actual evidence to controvert it. (For example he does something serious about illegal immigration rather than arbitrarily ban innocent people from seven countries in a clearly unconstitutional and idiotic Executive Order that, from all appearances, is so idiotic that it was designed to fail - e.g., foreigners already in the US, including very distinguished ones, could not leave and return because they are a "threat", how stupid is that?)

    You’re right that the travel order was incompetently and foolishly written and implemented.

    President Trump should have exempted people who are already legal permanent residents, and he could have given everyone else least some few weeks of advance warning to minimize disruption to prepaid business, tourism, and family travel.

    But his basic premise is absolutely sound. The travel ban should include anyone from many more countries than the seven listed, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey, not one of which is a civilized country by our lights and not one of which can be trusted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    "The travel ban should include anyone from many more countries than the seven listed, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey."

    Turns out a lot of the "foreign terrorists" in the US came from UK (the top two countries on the list, indeed, seem to be Pakistan and Colombia, see http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/Terror%20Arrests.senate%20judiciary.pdf). Should we ban UK and Colombian tourists too? Or must it be a Muslim-majority country for the 99.99999% of the people (the innocent) to be caught up in the drag net?

    As to Turkey, millions of Turks live in Germany for decades and have not been responsible for terrorism. And having lived among them in Berlin for 6 months I found them to be quite civilized - more so than the Puerto Ricans I lived amongst in Brooklyn, the Mexicans I lived amongst in Chicago, or the blacks I lived amongst in Philadelphia, in each case by a long shot.

    Yes it is easy to be judgmental and racist and judge an entire group of people by our (narrow, false) stereotypes. I'm not a globalist (in terms of global "free trade" or global government) but I am an ardent international traveler and even more not a racist or a hater.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @CalDre
    I'd show you numbers but the Fraudster Trumpster has refused to release his tax returns.

    You didn't show any numbers, you made some claim nobody can verify. The mass media gave Trump billions in free publicity. Did you calculate that in your "formula"? Did you calculate the effect of PACs and the hundreds of millions spent by Ziofascists like Sheldon Adelson to promote Trump?

    If you want to know how Trump got rich, read about his deals. I know about it because I saw it as it happened, I'm not researching it for you now, even if you weren't a hopelessly deluded sycophant. But I'm sure even someone like you can type "Trump Deutsche Bank" or "Trump real estate lenders" into your favorite search engine and start reading.

    And you do know about the "Apprentice", SNL and other media appearances/interviews Trump has had? They don't do that for people they don't like.

    He shouldn’t release his tax returns. He has never been charged with any individual-income tax violation, has he? What is the relevance?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    " He has never been charged with any individual-income tax violation, has he?" How would I (or you) know? Unless it becomes a civil or criminal prosecution, it's private.

    " What is the relevance?" Tradition. And, in Trump's case, his multiple and repeated promises to release them "after the audit". But of course Trump is a typical politician when it comes to honesty and keeping promises, isn't he?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Wizard of Oz
    Without wishing to suggest that the Korean war didn't provide examples of very bad decisions would you really suggest that the Soviet Union's proxy and little brother should have been allowed to take over the whole of Korea?

    Yes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Wow! I wonder which alternative histories you would be happy with.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. CalDre says:
    @RadicalCenter
    You're right that the travel order was incompetently and foolishly written and implemented.

    President Trump should have exempted people who are already legal permanent residents, and he could have given everyone else least some few weeks of advance warning to minimize disruption to prepaid business, tourism, and family travel.

    But his basic premise is absolutely sound. The travel ban should include anyone from many more countries than the seven listed, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey, not one of which is a civilized country by our lights and not one of which can be trusted.

    The travel ban should include anyone from many more countries than the seven listed, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey.”

    Turns out a lot of the “foreign terrorists” in the US came from UK (the top two countries on the list, indeed, seem to be Pakistan and Colombia, see http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/Terror%20Arrests.senate%20judiciary.pdf). Should we ban UK and Colombian tourists too? Or must it be a Muslim-majority country for the 99.99999% of the people (the innocent) to be caught up in the drag net?

    As to Turkey, millions of Turks live in Germany for decades and have not been responsible for terrorism. And having lived among them in Berlin for 6 months I found them to be quite civilized – more so than the Puerto Ricans I lived amongst in Brooklyn, the Mexicans I lived amongst in Chicago, or the blacks I lived amongst in Philadelphia, in each case by a long shot.

    Yes it is easy to be judgmental and racist and judge an entire group of people by our (narrow, false) stereotypes. I’m not a globalist (in terms of global “free trade” or global government) but I am an ardent international traveler and even more not a racist or a hater.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    You think 99% of Muslims don't support aggressive violence against nonMuslims in nonmuslim countries? That's terminally naive.

    And yes, I do regret that protecting our peoples most effectively must exclude from our lands -- and thereby probably offend -- peaceful non-hateful Muslims. But there is no perfect option on this as so many issues.

    Better to offend Muslims by excluding them, than to keep letting them immigrating here and slowly growing their share of the population and colonizing parts of our countries, influencing our culture for the worse and gradually threatening our peoples safety and way of life here.

    In any event, simply excluding Muslims from our countries is infinitely better than killing, maiming, droning, and terrorizing them in their countries, all of which I'd stop today. Probably you would too.
    , @RadicalCenter
    I understand, Caldre.

    I wholeheartedly share your interest in, perhaps fascination with, other cultures and nations. I will travel as much as time and money permit until my life is over, specifically to seek out and learn about people who live, think, worship, eat, and dress differently. (My wife is from Asia and, as a filipina, largely nonwhite.).

    I am even interested in the cultures of many Muslim countries, including Iran (having an old high school friend who hails from Iran and speaks fluent Farsi along with English and some German). But that's a far cry from wanting large numbers of Muslims or other less-compatible less-assimilable people to be given residency, let alone citizenship, in our lands.

    There is a middle ground where we retain and restore our culture, language, and mores assertively in our lands, excluding most people of other religions and races (except those who marry Americans or perhaps come here temporarily for business or tourism after exhaustive vetting), without going abroad to harm or threaten them.

    Every person of another race or religion who comes to visit us should be treated with respect, generosity, and hospitality, as both common sense (don't needlessly alienate or insult people) and Christianity require. Then they should be monitored to make sure that they leave when their visa expires and not a day later. For every person from a certain country who overstays a visa and tries to disappear in the USA, we should impose a moratorium on anyone coming here from that country.

    Otherwise, they'll be welcome to visit and hopefully return home with fond memories of America and Americans, our new much tougher border and immigration laws notwithstanding.

    , @RadicalCenter
    It's not just terrorism we should worry about, by a long shot. The Turks in Germany are indeed gradually changing the culture of Germany. And realistically, one should expect some of them to become less tolerant and assimilative, and more aggressive, as the number of their coreligionists continue to grow massively in Germany -- which is human nature, not just pinned on Muslims or Turks or Africans.

    Turks should have stayed in turkey, to be welcomed to Germany and other white and/or Christian lands as tourists and exchange students and businesspeople in massive numbers, treated well, educated in German (or English, French, etc.) and then sent home as friends and acquaintances.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. CalDre says:
    @RadicalCenter
    "All the evidence" suggests that President Trump is a globalist stooge? Including his killing off TPP and calling to renegotiate or repeal NAFTA? His proposal to impose tariffs or a border-adjusted tax to favor American manufacturers over foreign ones in our market?

    He may sell us out yet, but it's not the case that all evidence shows him to be a globalist so far.

    By the way, what Shrillery promised during the campaign on trade had little relation to her stated views over many years. Not so with Trump.

    Including his killing off TPP“. That was already dead (McConnell in Aug. 2016), though yes, that he went through with withdrawing is one exception to my comment.

    and calling to renegotiate or repeal NAFTA? His proposal to impose tariffs or a border-adjusted tax to favor American manufacturers over foreign ones in our market?” Talk, talk, talk – means absolutely nothing (and by absolutely nothing, I mean, absolutely nothing). I ignore talk, and look at actions.

    Besides, renegotiating NAFTA does not make Trump not a globalist stooge. It all depends on the details of the renegotiation and a lot of other context. Even globalists re-negotiate agreements. Indeed the WTO agreements are constantly being renegotiated (and AFAIK Trump hasn’t even talked about exiting that organization). Indeed, the WTO, the World Bank, the IMF, the ITO, the UN and many other organizations are central to establishing a global government and global control.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Can't argue with your comments here. We will wait together, with a great dose of skepticism and distrust borne of experience, to see if his proposals continue to turn into concrete action.
    , @RadicalCenter
    PS I'd be glad to keep something like NAFTA with Canada but ditch it with Mexico.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @AP

    You say “pro-Russian”, but what do you mean by that, really
     
    In the context of military conflict, I meant solders in the Ukrainian military who were willing to betray the Ukrainian military and join the Russian one instead. 80% of Crimean soldiers (mostly ethnic Russians from Crimea) did so. Your claim that 50% of the regular Ukrainian army would do this suggests that Ukrainians are 2/3 as pro-Russian as those Crimeans were - which is absurdly optimistic.

    I watch their TV, they run call-in opinion polls (where I imagine only those vote who feel strongly), and from these polls I get the impression that the country is 85% pro-Russian.

    There aren’t as many crazies as it may seem. Some people are opportunistic and they talk crazy, but they’d change the tune in a second. And most, a vast majority of people are normal: of course they are all ‘pro-Russian’.
     

    Sorry, but that's traditional Russian wishful thinking which leads to disappointment and inevitable turn to conspiracy theories (neoc0n/Zionist/America/Polish/whatever plot) in order to explain why the country did something that was contrary to the wishful thinking.

    Various opinion polls consistently show no significant turn towards Russia or pro-Russian parties, and support for Russia as low and much lower than in 2013. This pretty much matches what I see among my dozens of friends and relatives in Ukraine (the west and center) and people I've come across from other regions such as Dnipropetrovsk. I'll be spending a lot of time there this summer so I'll see for myself how it looks on the ground. Of course, the eternal Russian optimist will claim all those polls are fake, and when the election matches those poll results - that the election was rigged. Because the optimist "knows" that no matter what, the Ukrainian people really are pro-Russian.

    In the context of military conflict, I meant solders in the Ukrainian military who were willing to betray the Ukrainian military and join the Russian one instead.

    That’s not necessary. More realistic is to desert, to surrender, to shoot in the air. This is what happened a lot in 2014, when rebels were taking military bases in Donbass: everyone would shoot up into the air for a while, and then the military would declare that they’re out of ammo, and ask for a free passage. End of story.

    In other words, you don’t really need to be ‘pro-Russian’. You might feel that the regime in Kiev isn’t worth defending, and that RF is likely to help.

    Various opinion polls consistently show no significant turn towards Russia or pro-Russian parties

    I don’t know what a “pro-Russian” party outside Russia would look like. But, again, from watching their TV I get the impression that most people, unlike your friends, feel no hatred towards Russia and want good relation with Russia. Watch this, for example, the opinion poll ~25 minutes in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYtzIzgNq5E

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    In the context of military conflict, I meant solders in the Ukrainian military who were willing to betray the Ukrainian military and join the Russian one instead.

    That’s not necessary. More realistic is to desert, to surrender, to shoot in the air. This is what happened a lot in 2014, when rebels were taking military bases in Donbass: everyone would shoot up into the air for a while, and then the military would declare that they’re out of ammo, and ask for a free passage. End of story.
     
    Again, if 80% of Crimean troops of the Ukrainian army (mostly ethnic Russians from Crimea) deserted, the idea that 50% of regular Ukrainian troops would do so - suggesting that such troops are 2/3 as pro-Russian as Crimeans - is absurd.

    "Various opinion polls consistently show no significant turn towards Russia or pro-Russian parties"

    I don’t know what a “pro-Russian” party outside Russia would look like. But, again, from watching their TV I get the impression that most people, unlike your friends, feel no hatred towards Russia and want good relation with Russia. Watch this, for example, the opinion poll ~25 minutes in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYtzIzgNq5E
     
    1. The TV station you linked to , TV1, is owned by a Kharkiv (east Ukraine) based tycoon who was a member of with the old Party of Regions and belongs to the present Opposition block (so much for the idea some Russians have of Ukraine having become some sort of monolithic Galician-run anti-Russian propaganda factory). I suspect its viewers skew towards that group. The Opposition Bloc is polling at about 12% of likely voters in Ukraine. Another pro-Russian part is at about 10% of likely voters.

    2. The poll you mentioned asked if Ukrainian politicians should not fly to Moscow to conduct negotiations, or if it is acceptable to do so if it benefits Ukraine. It wasn't some sort of West vs. East poll. Tellingly, 17% of this station's poll respondents didn't think that Ukrainian politicians should even talk to the Russians at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. CalDre says:
    @RadicalCenter
    He shouldn't release his tax returns. He has never been charged with any individual-income tax violation, has he? What is the relevance?

    He has never been charged with any individual-income tax violation, has he?” How would I (or you) know? Unless it becomes a civil or criminal prosecution, it’s private.

    What is the relevance?” Tradition. And, in Trump’s case, his multiple and repeated promises to release them “after the audit”. But of course Trump is a typical politician when it comes to honesty and keeping promises, isn’t he?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    By Charged I mean criminal charges. Criminal charges are typically public, as are civil enforcement actions. So no, he hasn't been.

    Is the audit done? If so and he promised, then he should. Otherwise, no way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @RadicalCenter
    Yes.

    Wow! I wonder which alternative histories you would be happy with.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    I assume that neither of us would be happy if anyone people or territory fell to domination by totalitarians of any stripe, whether soviet communist or Islamic state or whatever.

    This country does not have unlimited resources. Every dollar we spend to defend South Korea, Taiwan, Kuwait, Iraq, or whoever nowadays is in substantial part borrowed, with huge interest payments on our backs and those of our children. It's also not specifically authorized by the constitution to undertake such farflung interventions or deployment that are not needed for defense of our territory, people, freedoms, and even shipping lanes around the world.

    And as we tell our friends on the left, "wow" is not an argument.

    Is thee any country in which you would Mkt have the us military intervene or threaten to intervene? Not sarcastic, seriously asking.

    There is a vast middle ground between our twentieth-century history of unending war, invasions, threats, sanctions, belligerence, and now drone attacks of civilian populations, and the false straw man of becoming isolated from the world.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @bluedog
    Hmm much like Nam a civil war which we involved ourselves in, we lost and did it change a thing outside of the millions we killed, and if we had stopped in Korea where General Ridgeway advised us to China would never have entered the war instead we listened to the Free China group and as they say the rest is history...

    Getting China involved was one of the mistakes I referred to but I wonder if you and Radical Center are conscious of South Korea’s remarkable development economically, socially, scientifically and even politically and contrasted it with North Korea which has to be presumed to be what South Korea would look like now…

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Yes, we have visited South Korea and have friends here in LA / OC area from there, and have followed their development with some interest, though by no means expertise.

    I don't think the relative freedom or prosperity of South Koreans was worth the killing of americans' sons and the continuing entanglement of our nation in that region's conflicts and hostilities.

    I would actually increase the size and capacity of our Air Force and navy and border patrol, then focus our military and other resources on securing our borders, securing supposedly international waters near the USA, destroying pirates and anyone who would close or extract ransom from shipping lanes, and on defense of our Anglo and European brothers. Not much else. That's by no means "isolationism" or "appeasement", and its more affordable in terms of American lives and American tax dollars than anything resembling what we have done over the past century from at least WW1 onwards.

    And defense of our Anglo/European brothers does not mean provoking, humiliating, threatening, encircling, or sanctioning Russia.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @bluedog
    Hmm much like Nam a civil war which we involved ourselves in, we lost and did it change a thing outside of the millions we killed, and if we had stopped in Korea where General Ridgeway advised us to China would never have entered the war instead we listened to the Free China group and as they say the rest is history...

    You think the US lost the Vietnam war and didn’t change a thing! Tell that to the people of East Asia and especially South East Asia and Oceania. Forget about the disgraceful scuttle and refusal to help allies/clients in the mid 70s. What would the world have been like if Soviet backed Communism had swept through SE Asia in 1963?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. AP says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    In the context of military conflict, I meant solders in the Ukrainian military who were willing to betray the Ukrainian military and join the Russian one instead.
     
    That's not necessary. More realistic is to desert, to surrender, to shoot in the air. This is what happened a lot in 2014, when rebels were taking military bases in Donbass: everyone would shoot up into the air for a while, and then the military would declare that they're out of ammo, and ask for a free passage. End of story.

    In other words, you don't really need to be 'pro-Russian'. You might feel that the regime in Kiev isn't worth defending, and that RF is likely to help.


    Various opinion polls consistently show no significant turn towards Russia or pro-Russian parties
     
    I don't know what a "pro-Russian" party outside Russia would look like. But, again, from watching their TV I get the impression that most people, unlike your friends, feel no hatred towards Russia and want good relation with Russia. Watch this, for example, the opinion poll ~25 minutes in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYtzIzgNq5E

    In the context of military conflict, I meant solders in the Ukrainian military who were willing to betray the Ukrainian military and join the Russian one instead.

    That’s not necessary. More realistic is to desert, to surrender, to shoot in the air. This is what happened a lot in 2014, when rebels were taking military bases in Donbass: everyone would shoot up into the air for a while, and then the military would declare that they’re out of ammo, and ask for a free passage. End of story.

    Again, if 80% of Crimean troops of the Ukrainian army (mostly ethnic Russians from Crimea) deserted, the idea that 50% of regular Ukrainian troops would do so – suggesting that such troops are 2/3 as pro-Russian as Crimeans – is absurd.

    “Various opinion polls consistently show no significant turn towards Russia or pro-Russian parties”

    I don’t know what a “pro-Russian” party outside Russia would look like. But, again, from watching their TV I get the impression that most people, unlike your friends, feel no hatred towards Russia and want good relation with Russia. Watch this, for example, the opinion poll ~25 minutes in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYtzIzgNq5E

    1. The TV station you linked to , TV1, is owned by a Kharkiv (east Ukraine) based tycoon who was a member of with the old Party of Regions and belongs to the present Opposition block (so much for the idea some Russians have of Ukraine having become some sort of monolithic Galician-run anti-Russian propaganda factory). I suspect its viewers skew towards that group. The Opposition Bloc is polling at about 12% of likely voters in Ukraine. Another pro-Russian part is at about 10% of likely voters.

    2. The poll you mentioned asked if Ukrainian politicians should not fly to Moscow to conduct negotiations, or if it is acceptable to do so if it benefits Ukraine. It wasn’t some sort of West vs. East poll. Tellingly, 17% of this station’s poll respondents didn’t think that Ukrainian politicians should even talk to the Russians at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    The TV station you linked to , TV1, is owned by a Kharkiv (east Ukraine) based tycoon
     
    News One is a major TV channel, available everywhere. Announcers speak Ukrainian, which means that people in Kharkov probably don't watch it, as it's perceived as a hillbilly dialect there.

    The poll you mentioned asked if Ukrainian politicians should not fly to Moscow to conduct negotiations
     
    No, there's nothing there about conducting negotiations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @AP

    In the context of military conflict, I meant solders in the Ukrainian military who were willing to betray the Ukrainian military and join the Russian one instead.

    That’s not necessary. More realistic is to desert, to surrender, to shoot in the air. This is what happened a lot in 2014, when rebels were taking military bases in Donbass: everyone would shoot up into the air for a while, and then the military would declare that they’re out of ammo, and ask for a free passage. End of story.
     
    Again, if 80% of Crimean troops of the Ukrainian army (mostly ethnic Russians from Crimea) deserted, the idea that 50% of regular Ukrainian troops would do so - suggesting that such troops are 2/3 as pro-Russian as Crimeans - is absurd.

    "Various opinion polls consistently show no significant turn towards Russia or pro-Russian parties"

    I don’t know what a “pro-Russian” party outside Russia would look like. But, again, from watching their TV I get the impression that most people, unlike your friends, feel no hatred towards Russia and want good relation with Russia. Watch this, for example, the opinion poll ~25 minutes in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYtzIzgNq5E
     
    1. The TV station you linked to , TV1, is owned by a Kharkiv (east Ukraine) based tycoon who was a member of with the old Party of Regions and belongs to the present Opposition block (so much for the idea some Russians have of Ukraine having become some sort of monolithic Galician-run anti-Russian propaganda factory). I suspect its viewers skew towards that group. The Opposition Bloc is polling at about 12% of likely voters in Ukraine. Another pro-Russian part is at about 10% of likely voters.

    2. The poll you mentioned asked if Ukrainian politicians should not fly to Moscow to conduct negotiations, or if it is acceptable to do so if it benefits Ukraine. It wasn't some sort of West vs. East poll. Tellingly, 17% of this station's poll respondents didn't think that Ukrainian politicians should even talk to the Russians at all.

    The TV station you linked to , TV1, is owned by a Kharkiv (east Ukraine) based tycoon

    News One is a major TV channel, available everywhere. Announcers speak Ukrainian, which means that people in Kharkov probably don’t watch it, as it’s perceived as a hillbilly dialect there.

    The poll you mentioned asked if Ukrainian politicians should not fly to Moscow to conduct negotiations

    No, there’s nothing there about conducting negotiations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    News One is a major TV channel, available everywhere. Announcers speak Ukrainian, which means that people in Kharkov probably don’t watch it, as it’s perceived as a hillbilly dialect there.
     
    AFAIK all on-air stations in Ukraine are obligated "officially" to be in the Ukrainian language (people with access to satellite or internet can use those media to watch TV purely in Russian, from Russia), thus announcers generally speak Ukrainian, though guests may not. The overwhelming majority of people in Kharkiv can understand Ukrainian fine, so they would watch that station.

    Anyways, again, News One, being run by an Opposition-bloc figure from eastern Ukrainian Kharkiv, is an eastern-oriented station, even though it is available everywhere (it is the third most popular station in Ukraine, 2nd among cable users). Some Ukrainian nationalists were going to protest against this station.

    Did you deliberately choose Ukraine's eastern-focused TV station to try to make a claim about Ukraine in general, or was this inadvertent?


    The poll you mentioned asked if Ukrainian politicians should not fly to Moscow to conduct negotiations

    No, there’s nothing there about conducting negotiations.
     

    The question was, "How do you feel about Ukrainian politicians travelling to Moscow?"

    17% said, no, Russia is an aggressor nation. 83% said let them go, as long as this benefits Ukraine. Some form of negotiations is implied if benefits to Ukraine are involved, no?

    Again, even on this eastern-oriented TV station, 17% of people calling in said no visits should occur, even if the other choice involved a benefit for Ukraine.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. AP says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    The TV station you linked to , TV1, is owned by a Kharkiv (east Ukraine) based tycoon
     
    News One is a major TV channel, available everywhere. Announcers speak Ukrainian, which means that people in Kharkov probably don't watch it, as it's perceived as a hillbilly dialect there.

    The poll you mentioned asked if Ukrainian politicians should not fly to Moscow to conduct negotiations
     
    No, there's nothing there about conducting negotiations.

    News One is a major TV channel, available everywhere. Announcers speak Ukrainian, which means that people in Kharkov probably don’t watch it, as it’s perceived as a hillbilly dialect there.

    AFAIK all on-air stations in Ukraine are obligated “officially” to be in the Ukrainian language (people with access to satellite or internet can use those media to watch TV purely in Russian, from Russia), thus announcers generally speak Ukrainian, though guests may not. The overwhelming majority of people in Kharkiv can understand Ukrainian fine, so they would watch that station.

    Anyways, again, News One, being run by an Opposition-bloc figure from eastern Ukrainian Kharkiv, is an eastern-oriented station, even though it is available everywhere (it is the third most popular station in Ukraine, 2nd among cable users). Some Ukrainian nationalists were going to protest against this station.

    Did you deliberately choose Ukraine’s eastern-focused TV station to try to make a claim about Ukraine in general, or was this inadvertent?

    The poll you mentioned asked if Ukrainian politicians should not fly to Moscow to conduct negotiations

    No, there’s nothing there about conducting negotiations.

    The question was, “How do you feel about Ukrainian politicians travelling to Moscow?”

    17% said, no, Russia is an aggressor nation. 83% said let them go, as long as this benefits Ukraine. Some form of negotiations is implied if benefits to Ukraine are involved, no?

    Again, even on this eastern-oriented TV station, 17% of people calling in said no visits should occur, even if the other choice involved a benefit for Ukraine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    AFAIK all on-air stations in Ukraine are obligated “officially” to be in the Ukrainian language
     
    Really? When did that happen? I doubt it. Afaik, Russian is still an official language in some regions.

    Who cares who owns the station, what is that all about? Opposition Bloc is just another trademark. The 'political parties' in 'Ukraine' are just vehicles for oligarchical influence-projection. I've read recently that the Opposition Bloc is splitting into Akhmetov's and someone else's (don't remember whose) factions. All this is meaningless, and it definitely isn't 'eastern-oriented', or it would've been all in Russian, like this one: http://radio.vesti-ukr.com/

    I was listening to Yermolaev, I didn't care which station he is on.

    " 83% said let them go, as long as this benefits Ukraine"

    They said (from memory): it's okay to go, hopefully it'll help Ukraine.

    Incidentally (slightly different topic), I saw another amazing on-air poll on a Ukrainian-language channel. They were asked if they approve getting another IMF loan. Only 5% said yes, 95% - no.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Doesn't almost everyone in Ukraine understand and speak both Ukrainian and Russian?

    My understanding is that Russian is no longer widely used (not to mention not much liked), in the far west of Ukraine near Poland and Slovakia, but that that is not true anywhere else in Ukraine.

    Conversely, while many people in the Donbass, in Crimea, and nearby in southeastern Ukraine may use Russian rather than Ukrainian in daily life, they have no difficulty at all understanding and if needed, speaking Ukrainian.

    And how different are Russian and Ukrainian languages really? Not much different at all, from what I'm told by the Ukrainians and Russians I've met in the USA and Canada and on my one trip to Ukraine. Certainly the alphabets are just about identical. Even my very limited attempt to speak some few hundred words and phrases in Ukrainian and Russian suggested that the word roots are usually the same and the spelling not far off either. Is that your understanding too?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. […] Article original publié par UNZ Review […]

    Read More
  129. @AP

    News One is a major TV channel, available everywhere. Announcers speak Ukrainian, which means that people in Kharkov probably don’t watch it, as it’s perceived as a hillbilly dialect there.
     
    AFAIK all on-air stations in Ukraine are obligated "officially" to be in the Ukrainian language (people with access to satellite or internet can use those media to watch TV purely in Russian, from Russia), thus announcers generally speak Ukrainian, though guests may not. The overwhelming majority of people in Kharkiv can understand Ukrainian fine, so they would watch that station.

    Anyways, again, News One, being run by an Opposition-bloc figure from eastern Ukrainian Kharkiv, is an eastern-oriented station, even though it is available everywhere (it is the third most popular station in Ukraine, 2nd among cable users). Some Ukrainian nationalists were going to protest against this station.

    Did you deliberately choose Ukraine's eastern-focused TV station to try to make a claim about Ukraine in general, or was this inadvertent?


    The poll you mentioned asked if Ukrainian politicians should not fly to Moscow to conduct negotiations

    No, there’s nothing there about conducting negotiations.
     

    The question was, "How do you feel about Ukrainian politicians travelling to Moscow?"

    17% said, no, Russia is an aggressor nation. 83% said let them go, as long as this benefits Ukraine. Some form of negotiations is implied if benefits to Ukraine are involved, no?

    Again, even on this eastern-oriented TV station, 17% of people calling in said no visits should occur, even if the other choice involved a benefit for Ukraine.

    AFAIK all on-air stations in Ukraine are obligated “officially” to be in the Ukrainian language

    Really? When did that happen? I doubt it. Afaik, Russian is still an official language in some regions.

    Who cares who owns the station, what is that all about? Opposition Bloc is just another trademark. The ‘political parties’ in ‘Ukraine’ are just vehicles for oligarchical influence-projection. I’ve read recently that the Opposition Bloc is splitting into Akhmetov’s and someone else’s (don’t remember whose) factions. All this is meaningless, and it definitely isn’t ‘eastern-oriented’, or it would’ve been all in Russian, like this one: http://radio.vesti-ukr.com/

    I was listening to Yermolaev, I didn’t care which station he is on.

    ” 83% said let them go, as long as this benefits Ukraine”

    They said (from memory): it’s okay to go, hopefully it’ll help Ukraine.

    Incidentally (slightly different topic), I saw another amazing on-air poll on a Ukrainian-language channel. They were asked if they approve getting another IMF loan. Only 5% said yes, 95% – no.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Who cares who owns the station, what is that all about? Opposition Bloc is just another trademark. The ‘political parties’ in ‘Ukraine’ are just vehicles for oligarchical influence-projection. I’ve read recently that the Opposition Bloc is splitting into Akhmetov’s and someone else’s (don’t remember whose) factions. All this is meaningless, and it definitely isn’t ‘eastern-oriented’, or it would’ve been all in Russian, like this one: http://radio.vesti-ukr.com/
     
    So the TV station you had used as a source of information is a vehicle for oligarchs based in eastern Ukraine who are more tied to Russia and who have been particularly hurt by the Ukraine-Russia economic semi-blockade. You tried to pass off a survey by this station's viewers, involving 26,000 respondents, as being representative of Ukraine's attitude towards Russia.

    And Radio Vesti isn't all in Russian:

    http://radio.vesti-ukr.com/interview/36918-daniela-zayushkina-nikoli-ne-vertajsya-u-minuli-miscya.html

    It, too, is owned by a Party of Regions figure - this time, from Donetsk oblast.


    I was listening to Yermolaev, I didn’t care which station he is on
     
    Yermolaev is a Donbasser linked to the deputy head of the Opposition Bloc. I'm detecting a pattern of where you get your information about what is happening within Ukraine - it comes from the Opposition bloc, representing the will of only about 25% of Ukraine's people. This would explain your skewed perceptions of the country overall, as evident in your claims.

    ” 83% said let them go, as long as this benefits Ukraine”

    They said (from memory): it’s okay to go, hopefully it’ll help Ukraine.
     

    My translation was more accurate. The original was:

    "нехай їздять, аби зиск українї був"

    In Russian this would be, according to googletranslate, "пусть ездят, чтобы выгоду Украине был"

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. AP says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    AFAIK all on-air stations in Ukraine are obligated “officially” to be in the Ukrainian language
     
    Really? When did that happen? I doubt it. Afaik, Russian is still an official language in some regions.

    Who cares who owns the station, what is that all about? Opposition Bloc is just another trademark. The 'political parties' in 'Ukraine' are just vehicles for oligarchical influence-projection. I've read recently that the Opposition Bloc is splitting into Akhmetov's and someone else's (don't remember whose) factions. All this is meaningless, and it definitely isn't 'eastern-oriented', or it would've been all in Russian, like this one: http://radio.vesti-ukr.com/

    I was listening to Yermolaev, I didn't care which station he is on.

    " 83% said let them go, as long as this benefits Ukraine"

    They said (from memory): it's okay to go, hopefully it'll help Ukraine.

    Incidentally (slightly different topic), I saw another amazing on-air poll on a Ukrainian-language channel. They were asked if they approve getting another IMF loan. Only 5% said yes, 95% - no.

    Who cares who owns the station, what is that all about? Opposition Bloc is just another trademark. The ‘political parties’ in ‘Ukraine’ are just vehicles for oligarchical influence-projection. I’ve read recently that the Opposition Bloc is splitting into Akhmetov’s and someone else’s (don’t remember whose) factions. All this is meaningless, and it definitely isn’t ‘eastern-oriented’, or it would’ve been all in Russian, like this one: http://radio.vesti-ukr.com/

    So the TV station you had used as a source of information is a vehicle for oligarchs based in eastern Ukraine who are more tied to Russia and who have been particularly hurt by the Ukraine-Russia economic semi-blockade. You tried to pass off a survey by this station’s viewers, involving 26,000 respondents, as being representative of Ukraine’s attitude towards Russia.

    And Radio Vesti isn’t all in Russian:

    http://radio.vesti-ukr.com/interview/36918-daniela-zayushkina-nikoli-ne-vertajsya-u-minuli-miscya.html

    It, too, is owned by a Party of Regions figure – this time, from Donetsk oblast.

    I was listening to Yermolaev, I didn’t care which station he is on

    Yermolaev is a Donbasser linked to the deputy head of the Opposition Bloc. I’m detecting a pattern of where you get your information about what is happening within Ukraine – it comes from the Opposition bloc, representing the will of only about 25% of Ukraine’s people. This would explain your skewed perceptions of the country overall, as evident in your claims.

    ” 83% said let them go, as long as this benefits Ukraine”

    They said (from memory): it’s okay to go, hopefully it’ll help Ukraine.

    My translation was more accurate. The original was:

    “нехай їздять, аби зиск українї був”

    In Russian this would be, according to googletranslate, “пусть ездят, чтобы выгоду Украине был”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    Sure. Yermolaev is 'linked' to something, and I have a 'pattern', and on-air polls by a nationwide news channel are not to be trusted. But the alleged attitude of people 'AP' claims to have met in Dnepropetrovsk in 2015 is to be assumed the prevailing one today. Does this sum it up well?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @AP

    Who cares who owns the station, what is that all about? Opposition Bloc is just another trademark. The ‘political parties’ in ‘Ukraine’ are just vehicles for oligarchical influence-projection. I’ve read recently that the Opposition Bloc is splitting into Akhmetov’s and someone else’s (don’t remember whose) factions. All this is meaningless, and it definitely isn’t ‘eastern-oriented’, or it would’ve been all in Russian, like this one: http://radio.vesti-ukr.com/
     
    So the TV station you had used as a source of information is a vehicle for oligarchs based in eastern Ukraine who are more tied to Russia and who have been particularly hurt by the Ukraine-Russia economic semi-blockade. You tried to pass off a survey by this station's viewers, involving 26,000 respondents, as being representative of Ukraine's attitude towards Russia.

    And Radio Vesti isn't all in Russian:

    http://radio.vesti-ukr.com/interview/36918-daniela-zayushkina-nikoli-ne-vertajsya-u-minuli-miscya.html

    It, too, is owned by a Party of Regions figure - this time, from Donetsk oblast.


    I was listening to Yermolaev, I didn’t care which station he is on
     
    Yermolaev is a Donbasser linked to the deputy head of the Opposition Bloc. I'm detecting a pattern of where you get your information about what is happening within Ukraine - it comes from the Opposition bloc, representing the will of only about 25% of Ukraine's people. This would explain your skewed perceptions of the country overall, as evident in your claims.

    ” 83% said let them go, as long as this benefits Ukraine”

    They said (from memory): it’s okay to go, hopefully it’ll help Ukraine.
     

    My translation was more accurate. The original was:

    "нехай їздять, аби зиск українї був"

    In Russian this would be, according to googletranslate, "пусть ездят, чтобы выгоду Украине был"

    Sure. Yermolaev is ‘linked’ to something, and I have a ‘pattern’, and on-air polls by a nationwide news channel are not to be trusted. But the alleged attitude of people ‘AP’ claims to have met in Dnepropetrovsk in 2015 is to be assumed the prevailing one today. Does this sum it up well?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Yermolaev is ‘linked’ to something
     
    Should I be more specific? Yermolaev, a native of Donbas, was the former director of the National Institute of Strategic Studies serving Yanukovich, leaving in early 2014 as Yanukovich was thrown out. He is currently the director of an analytic group called "New Ukraine", which works for Sergey Lyovochkin, deputy head of the Opposition Bloc.

    and I have a ‘pattern’
     
    You make claims about Ukrainians' attitudes based on a poll on a radio station owned/controlled by some Eastern Ukrainian oligarch, member of the Opposition Bloc, based in Kharkiv. Your other source of info is Andrei Yermolaev, a career Party of Regions/Opposition Bloc politologist.

    That seems to be a pattern. The pattern is that you rely on information from a source (Ukraine's Opposition Bloc, formerly Yanukovich's Party of Regions) that enjoys the support of about 1/4 of Ukraine's population. This is why your claims - such as that 1/2 of Ukrainian soldiers would desert if given the chance, or that Ukrainians have turned from the West towards Russia - are so nonsensical when applied towards Ukraine as a whole.

    Your claims are interesting points of data and probably reflect what is going on in limited places where the Opposition Bloc is popular, such as Kharkiv. But they are silly if generalized to all of Ukraine.

    To reiterate and to be clear about what you do- you present the Yanukovich heirs' stories about what is happening in Ukraine.


    But the alleged attitude of people ‘AP’ claims to have met in Dnepropetrovsk in 2015 is to be assumed the prevailing one today.
     
    When the alleged attitude of people I've met matches election polls, election data, and various surveys they probably reflect prevailing attitudes in the country- more so than do the opinions of people working for parties that only enjoy the support of 1/4 of the Ukrainian population who has a political opinion.

    Wiki has a summary of various polls. For example according to the most recent KIIS poll, if parliamentary elections were held aong parties clearing the 5% threshold, Tymoshenko's party would get 18% of the vote, Opposition bloc and Poroshenko's Party would each get 12%, another eastern Party allied to the Opposition Bloc (New Life) would get 10.5%, Lyashko's Radicals would get 10%, Samopomich (Lviv-based center-right party) would get 7.5% and Svoboda would get 5%. The other 20% or so would go to numerous small parties, the largest of which are the pro-NATO Citizens' Position Party led by a Yushchenko's defense minister (4.8%) and Saakashvili's party (4.1%).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. AP says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    Sure. Yermolaev is 'linked' to something, and I have a 'pattern', and on-air polls by a nationwide news channel are not to be trusted. But the alleged attitude of people 'AP' claims to have met in Dnepropetrovsk in 2015 is to be assumed the prevailing one today. Does this sum it up well?

    Yermolaev is ‘linked’ to something

    Should I be more specific? Yermolaev, a native of Donbas, was the former director of the National Institute of Strategic Studies serving Yanukovich, leaving in early 2014 as Yanukovich was thrown out. He is currently the director of an analytic group called “New Ukraine”, which works for Sergey Lyovochkin, deputy head of the Opposition Bloc.

    and I have a ‘pattern’

    You make claims about Ukrainians’ attitudes based on a poll on a radio station owned/controlled by some Eastern Ukrainian oligarch, member of the Opposition Bloc, based in Kharkiv. Your other source of info is Andrei Yermolaev, a career Party of Regions/Opposition Bloc politologist.

    That seems to be a pattern. The pattern is that you rely on information from a source (Ukraine’s Opposition Bloc, formerly Yanukovich’s Party of Regions) that enjoys the support of about 1/4 of Ukraine’s population. This is why your claims – such as that 1/2 of Ukrainian soldiers would desert if given the chance, or that Ukrainians have turned from the West towards Russia – are so nonsensical when applied towards Ukraine as a whole.

    Your claims are interesting points of data and probably reflect what is going on in limited places where the Opposition Bloc is popular, such as Kharkiv. But they are silly if generalized to all of Ukraine.

    To reiterate and to be clear about what you do- you present the Yanukovich heirs’ stories about what is happening in Ukraine.

    But the alleged attitude of people ‘AP’ claims to have met in Dnepropetrovsk in 2015 is to be assumed the prevailing one today.

    When the alleged attitude of people I’ve met matches election polls, election data, and various surveys they probably reflect prevailing attitudes in the country- more so than do the opinions of people working for parties that only enjoy the support of 1/4 of the Ukrainian population who has a political opinion.

    Wiki has a summary of various polls. For example according to the most recent KIIS poll, if parliamentary elections were held aong parties clearing the 5% threshold, Tymoshenko’s party would get 18% of the vote, Opposition bloc and Poroshenko’s Party would each get 12%, another eastern Party allied to the Opposition Bloc (New Life) would get 10.5%, Lyashko’s Radicals would get 10%, Samopomich (Lviv-based center-right party) would get 7.5% and Svoboda would get 5%. The other 20% or so would go to numerous small parties, the largest of which are the pro-NATO Citizens’ Position Party led by a Yushchenko’s defense minister (4.8%) and Saakashvili’s party (4.1%).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. bluedog says:
    @RadicalCenter
    They couldn't be "troops" without loaded guns. Ridiculous.

    Did the TROOPS in Ark. have loaded guns at the school or use bayonets which should answer your own lingering question…

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Can troops with bayonets hold off a much larger violent crowd, some of whom will have guns and Molotov cocktails? Not without being completely killed and overrun or at least sustaining grievous losses.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @CalDre
    " He has never been charged with any individual-income tax violation, has he?" How would I (or you) know? Unless it becomes a civil or criminal prosecution, it's private.

    " What is the relevance?" Tradition. And, in Trump's case, his multiple and repeated promises to release them "after the audit". But of course Trump is a typical politician when it comes to honesty and keeping promises, isn't he?

    By Charged I mean criminal charges. Criminal charges are typically public, as are civil enforcement actions. So no, he hasn’t been.

    Is the audit done? If so and he promised, then he should. Otherwise, no way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    "Is the audit done? If so and he promised, then he should." Who knows? We will never know, he could claim it's still going on in 10 years.

    But, he could release a prior year's tax return where the audit is complete. If he had honor and integrity (which we know he doesn't) he would release those. And, he would release his current one too, because it makes no sense to withhold a tax return because an audit is ongoing. So your "no way" comment makes no sense at all. And by that, I mean, no sense. It's just an excuse not to release his returns which makes him dishonorable and a liar.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Wizard of Oz
    Wow! I wonder which alternative histories you would be happy with.

    I assume that neither of us would be happy if anyone people or territory fell to domination by totalitarians of any stripe, whether soviet communist or Islamic state or whatever.

    This country does not have unlimited resources. Every dollar we spend to defend South Korea, Taiwan, Kuwait, Iraq, or whoever nowadays is in substantial part borrowed, with huge interest payments on our backs and those of our children. It’s also not specifically authorized by the constitution to undertake such farflung interventions or deployment that are not needed for defense of our territory, people, freedoms, and even shipping lanes around the world.

    And as we tell our friends on the left, “wow” is not an argument.

    Is thee any country in which you would Mkt have the us military intervene or threaten to intervene? Not sarcastic, seriously asking.

    There is a vast middle ground between our twentieth-century history of unending war, invasions, threats, sanctions, belligerence, and now drone attacks of civilian populations, and the false straw man of becoming isolated from the world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Wizard of Oz
    Getting China involved was one of the mistakes I referred to but I wonder if you and Radical Center are conscious of South Korea's remarkable development economically, socially, scientifically and even politically and contrasted it with North Korea which has to be presumed to be what South Korea would look like now...

    Yes, we have visited South Korea and have friends here in LA / OC area from there, and have followed their development with some interest, though by no means expertise.

    I don’t think the relative freedom or prosperity of South Koreans was worth the killing of americans’ sons and the continuing entanglement of our nation in that region’s conflicts and hostilities.

    I would actually increase the size and capacity of our Air Force and navy and border patrol, then focus our military and other resources on securing our borders, securing supposedly international waters near the USA, destroying pirates and anyone who would close or extract ransom from shipping lanes, and on defense of our Anglo and European brothers. Not much else. That’s by no means “isolationism” or “appeasement”, and its more affordable in terms of American lives and American tax dollars than anything resembling what we have done over the past century from at least WW1 onwards.

    And defense of our Anglo/European brothers does not mean provoking, humiliating, threatening, encircling, or sanctioning Russia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @CalDre
    "Including his killing off TPP". That was already dead (McConnell in Aug. 2016), though yes, that he went through with withdrawing is one exception to my comment.

    "and calling to renegotiate or repeal NAFTA? His proposal to impose tariffs or a border-adjusted tax to favor American manufacturers over foreign ones in our market?" Talk, talk, talk - means absolutely nothing (and by absolutely nothing, I mean, absolutely nothing). I ignore talk, and look at actions.

    Besides, renegotiating NAFTA does not make Trump not a globalist stooge. It all depends on the details of the renegotiation and a lot of other context. Even globalists re-negotiate agreements. Indeed the WTO agreements are constantly being renegotiated (and AFAIK Trump hasn't even talked about exiting that organization). Indeed, the WTO, the World Bank, the IMF, the ITO, the UN and many other organizations are central to establishing a global government and global control.

    Can’t argue with your comments here. We will wait together, with a great dose of skepticism and distrust borne of experience, to see if his proposals continue to turn into concrete action.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @CalDre
    "Including his killing off TPP". That was already dead (McConnell in Aug. 2016), though yes, that he went through with withdrawing is one exception to my comment.

    "and calling to renegotiate or repeal NAFTA? His proposal to impose tariffs or a border-adjusted tax to favor American manufacturers over foreign ones in our market?" Talk, talk, talk - means absolutely nothing (and by absolutely nothing, I mean, absolutely nothing). I ignore talk, and look at actions.

    Besides, renegotiating NAFTA does not make Trump not a globalist stooge. It all depends on the details of the renegotiation and a lot of other context. Even globalists re-negotiate agreements. Indeed the WTO agreements are constantly being renegotiated (and AFAIK Trump hasn't even talked about exiting that organization). Indeed, the WTO, the World Bank, the IMF, the ITO, the UN and many other organizations are central to establishing a global government and global control.

    PS I’d be glad to keep something like NAFTA with Canada but ditch it with Mexico.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @bluedog
    Did the TROOPS in Ark. have loaded guns at the school or use bayonets which should answer your own lingering question...

    Can troops with bayonets hold off a much larger violent crowd, some of whom will have guns and Molotov cocktails? Not without being completely killed and overrun or at least sustaining grievous losses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Now your speaking of things to come while I was speaking of the past,now there was a very valid reason why those guardsmen are not armed with ammunition in situation like those, for the fear that some half-ass Rambo will start to liquidate the population ,and when that half-ass (who's day job is stocking shelves at Wally world) Rambo starts to shoot then its a herd mentality and they all began to fire...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @AP
    Correct but this goes both ways. I've heard former Yanukovich voters from Dnipropetrovsk who had opposed Maidan, speak very bitterly about Russia due to Crimea and due to Russian bullets and volunteers killing boys from their city, fighting in Donbas.

    Oh, killing “boys”, eh? Are they playing with toys as Russian thugs gun them down in their kindergartens?

    You mean six-foot-tall 18-30-year-old “boys” who are trying to kill and maim other “boys” — of almost identical genetic stock, speaking the same or extremely similar languages — who have done nothing to harm or threaten them or the rest of Ukraine?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Oh, killing “boys”, eh? Are they playing with toys as Russian thugs gun them down in their kindergartens?
     
    To a mother, her children will always be her boys. That's how mothers talk - "my boy was killed by a Russian bullet."

    You mean six-foot-tall 18-30-year-old “boys” who are trying to kill and maim other “boys” — of almost identical genetic stock, speaking the same or extremely similar languages — who have done nothing to harm or threaten them or the rest of Ukraine?
     
    They actually did threaten to bring their counter-revolution to Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv, and even to Kiev itself, before they were stopped and contained in the Donbas - a necessary evil.

    Moreover, this is after all Ukrainian territory. If a bunch of California Mexicans and volunteers from Mexico, supplied by the Mexican government, took over parts of the US Southwest, it would be normal and natural for the American state to use force against this, for Americans from Nevada or Oregan to fight them.

    There are not thousands of Ukrainian volunteers in Russian territory killing Russians in their own country, nor is Ukraine sending bullets and weapons to Russia for this. But Russia, the champion of misguided white people, is doing this to another white country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @CalDre
    "The travel ban should include anyone from many more countries than the seven listed, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey."

    Turns out a lot of the "foreign terrorists" in the US came from UK (the top two countries on the list, indeed, seem to be Pakistan and Colombia, see http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/Terror%20Arrests.senate%20judiciary.pdf). Should we ban UK and Colombian tourists too? Or must it be a Muslim-majority country for the 99.99999% of the people (the innocent) to be caught up in the drag net?

    As to Turkey, millions of Turks live in Germany for decades and have not been responsible for terrorism. And having lived among them in Berlin for 6 months I found them to be quite civilized - more so than the Puerto Ricans I lived amongst in Brooklyn, the Mexicans I lived amongst in Chicago, or the blacks I lived amongst in Philadelphia, in each case by a long shot.

    Yes it is easy to be judgmental and racist and judge an entire group of people by our (narrow, false) stereotypes. I'm not a globalist (in terms of global "free trade" or global government) but I am an ardent international traveler and even more not a racist or a hater.

    You think 99% of Muslims don’t support aggressive violence against nonMuslims in nonmuslim countries? That’s terminally naive.

    And yes, I do regret that protecting our peoples most effectively must exclude from our lands — and thereby probably offend — peaceful non-hateful Muslims. But there is no perfect option on this as so many issues.

    Better to offend Muslims by excluding them, than to keep letting them immigrating here and slowly growing their share of the population and colonizing parts of our countries, influencing our culture for the worse and gradually threatening our peoples safety and way of life here.

    In any event, simply excluding Muslims from our countries is infinitely better than killing, maiming, droning, and terrorizing them in their countries, all of which I’d stop today. Probably you would too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @CalDre
    "The travel ban should include anyone from many more countries than the seven listed, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey."

    Turns out a lot of the "foreign terrorists" in the US came from UK (the top two countries on the list, indeed, seem to be Pakistan and Colombia, see http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/Terror%20Arrests.senate%20judiciary.pdf). Should we ban UK and Colombian tourists too? Or must it be a Muslim-majority country for the 99.99999% of the people (the innocent) to be caught up in the drag net?

    As to Turkey, millions of Turks live in Germany for decades and have not been responsible for terrorism. And having lived among them in Berlin for 6 months I found them to be quite civilized - more so than the Puerto Ricans I lived amongst in Brooklyn, the Mexicans I lived amongst in Chicago, or the blacks I lived amongst in Philadelphia, in each case by a long shot.

    Yes it is easy to be judgmental and racist and judge an entire group of people by our (narrow, false) stereotypes. I'm not a globalist (in terms of global "free trade" or global government) but I am an ardent international traveler and even more not a racist or a hater.

    I understand, Caldre.

    I wholeheartedly share your interest in, perhaps fascination with, other cultures and nations. I will travel as much as time and money permit until my life is over, specifically to seek out and learn about people who live, think, worship, eat, and dress differently. (My wife is from Asia and, as a filipina, largely nonwhite.).

    I am even interested in the cultures of many Muslim countries, including Iran (having an old high school friend who hails from Iran and speaks fluent Farsi along with English and some German). But that’s a far cry from wanting large numbers of Muslims or other less-compatible less-assimilable people to be given residency, let alone citizenship, in our lands.

    There is a middle ground where we retain and restore our culture, language, and mores assertively in our lands, excluding most people of other religions and races (except those who marry Americans or perhaps come here temporarily for business or tourism after exhaustive vetting), without going abroad to harm or threaten them.

    Every person of another race or religion who comes to visit us should be treated with respect, generosity, and hospitality, as both common sense (don’t needlessly alienate or insult people) and Christianity require. Then they should be monitored to make sure that they leave when their visa expires and not a day later. For every person from a certain country who overstays a visa and tries to disappear in the USA, we should impose a moratorium on anyone coming here from that country.

    Otherwise, they’ll be welcome to visit and hopefully return home with fond memories of America and Americans, our new much tougher border and immigration laws notwithstanding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    There is a middle ground where we retain and restore our culture, language, and mores assertively in our lands, excluding most people of other religions and races (except those who marry Americans or perhaps come here temporarily for business or tourism after exhaustive vetting), without going abroad to harm or threaten them.
     
    The problem with Trump's ban is he blocked all tourists, students, etc. Even those already here.

    And in terms of un-assimilable change-agents, Jews are the number one culprit. They travel everywhere and for 2,000 years!!!!! have refused to assimilate; and not just that, rather in reverse, they force their ways on their hosts. The de-Christianization of the West was accomplished largely by Jews. Today we see huge Menorahs on the White House lawn, as well as pagan Christmas trees everywhere, but a cross or manger is strictly prohibited; we see the celebration of a cross dunked in a jar of urine but the most vociferous condemnation if someone desecrates anything Jewish. This is not the doing of Muslims, this is the doing of Jews. Unlike Muslims in the US, Jews control Hollywood, the media, banking, major corporations, etc.; represent a massively disproportionate number of people on the Supreme Court, in Congress and in the White House; etc.

    If you are worried about Muslims, you are just barking up the wrong tree. The systematic dismantling of our mores and culture and language (and that of the rest of the West) have already happened and it was not the Muslims doing it. Indeed modern (strict) Muslims are not so different from our Christian ancestors, whom the degenerate secular humanists declare to be barbaric and savage.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @CalDre
    "The travel ban should include anyone from many more countries than the seven listed, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey."

    Turns out a lot of the "foreign terrorists" in the US came from UK (the top two countries on the list, indeed, seem to be Pakistan and Colombia, see http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/Terror%20Arrests.senate%20judiciary.pdf). Should we ban UK and Colombian tourists too? Or must it be a Muslim-majority country for the 99.99999% of the people (the innocent) to be caught up in the drag net?

    As to Turkey, millions of Turks live in Germany for decades and have not been responsible for terrorism. And having lived among them in Berlin for 6 months I found them to be quite civilized - more so than the Puerto Ricans I lived amongst in Brooklyn, the Mexicans I lived amongst in Chicago, or the blacks I lived amongst in Philadelphia, in each case by a long shot.

    Yes it is easy to be judgmental and racist and judge an entire group of people by our (narrow, false) stereotypes. I'm not a globalist (in terms of global "free trade" or global government) but I am an ardent international traveler and even more not a racist or a hater.

    It’s not just terrorism we should worry about, by a long shot. The Turks in Germany are indeed gradually changing the culture of Germany. And realistically, one should expect some of them to become less tolerant and assimilative, and more aggressive, as the number of their coreligionists continue to grow massively in Germany — which is human nature, not just pinned on Muslims or Turks or Africans.

    Turks should have stayed in turkey, to be welcomed to Germany and other white and/or Christian lands as tourists and exchange students and businesspeople in massive numbers, treated well, educated in German (or English, French, etc.) and then sent home as friends and acquaintances.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @AP

    News One is a major TV channel, available everywhere. Announcers speak Ukrainian, which means that people in Kharkov probably don’t watch it, as it’s perceived as a hillbilly dialect there.
     
    AFAIK all on-air stations in Ukraine are obligated "officially" to be in the Ukrainian language (people with access to satellite or internet can use those media to watch TV purely in Russian, from Russia), thus announcers generally speak Ukrainian, though guests may not. The overwhelming majority of people in Kharkiv can understand Ukrainian fine, so they would watch that station.

    Anyways, again, News One, being run by an Opposition-bloc figure from eastern Ukrainian Kharkiv, is an eastern-oriented station, even though it is available everywhere (it is the third most popular station in Ukraine, 2nd among cable users). Some Ukrainian nationalists were going to protest against this station.

    Did you deliberately choose Ukraine's eastern-focused TV station to try to make a claim about Ukraine in general, or was this inadvertent?


    The poll you mentioned asked if Ukrainian politicians should not fly to Moscow to conduct negotiations

    No, there’s nothing there about conducting negotiations.
     

    The question was, "How do you feel about Ukrainian politicians travelling to Moscow?"

    17% said, no, Russia is an aggressor nation. 83% said let them go, as long as this benefits Ukraine. Some form of negotiations is implied if benefits to Ukraine are involved, no?

    Again, even on this eastern-oriented TV station, 17% of people calling in said no visits should occur, even if the other choice involved a benefit for Ukraine.

    Doesn’t almost everyone in Ukraine understand and speak both Ukrainian and Russian?

    My understanding is that Russian is no longer widely used (not to mention not much liked), in the far west of Ukraine near Poland and Slovakia, but that that is not true anywhere else in Ukraine.

    Conversely, while many people in the Donbass, in Crimea, and nearby in southeastern Ukraine may use Russian rather than Ukrainian in daily life, they have no difficulty at all understanding and if needed, speaking Ukrainian.

    And how different are Russian and Ukrainian languages really? Not much different at all, from what I’m told by the Ukrainians and Russians I’ve met in the USA and Canada and on my one trip to Ukraine. Certainly the alphabets are just about identical. Even my very limited attempt to speak some few hundred words and phrases in Ukrainian and Russian suggested that the word roots are usually the same and the spelling not far off either. Is that your understanding too?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Doesn’t almost everyone in Ukraine understand and speak both Ukrainian and Russian?
     
    Basically. Although in Ukraine's western oblasts, with about 8 million people, the generation that grew up after the Soviet collapse (people under 25) often speak no Russian or very poor Russian.

    Conversely, while many people in the Donbass, in Crimea, and nearby in southeastern Ukraine may use Russian rather than Ukrainian in daily life, they have no difficulty at all understanding and if needed, speaking Ukrainian

     

    Crimea and urban Donbas might be different in terms of speaking. Ukrainian is compulsory in schools and the languages are close enough that learning them is easy, so most people in Ukraine understand Ukrainian.

    And how different are Russian and Ukrainian languages really?
     
    They are a little further than Spanish and Italian but closer than Spanish and French. Ukrainian vocabulary is closer to Polish but grammar and pronunciation are more like Russian. They are close enough to make learning easy but not so close that one can understand the other without any familiarity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. bluedog says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Can troops with bayonets hold off a much larger violent crowd, some of whom will have guns and Molotov cocktails? Not without being completely killed and overrun or at least sustaining grievous losses.

    Now your speaking of things to come while I was speaking of the past,now there was a very valid reason why those guardsmen are not armed with ammunition in situation like those, for the fear that some half-ass Rambo will start to liquidate the population ,and when that half-ass (who’s day job is stocking shelves at Wally world) Rambo starts to shoot then its a herd mentality and they all began to fire…

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Fair enough.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @bluedog
    Now your speaking of things to come while I was speaking of the past,now there was a very valid reason why those guardsmen are not armed with ammunition in situation like those, for the fear that some half-ass Rambo will start to liquidate the population ,and when that half-ass (who's day job is stocking shelves at Wally world) Rambo starts to shoot then its a herd mentality and they all began to fire...

    Fair enough.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. annamaria says:
    @AP
    I generally agree with your post. However:

    I imagine there are more than a few non-Yanukovich voters from Lvov who are resentful towards the current Kiev regime for having their boys sent to kill their own fellow countrymen in a clearly unwinnable war at the behest of a foreign imperial power.
     
    There is some of that - they notice that people from Donbas themselves aren't fighting to get their territory back to Ukraine, so why should they themselves risk their lives to do so? This leads to resentment against Donbas refugees (particularly fighting-age males). However the general sentiment - accurate or not - is, "We didn't do anything in Crimea, so they took it. If we don't stop them at Donbas, they'll go for Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk. If we don't sop them there, they'll make a play for Kiev next."

    Back in 2015 I spoke to a few regular people I met from Dnipropetrovsk. Former Yanukovich voters, opposed to Maidan, their sentiment about Russia was that the country they had thought of as a Slavic brother had stabbed them in the back and taken Crimea when Ukraine became unstable (they come to view Crimea as an integral part of their country). They viewed the war in Donbas as a terrible necessity - "our boys have to fight there because if they don't our own city would become a warzone." They blamed Russia for this (because indeed if Russia has cut off all support, stemmed the flow of volunteers and weapons, the war would be over). I don't know how widespread that sort of sentiment is, but I suspect it is rather common. There was no love whatsoever for Ukraine's political leadership. Being angry at Russia and "pro-Ukraine" is not tied to support for Poroshenko or other politicians.

    “…if Russia has cut off all support…”
    Right. And if only Russia offered help to NATO to install more weaponry in Ukraine, closer to the Russian borders. Again, what country was the most powerful supporter of the Maidan revolution that has brought to power the chocolate king, Groysman, and the 2%-approval rating Yatz? And why exactly the Russian federation rushed to bring Crimea back to her fold? According to your tone, that was a fancy by Russians.
    In case you are not aware, there are “Sevastopol Sketches” by Leo Tolstoy, which could help you to get some perspective on the history of Crimea. Closer to our time, have you really never had a thought that Russian federation needs to protect her southern borders from the obsessive regime-changers?
    The conflict in Ukraine could have been solved without blood if (IF) the “revolutionaries” in Kiev agreed on federalization (you know, like in the US), but such outcome – without a civil war – would be unacceptable to the “investors” (see Nulnd-Kagan’s presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=450). Or you are so incredibly naive that you do believe that the US has been investing money in Ukraine because of the “democracy on the march?” And look, what a great march the “investors” have arranged there, with neo-Nazis leading the crowd. So much for the ziocons’ squealing about antisemitism everywhere: http://www.salon.com/2014/02/25/is_the_us_backing_neo_nazis_in_ukraine_partner/

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    In case you are not aware, there are “Sevastopol Sketches” by Leo Tolstoy, which could help you to get some perspective on the history of Crimea.
     
    So when Russian tourists visit a place it becomes ancient Russian territory?

    1897 Russian census for Crimea:

    Russians: 33.11%
    Ukrainians: 11.84%
    Tatars: 35.55%

    (rest were Armenians, Greeks, Jews, etc.)

    The conflict in Ukraine could have been solved without blood if (IF) the “revolutionaries” in Kiev agreed on federalization (you know, like in the US)
     
    The federalization the Russians demanded wasn't like in the USA but something no other sovereign country has - giving Donbas veto power over national decisions, for example. It would be like giving California special status, allowing it to decide whether or not America leaves NAFTA. And the ones wielding power in this "federalization were the Russian activists who had taken over the place. So it would be like California under La Raza having special autonomy over the USA. No thanks.

    Or you are so incredibly naive that you do believe that the US has been investing money in Ukraine because of the “democracy on the march?
     
    Now you are back to the "US coup" story.

    You still refuse to answer the question about whether the American Revolution was a French coup, given that the French did much more for the Americans than the West did for Ukraine pro-Westerners during Maidan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. CalDre says:
    @RadicalCenter
    By Charged I mean criminal charges. Criminal charges are typically public, as are civil enforcement actions. So no, he hasn't been.

    Is the audit done? If so and he promised, then he should. Otherwise, no way.

    Is the audit done? If so and he promised, then he should.” Who knows? We will never know, he could claim it’s still going on in 10 years.

    But, he could release a prior year’s tax return where the audit is complete. If he had honor and integrity (which we know he doesn’t) he would release those. And, he would release his current one too, because it makes no sense to withhold a tax return because an audit is ongoing. So your “no way” comment makes no sense at all. And by that, I mean, no sense. It’s just an excuse not to release his returns which makes him dishonorable and a liar.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. CalDre says:
    @RadicalCenter
    I understand, Caldre.

    I wholeheartedly share your interest in, perhaps fascination with, other cultures and nations. I will travel as much as time and money permit until my life is over, specifically to seek out and learn about people who live, think, worship, eat, and dress differently. (My wife is from Asia and, as a filipina, largely nonwhite.).

    I am even interested in the cultures of many Muslim countries, including Iran (having an old high school friend who hails from Iran and speaks fluent Farsi along with English and some German). But that's a far cry from wanting large numbers of Muslims or other less-compatible less-assimilable people to be given residency, let alone citizenship, in our lands.

    There is a middle ground where we retain and restore our culture, language, and mores assertively in our lands, excluding most people of other religions and races (except those who marry Americans or perhaps come here temporarily for business or tourism after exhaustive vetting), without going abroad to harm or threaten them.

    Every person of another race or religion who comes to visit us should be treated with respect, generosity, and hospitality, as both common sense (don't needlessly alienate or insult people) and Christianity require. Then they should be monitored to make sure that they leave when their visa expires and not a day later. For every person from a certain country who overstays a visa and tries to disappear in the USA, we should impose a moratorium on anyone coming here from that country.

    Otherwise, they'll be welcome to visit and hopefully return home with fond memories of America and Americans, our new much tougher border and immigration laws notwithstanding.

    There is a middle ground where we retain and restore our culture, language, and mores assertively in our lands, excluding most people of other religions and races (except those who marry Americans or perhaps come here temporarily for business or tourism after exhaustive vetting), without going abroad to harm or threaten them.

    The problem with Trump’s ban is he blocked all tourists, students, etc. Even those already here.

    And in terms of un-assimilable change-agents, Jews are the number one culprit. They travel everywhere and for 2,000 years!!!!! have refused to assimilate; and not just that, rather in reverse, they force their ways on their hosts. The de-Christianization of the West was accomplished largely by Jews. Today we see huge Menorahs on the White House lawn, as well as pagan Christmas trees everywhere, but a cross or manger is strictly prohibited; we see the celebration of a cross dunked in a jar of urine but the most vociferous condemnation if someone desecrates anything Jewish. This is not the doing of Muslims, this is the doing of Jews. Unlike Muslims in the US, Jews control Hollywood, the media, banking, major corporations, etc.; represent a massively disproportionate number of people on the Supreme Court, in Congress and in the White House; etc.

    If you are worried about Muslims, you are just barking up the wrong tree. The systematic dismantling of our mores and culture and language (and that of the rest of the West) have already happened and it was not the Muslims doing it. Indeed modern (strict) Muslims are not so different from our Christian ancestors, whom the degenerate secular humanists declare to be barbaric and savage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. gerad says:
    @AP
    Correct but this goes both ways. I've heard former Yanukovich voters from Dnipropetrovsk who had opposed Maidan, speak very bitterly about Russia due to Crimea and due to Russian bullets and volunteers killing boys from their city, fighting in Donbas.

    Correct but this goes both ways. I’ve heard former Yanukovich voters from Dnipropetrovsk who had opposed Maidan, speak very bitterly about Russia due to Crimea and due to Russian bullets and volunteers killing boys from their city, fighting in Donbas.

    errrmmm…….those on the payroll of Kolomoisky and other business related reasons you fantasist dipshit liar prick. If there was no American backing for the coup then the war would not be in existence you idiot,,the ukrainians can bareky mobilise enough people to fight there you cretin

    Read More
    • Troll: AP
    • Replies: @CalDre
    Really, this venom was approved by the moderators? I'm all against censorship but there comes a point where a comment is pure vitriol and the only idea it conveys is hate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. CalDre says:
    @gerad

    Correct but this goes both ways. I’ve heard former Yanukovich voters from Dnipropetrovsk who had opposed Maidan, speak very bitterly about Russia due to Crimea and due to Russian bullets and volunteers killing boys from their city, fighting in Donbas.
     
    errrmmm.......those on the payroll of Kolomoisky and other business related reasons you fantasist dipshit liar prick. If there was no American backing for the coup then the war would not be in existence you idiot,,the ukrainians can bareky mobilise enough people to fight there you cretin

    Really, this venom was approved by the moderators? I’m all against censorship but there comes a point where a comment is pure vitriol and the only idea it conveys is hate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Lat says:

    100 years since disaster of communism revolution. Are you planning writing about centennial? Many in countries now free from Iron Curtain hope for more freedom progress and less Russia worship.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  153. AP says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Oh, killing "boys", eh? Are they playing with toys as Russian thugs gun them down in their kindergartens?

    You mean six-foot-tall 18-30-year-old "boys" who are trying to kill and maim other "boys" -- of almost identical genetic stock, speaking the same or extremely similar languages -- who have done nothing to harm or threaten them or the rest of Ukraine?

    Oh, killing “boys”, eh? Are they playing with toys as Russian thugs gun them down in their kindergartens?

    To a mother, her children will always be her boys. That’s how mothers talk – “my boy was killed by a Russian bullet.”

    You mean six-foot-tall 18-30-year-old “boys” who are trying to kill and maim other “boys” — of almost identical genetic stock, speaking the same or extremely similar languages — who have done nothing to harm or threaten them or the rest of Ukraine?

    They actually did threaten to bring their counter-revolution to Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv, and even to Kiev itself, before they were stopped and contained in the Donbas – a necessary evil.

    Moreover, this is after all Ukrainian territory. If a bunch of California Mexicans and volunteers from Mexico, supplied by the Mexican government, took over parts of the US Southwest, it would be normal and natural for the American state to use force against this, for Americans from Nevada or Oregan to fight them.

    There are not thousands of Ukrainian volunteers in Russian territory killing Russians in their own country, nor is Ukraine sending bullets and weapons to Russia for this. But Russia, the champion of misguided white people, is doing this to another white country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    Moreover, this is after all Ukrainian territory. If a bunch of California Mexicans and volunteers from Mexico, supplied by the Mexican government, took over parts of the US Southwest, it would be normal and natural for the American state to use force against this, for Americans from Nevada or Oregan to fight them.
     
    Hmm, obviously you have not been to Southwest US in a long time and have no idea about politics, so let me explain it to you: not only are the Mexicans (unlike Russians in Donbass, of a very different ethnic stock, culture and language from the locals) supported by the Mexican government taking over the US Southwest, but when the locals object, even just to build a wall to slow them down, they are called "racist" and "xenophobes".

    There are not thousands of Ukrainian volunteers in Russian territory killing Russians in their own country, nor is Ukraine sending bullets and weapons to Russia for this. But Russia, the champion of misguided white people, is doing this to another white country.
     
    No, those thousands of Ukrainian volunteers instead are intent on killing their own fellow citizens, because these fellow citizens refused to support a foreign-sponsored coup that overthrew the democratically elected government. Donbass has a right of self-defense against the Russophobic Ukrainian extremists, and have a right not to be ruled by the corrupt dystopian oligarchs that run the rest of Ukraine. And in case you haven't noticed, the people in Donbass are fighting the globalist Empire (the Beast) - if you were White and Christian as you pretend to be you would see them as your brothers, not your enemies. The enemy is the globalist Empire.
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    If a bunch of California Mexicans and volunteers from Mexico, supplied by the Mexican government, took over parts of the US Southwest, it would be normal and natural for the American state to use force against this, for Americans from Nevada or Oregan to fight them.
     
    If a bunch of armed Alabamians attacked the US government in DC, took control of it, and declared themselves the new US government, California would've seceded for sure.

    And then if the new regime in DC attacked, California might've had some volunteers from Mexico too, but that would've been a minor detail. The root cause of these hypothetical events (just like the real events in the former state of Ukraine) would've been the coup in the capital, not the volunteers.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. AP says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Doesn't almost everyone in Ukraine understand and speak both Ukrainian and Russian?

    My understanding is that Russian is no longer widely used (not to mention not much liked), in the far west of Ukraine near Poland and Slovakia, but that that is not true anywhere else in Ukraine.

    Conversely, while many people in the Donbass, in Crimea, and nearby in southeastern Ukraine may use Russian rather than Ukrainian in daily life, they have no difficulty at all understanding and if needed, speaking Ukrainian.

    And how different are Russian and Ukrainian languages really? Not much different at all, from what I'm told by the Ukrainians and Russians I've met in the USA and Canada and on my one trip to Ukraine. Certainly the alphabets are just about identical. Even my very limited attempt to speak some few hundred words and phrases in Ukrainian and Russian suggested that the word roots are usually the same and the spelling not far off either. Is that your understanding too?

    Doesn’t almost everyone in Ukraine understand and speak both Ukrainian and Russian?

    Basically. Although in Ukraine’s western oblasts, with about 8 million people, the generation that grew up after the Soviet collapse (people under 25) often speak no Russian or very poor Russian.

    Conversely, while many people in the Donbass, in Crimea, and nearby in southeastern Ukraine may use Russian rather than Ukrainian in daily life, they have no difficulty at all understanding and if needed, speaking Ukrainian

    Crimea and urban Donbas might be different in terms of speaking. Ukrainian is compulsory in schools and the languages are close enough that learning them is easy, so most people in Ukraine understand Ukrainian.

    And how different are Russian and Ukrainian languages really?

    They are a little further than Spanish and Italian but closer than Spanish and French. Ukrainian vocabulary is closer to Polish but grammar and pronunciation are more like Russian. They are close enough to make learning easy but not so close that one can understand the other without any familiarity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. AP says:
    @annamaria
    "...if Russia has cut off all support..."
    Right. And if only Russia offered help to NATO to install more weaponry in Ukraine, closer to the Russian borders. Again, what country was the most powerful supporter of the Maidan revolution that has brought to power the chocolate king, Groysman, and the 2%-approval rating Yatz? And why exactly the Russian federation rushed to bring Crimea back to her fold? According to your tone, that was a fancy by Russians.
    In case you are not aware, there are "Sevastopol Sketches" by Leo Tolstoy, which could help you to get some perspective on the history of Crimea. Closer to our time, have you really never had a thought that Russian federation needs to protect her southern borders from the obsessive regime-changers?
    The conflict in Ukraine could have been solved without blood if (IF) the "revolutionaries" in Kiev agreed on federalization (you know, like in the US), but such outcome - without a civil war - would be unacceptable to the "investors" (see Nulnd-Kagan's presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=450). Or you are so incredibly naive that you do believe that the US has been investing money in Ukraine because of the "democracy on the march?" And look, what a great march the "investors" have arranged there, with neo-Nazis leading the crowd. So much for the ziocons' squealing about antisemitism everywhere: http://www.salon.com/2014/02/25/is_the_us_backing_neo_nazis_in_ukraine_partner/

    In case you are not aware, there are “Sevastopol Sketches” by Leo Tolstoy, which could help you to get some perspective on the history of Crimea.

    So when Russian tourists visit a place it becomes ancient Russian territory?

    1897 Russian census for Crimea:

    Russians: 33.11%
    Ukrainians: 11.84%
    Tatars: 35.55%

    (rest were Armenians, Greeks, Jews, etc.)

    The conflict in Ukraine could have been solved without blood if (IF) the “revolutionaries” in Kiev agreed on federalization (you know, like in the US)

    The federalization the Russians demanded wasn’t like in the USA but something no other sovereign country has – giving Donbas veto power over national decisions, for example. It would be like giving California special status, allowing it to decide whether or not America leaves NAFTA. And the ones wielding power in this “federalization were the Russian activists who had taken over the place. So it would be like California under La Raza having special autonomy over the USA. No thanks.

    Or you are so incredibly naive that you do believe that the US has been investing money in Ukraine because of the “democracy on the march?

    Now you are back to the “US coup” story.

    You still refuse to answer the question about whether the American Revolution was a French coup, given that the French did much more for the Americans than the West did for Ukraine pro-Westerners during Maidan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. annamaria says:

    1. “…when Russian tourists visit a place it becomes ancient Russian territory?”
    It was you who wrote that “they [Ukrainians] come to view Crimea as an integral part of their country.” So, according to your logic, 50 years after Khruschev’s (Soviet dictator of Ukrainian descent) gifted (illegally) Crimea to the Soviet Republic of Ukraine, the locals’ feelings make much stronger case than the history of the defense of Crimea by Russians for two centuries, as well as the necessity to protect the southern borders of Russian federation from the voracious NATO (US) incursions. This is immature thinking. The State Dept. should have known better, but instead it showed the regular ignorant opportunism – and lost.
    2. “The federalization the Russians demanded wasn’t like in the USA but something no other sovereign country has…”
    Therefore kill them all instead of diplomacy, AP? Right. Here comes to Kiev the CIA Director Brennan with the despicable Nuland-Kagan from the State Dept. Both remembering that US dictum “we do not do diplomacy.”
    3. “Now you are back to the “US coup” story.”
    You are the only person on this site that adheres firmly to the Kagans’ line that Maidan had nothing to do with “color revolutioning. ” It had. And please spare the reader with your obsession over alleged “French coup” in North America in the 18th century. The pitiful cast in Kiev has no significant characters among them. None. They are willing puppets. Or you want to insist, again, that the American revolution was accomplished by activists that were similar to the fraudulent Jaresko, hapless Misha Saakishvilli, and 2%-rating Yatz installed by ziocons (with a “small” help from neo-Nazis). It is understandable that you want to belong to a great nation, but you bet on the wrong people: neither Poroschenko nor Groysman makes a living replica of an idealistic and highly able prominent American statesman. Your Kolomojsky is no Lafayette but a thug. Your neo-Nazi groups, which have been instrumental in the Kiev’ coup and which do marching in honor of Nazi-collaborator Bandera are just, well, neo-Nazi. The whole ongoing Kievan story is a tragic farce, and the blame for this farce belongs squarely to the US State Dept playing its geopolitical games of war-profiteering and global dominance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    1. “…when Russian tourists visit a place it becomes ancient Russian territory?”
    It was you who wrote that “they [Ukrainians] come to view Crimea as an integral part of their country.
     
    1. "Integral" is not the same as ancient and historical.

    2. I didn't agree with them. I just pointed out how many Yanukovich-voting Ukrainians who had been friendly towards Russia thought. They were used to the idea of Crimea being part of their country, but when Ukraine underwent its instability the Slavic brother stabbed Ukraine in the back and grabbed a piece of its territory. That is what some Ukrainians from Dnipropetrovsk told me.

    2. “The federalization the Russians demanded wasn’t like in the USA but something no other sovereign country has…”
    Therefore kill them all instead of diplomacy, AP?
     
    Armed non-citizens from Russia and local pro-Russian activists not representing any locally elected parties or people refused to put down their weapons and leave peacefully. Indeed, they were making threats to expand to Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Odessa. It was the government's right to use force, in their own country, if necessary in that case.

    If a bunch of unelected armed Chechen activists and volunteers from outside Russia grabbed a piece of Russia you don't think Rusia would have a right o use force on them?

    You are the only person on this site that adheres firmly to the Kagans’ line that Maidan had nothing to do with “color revolutioning. ” It had. And please spare the reader with your obsession over alleged “French coup” in North America in the 18th century.
     
    You refuse to answer the question again, because you know you are wrong.

    France provided the American revolutionists with a few thousand soldiers, and billions of dollars of economic aid. The West did less for Maidan. So if one was a coup, why wasn't the other?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. AP says:
    @annamaria
    1. "...when Russian tourists visit a place it becomes ancient Russian territory?"
    It was you who wrote that "they [Ukrainians] come to view Crimea as an integral part of their country." So, according to your logic, 50 years after Khruschev's (Soviet dictator of Ukrainian descent) gifted (illegally) Crimea to the Soviet Republic of Ukraine, the locals' feelings make much stronger case than the history of the defense of Crimea by Russians for two centuries, as well as the necessity to protect the southern borders of Russian federation from the voracious NATO (US) incursions. This is immature thinking. The State Dept. should have known better, but instead it showed the regular ignorant opportunism - and lost.
    2. "The federalization the Russians demanded wasn’t like in the USA but something no other sovereign country has..."
    Therefore kill them all instead of diplomacy, AP? Right. Here comes to Kiev the CIA Director Brennan with the despicable Nuland-Kagan from the State Dept. Both remembering that US dictum "we do not do diplomacy."
    3. "Now you are back to the “US coup” story."
    You are the only person on this site that adheres firmly to the Kagans' line that Maidan had nothing to do with "color revolutioning. " It had. And please spare the reader with your obsession over alleged "French coup" in North America in the 18th century. The pitiful cast in Kiev has no significant characters among them. None. They are willing puppets. Or you want to insist, again, that the American revolution was accomplished by activists that were similar to the fraudulent Jaresko, hapless Misha Saakishvilli, and 2%-rating Yatz installed by ziocons (with a "small" help from neo-Nazis). It is understandable that you want to belong to a great nation, but you bet on the wrong people: neither Poroschenko nor Groysman makes a living replica of an idealistic and highly able prominent American statesman. Your Kolomojsky is no Lafayette but a thug. Your neo-Nazi groups, which have been instrumental in the Kiev' coup and which do marching in honor of Nazi-collaborator Bandera are just, well, neo-Nazi. The whole ongoing Kievan story is a tragic farce, and the blame for this farce belongs squarely to the US State Dept playing its geopolitical games of war-profiteering and global dominance.

    1. “…when Russian tourists visit a place it becomes ancient Russian territory?”
    It was you who wrote that “they [Ukrainians] come to view Crimea as an integral part of their country.

    1. “Integral” is not the same as ancient and historical.

    2. I didn’t agree with them. I just pointed out how many Yanukovich-voting Ukrainians who had been friendly towards Russia thought. They were used to the idea of Crimea being part of their country, but when Ukraine underwent its instability the Slavic brother stabbed Ukraine in the back and grabbed a piece of its territory. That is what some Ukrainians from Dnipropetrovsk told me.

    2. “The federalization the Russians demanded wasn’t like in the USA but something no other sovereign country has…”
    Therefore kill them all instead of diplomacy, AP?

    Armed non-citizens from Russia and local pro-Russian activists not representing any locally elected parties or people refused to put down their weapons and leave peacefully. Indeed, they were making threats to expand to Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Odessa. It was the government’s right to use force, in their own country, if necessary in that case.

    If a bunch of unelected armed Chechen activists and volunteers from outside Russia grabbed a piece of Russia you don’t think Rusia would have a right o use force on them?

    You are the only person on this site that adheres firmly to the Kagans’ line that Maidan had nothing to do with “color revolutioning. ” It had. And please spare the reader with your obsession over alleged “French coup” in North America in the 18th century.

    You refuse to answer the question again, because you know you are wrong.

    France provided the American revolutionists with a few thousand soldiers, and billions of dollars of economic aid. The West did less for Maidan. So if one was a coup, why wasn’t the other?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jon0815

    France provided the American revolutionists with a few thousand soldiers, and billions of dollars of economic aid. The West did less for Maidan. So if one was a coup, why wasn’t the other?
     
    Or, if the (alleged) involvement of Russian troops means the Donbass conflict is a "Russian invasion", why wasn't the American Revolution actually a French invasion?

    And "coup" isn't really a good term to describe French support for the American revolutionists. The Americans were seeking independence, not to overthrow the government in London.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. There’s a bit of a difference (perhaps too subtle for you to understand) between the American revolution – a radical change of the socioeconomic and political system, from a British colony to an independent republic – and a putsch in Kiev, where neonazi gangs, supported by the west and local oligarchs, overthrew the constitutional lawfully elected government, replacing it with corrupt politicians hand-picked by American neocons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    What was the "radical change of socioeconomic and political system" after the American revolution? US and UK still aren't very different today. The excuse for the revolution was about taxes, and if you've been in the US lately, you'll know taxes are far greater now than they ever were under the Brits. Nor were taxes eliminated after independence; nor did everyone get "representation" (only landed white Protestant men over 21, a few percent of the population and by no means the only ones taxed).

    You don't think the US revolution was supported by the local variant of "oligarchs"? For example, before the Revolution, George Washington owned significant portions of Virginia land as tobacco and wheat farms, owing to the wealth he acquired in his marriage to the widow Mary Custis.

    And the US revolutionaries most certainly had foreign support - particularly from the French.
    , @AP
    The point of the analogy was the level of foreign support not the nature of the revolt.

    The Russian nationalists described the events in Kiev as a foreign coup because Nuland was running around Ukraine, America gave the revolutionaries diplomatic cover, Ukraine had received $5 billion since independence.

    Well, France obviously did far far more for the Americans than the West did for the Maidanists.

    If the extent of the West's support for Maidan made it a coup, then the the extent of French support for the American Revolution made it even more of a coup.

    Rather than acknowledge this, you change the subject and describe how the Maidanists are different in nature form the American revolutionaries.

    Do you understand now?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. CalDre says:
    @AP

    Oh, killing “boys”, eh? Are they playing with toys as Russian thugs gun them down in their kindergartens?
     
    To a mother, her children will always be her boys. That's how mothers talk - "my boy was killed by a Russian bullet."

    You mean six-foot-tall 18-30-year-old “boys” who are trying to kill and maim other “boys” — of almost identical genetic stock, speaking the same or extremely similar languages — who have done nothing to harm or threaten them or the rest of Ukraine?
     
    They actually did threaten to bring their counter-revolution to Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv, and even to Kiev itself, before they were stopped and contained in the Donbas - a necessary evil.

    Moreover, this is after all Ukrainian territory. If a bunch of California Mexicans and volunteers from Mexico, supplied by the Mexican government, took over parts of the US Southwest, it would be normal and natural for the American state to use force against this, for Americans from Nevada or Oregan to fight them.

    There are not thousands of Ukrainian volunteers in Russian territory killing Russians in their own country, nor is Ukraine sending bullets and weapons to Russia for this. But Russia, the champion of misguided white people, is doing this to another white country.

    Moreover, this is after all Ukrainian territory. If a bunch of California Mexicans and volunteers from Mexico, supplied by the Mexican government, took over parts of the US Southwest, it would be normal and natural for the American state to use force against this, for Americans from Nevada or Oregan to fight them.

    Hmm, obviously you have not been to Southwest US in a long time and have no idea about politics, so let me explain it to you: not only are the Mexicans (unlike Russians in Donbass, of a very different ethnic stock, culture and language from the locals) supported by the Mexican government taking over the US Southwest, but when the locals object, even just to build a wall to slow them down, they are called “racist” and “xenophobes”.

    There are not thousands of Ukrainian volunteers in Russian territory killing Russians in their own country, nor is Ukraine sending bullets and weapons to Russia for this. But Russia, the champion of misguided white people, is doing this to another white country.

    No, those thousands of Ukrainian volunteers instead are intent on killing their own fellow citizens, because these fellow citizens refused to support a foreign-sponsored coup that overthrew the democratically elected government. Donbass has a right of self-defense against the Russophobic Ukrainian extremists, and have a right not to be ruled by the corrupt dystopian oligarchs that run the rest of Ukraine. And in case you haven’t noticed, the people in Donbass are fighting the globalist Empire (the Beast) – if you were White and Christian as you pretend to be you would see them as your brothers, not your enemies. The enemy is the globalist Empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    "There are not thousands of Ukrainian volunteers in Russian territory killing Russians in their own country, nor is Ukraine sending bullets and weapons to Russia for this. But Russia, the champion of misguided white people, is doing this to another white country."

    No, those thousands of Ukrainian volunteers instead are intent on killing their own fellow citizens, because these fellow citizens refused to support a foreign-sponsored coup that overthrew the democratically elected government.
     
    There is a difference between a country using force within its own borders to enforce its government's control, and a country sending weapons, bullets and armed volunteers into another country's borders to kill people.

    The so-called "coup" overthrew a government in Ukraine with a non-Ukrainian president and an PM who was an immigrants, who arrived in Ukraine when he was in his thirties. The president was voted in (barely) but the PM was in power not through elections but through the president's power-grab, that was undemocratic.

    It was a native revolt. See my other comment for a detailed analogy/description.

    Donbass has a right of self-defense against the Russophobic Ukrainian extremists, and have a right not to be ruled by the corrupt dystopian oligarchs that run the rest of Ukraine
     
    Donbass is controlled by warlords and unelected Russian activists. If the local elected Party of Regions, or Yanukovich (who had been popular there) had been behind the revolt you would have a legitimate argument about "self-determination."

    if you were White and Christian as you pretend to be you would see them as your brothers,
     
    Donbas is the HIV capital of the white world, abortion capital of the world, the least church-going part of Ukraine, and venerates Stalin. It is also the most diverse part of Ukraine (though this isn't saying much, as Ukraine overall lack diversity). Western Ukraine is the most church-going part of Ukraine and leads Ukraine on all social indicators associated with Christianity. The Donbass rebels have even used massive Chechen support. Kadyrov's Chechens deployed to Ukraine to kill Ukrainian Christians in their own country on behalf of the Russian government.*

    Guess whose side you support in this conflict?

    *there are also anti-Russian Chechens fighting for the Ukrainians but the Chechens fighting for the Donbas rebels are about three times as numerous
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @AP

    Oh, killing “boys”, eh? Are they playing with toys as Russian thugs gun them down in their kindergartens?
     
    To a mother, her children will always be her boys. That's how mothers talk - "my boy was killed by a Russian bullet."

    You mean six-foot-tall 18-30-year-old “boys” who are trying to kill and maim other “boys” — of almost identical genetic stock, speaking the same or extremely similar languages — who have done nothing to harm or threaten them or the rest of Ukraine?
     
    They actually did threaten to bring their counter-revolution to Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv, and even to Kiev itself, before they were stopped and contained in the Donbas - a necessary evil.

    Moreover, this is after all Ukrainian territory. If a bunch of California Mexicans and volunteers from Mexico, supplied by the Mexican government, took over parts of the US Southwest, it would be normal and natural for the American state to use force against this, for Americans from Nevada or Oregan to fight them.

    There are not thousands of Ukrainian volunteers in Russian territory killing Russians in their own country, nor is Ukraine sending bullets and weapons to Russia for this. But Russia, the champion of misguided white people, is doing this to another white country.

    If a bunch of California Mexicans and volunteers from Mexico, supplied by the Mexican government, took over parts of the US Southwest, it would be normal and natural for the American state to use force against this, for Americans from Nevada or Oregan to fight them.

    If a bunch of armed Alabamians attacked the US government in DC, took control of it, and declared themselves the new US government, California would’ve seceded for sure.

    And then if the new regime in DC attacked, California might’ve had some volunteers from Mexico too, but that would’ve been a minor detail. The root cause of these hypothetical events (just like the real events in the former state of Ukraine) would’ve been the coup in the capital, not the volunteers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    If a bunch of armed Alabamians attacked the US government in DC, took control of it, and declared themselves the new US government, California would’ve seceded for sure.
     
    1. Most of the Kiev protesters were locals. Western Ukrainians were overepresented at Maidan (about 30% of Maidan were from western Ukraine) but majority were still locals.

    2. Your analogy doesn't go far back enough. I'll complete it for you:

    - An LA-born Mexican legitimately wins the election, becoming president. He then forces several Supreme Court members to resign, appointing his people from LA. He then (without new elections) flips the Congress.

    - Mexican immigrant is installed as Speaker of the House/Senate leader (Ukraine has a unicameral legislature). Another Mexican immigrant gets placed in charge of the army.

    -Spanish becomes an official state language throughout the Southwest.

    -His party sinks in popularity, but "reforms" pushed through by the new government make it so his party wins the next congressional election despite losing the popular vote.

    -Potential deal with the EU is abandoned in favor of economic integration with Latin America.

    -Mass protests, dominated by American natives, occur. Loyalist police from LA beat the protesters. Gangsters from LA abduct and kill some of the protesters.

    -A bunch of armed people from Virginia and Maryland, joined by a large number of armed Southerners and Midwesterners, attacked the US government in DC, took control of it, and declared themselves the new US government. The pro-American political party that had won the popular vote in the most recent election comes to power.

    - The legitimately elected president flees to Mexico.

    - California secedes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. CalDre says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    There's a bit of a difference (perhaps too subtle for you to understand) between the American revolution - a radical change of the socioeconomic and political system, from a British colony to an independent republic - and a putsch in Kiev, where neonazi gangs, supported by the west and local oligarchs, overthrew the constitutional lawfully elected government, replacing it with corrupt politicians hand-picked by American neocons.

    What was the “radical change of socioeconomic and political system” after the American revolution? US and UK still aren’t very different today. The excuse for the revolution was about taxes, and if you’ve been in the US lately, you’ll know taxes are far greater now than they ever were under the Brits. Nor were taxes eliminated after independence; nor did everyone get “representation” (only landed white Protestant men over 21, a few percent of the population and by no means the only ones taxed).

    You don’t think the US revolution was supported by the local variant of “oligarchs”? For example, before the Revolution, George Washington owned significant portions of Virginia land as tobacco and wheat farms, owing to the wealth he acquired in his marriage to the widow Mary Custis.

    And the US revolutionaries most certainly had foreign support – particularly from the French.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    What was the “radical change of socioeconomic and political system” after the American revolution?
     
    Oh, man. I appreciate the contrarian impulse as much as the next guy, but c'mon.

    For the American revolution to be (even slightly) similar to the 2014 coup in Kiev, American oligarchs and the French would have to send minutemen to London to organize a palace coup, replacing king George III with some French-controlled character, and the British parliament with their minions.

    And for the 2014 Ukrainian 'revolution' to be even slightly similar to the American one, Western Ukraine would need to split and declare independence. And, in fact, that would probably be the best outcome for everyone involved.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @CalDre
    What was the "radical change of socioeconomic and political system" after the American revolution? US and UK still aren't very different today. The excuse for the revolution was about taxes, and if you've been in the US lately, you'll know taxes are far greater now than they ever were under the Brits. Nor were taxes eliminated after independence; nor did everyone get "representation" (only landed white Protestant men over 21, a few percent of the population and by no means the only ones taxed).

    You don't think the US revolution was supported by the local variant of "oligarchs"? For example, before the Revolution, George Washington owned significant portions of Virginia land as tobacco and wheat farms, owing to the wealth he acquired in his marriage to the widow Mary Custis.

    And the US revolutionaries most certainly had foreign support - particularly from the French.

    What was the “radical change of socioeconomic and political system” after the American revolution?

    Oh, man. I appreciate the contrarian impulse as much as the next guy, but c’mon.

    For the American revolution to be (even slightly) similar to the 2014 coup in Kiev, American oligarchs and the French would have to send minutemen to London to organize a palace coup, replacing king George III with some French-controlled character, and the British parliament with their minions.

    And for the 2014 Ukrainian ‘revolution’ to be even slightly similar to the American one, Western Ukraine would need to split and declare independence. And, in fact, that would probably be the best outcome for everyone involved.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    "For the American revolution to be (even slightly) similar to the 2014 coup in Kiev". It's not fair you changed your predicate. Your initial point was that the US revolution saw a "radical change of socioeconomic and political system", did not involved oligarchs, and did not involve interference by a foreign power. And I proved all 3 incorrect, so now you make another distinction. Yes, there are many distinctions. They happened 250 years apart, too. None of which is relevant to your point.

    My goal is not to be a contrarian but I do think it is important to demystify the American revolution, as much as it is to demystify a lot of history. Because mystification is a cause for supremacism (however "noble") and supremacism is the cause of injustice and oppression (e.g., US going around the world destroying countries and displacing millions in the name of "our great democracy" or similar bull). Just like it is important to demystify the Holohoax as that event is also used to perpetrate countless injustices.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Jon0815 says:
    @AP

    1. “…when Russian tourists visit a place it becomes ancient Russian territory?”
    It was you who wrote that “they [Ukrainians] come to view Crimea as an integral part of their country.
     
    1. "Integral" is not the same as ancient and historical.

    2. I didn't agree with them. I just pointed out how many Yanukovich-voting Ukrainians who had been friendly towards Russia thought. They were used to the idea of Crimea being part of their country, but when Ukraine underwent its instability the Slavic brother stabbed Ukraine in the back and grabbed a piece of its territory. That is what some Ukrainians from Dnipropetrovsk told me.

    2. “The federalization the Russians demanded wasn’t like in the USA but something no other sovereign country has…”
    Therefore kill them all instead of diplomacy, AP?
     
    Armed non-citizens from Russia and local pro-Russian activists not representing any locally elected parties or people refused to put down their weapons and leave peacefully. Indeed, they were making threats to expand to Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Odessa. It was the government's right to use force, in their own country, if necessary in that case.

    If a bunch of unelected armed Chechen activists and volunteers from outside Russia grabbed a piece of Russia you don't think Rusia would have a right o use force on them?

    You are the only person on this site that adheres firmly to the Kagans’ line that Maidan had nothing to do with “color revolutioning. ” It had. And please spare the reader with your obsession over alleged “French coup” in North America in the 18th century.
     
    You refuse to answer the question again, because you know you are wrong.

    France provided the American revolutionists with a few thousand soldiers, and billions of dollars of economic aid. The West did less for Maidan. So if one was a coup, why wasn't the other?

    France provided the American revolutionists with a few thousand soldiers, and billions of dollars of economic aid. The West did less for Maidan. So if one was a coup, why wasn’t the other?

    Or, if the (alleged) involvement of Russian troops means the Donbass conflict is a “Russian invasion”, why wasn’t the American Revolution actually a French invasion?

    And “coup” isn’t really a good term to describe French support for the American revolutionists. The Americans were seeking independence, not to overthrow the government in London.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Or, if the (alleged) involvement of Russian troops means the Donbass conflict is a “Russian invasion”, why wasn’t the American Revolution actually a French invasion?
     
    I wouldn't consider the Donbass rebellion to be a "Russian invasion". It's a rebellion by some local activists augmented by a lot of Russian volunteers, kept alive by massive Russian support. A very rough analogy might be what the Syrian government has been dealing with - local rebellion augmented by many foreign volunteers, armed by foreign interests.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. CalDre says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    What was the “radical change of socioeconomic and political system” after the American revolution?
     
    Oh, man. I appreciate the contrarian impulse as much as the next guy, but c'mon.

    For the American revolution to be (even slightly) similar to the 2014 coup in Kiev, American oligarchs and the French would have to send minutemen to London to organize a palace coup, replacing king George III with some French-controlled character, and the British parliament with their minions.

    And for the 2014 Ukrainian 'revolution' to be even slightly similar to the American one, Western Ukraine would need to split and declare independence. And, in fact, that would probably be the best outcome for everyone involved.

    For the American revolution to be (even slightly) similar to the 2014 coup in Kiev“. It’s not fair you changed your predicate. Your initial point was that the US revolution saw a “radical change of socioeconomic and political system”, did not involved oligarchs, and did not involve interference by a foreign power. And I proved all 3 incorrect, so now you make another distinction. Yes, there are many distinctions. They happened 250 years apart, too. None of which is relevant to your point.

    My goal is not to be a contrarian but I do think it is important to demystify the American revolution, as much as it is to demystify a lot of history. Because mystification is a cause for supremacism (however “noble”) and supremacism is the cause of injustice and oppression (e.g., US going around the world destroying countries and displacing millions in the name of “our great democracy” or similar bull). Just like it is important to demystify the Holohoax as that event is also used to perpetrate countless injustices.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Your initial point was that the US revolution saw a “radical change of socioeconomic and political system”, did not involved oligarchs, and did not involve interference by a foreign power.
     
    My point was only that it was a radical change of socioeconomic and political system (and it was) -- as opposed to a mere coup, replacing one ruling coalition with another, without changing the underlying structure. Which makes (in the context of the American revolution) the oligarchs and foreign powers second or third-level details. Obviously, whatever's happening in politics, influential individuals and institutions are being, well, influential.

    My goal is not to be a contrarian but I do think it is important to demystify the American revolution, as much as it is to demystify a lot of history.
     
    I agree, and personally I don't assign any divine significance or superficial meaning to it. But it would be silly to deny that it was a real change.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @CalDre
    "For the American revolution to be (even slightly) similar to the 2014 coup in Kiev". It's not fair you changed your predicate. Your initial point was that the US revolution saw a "radical change of socioeconomic and political system", did not involved oligarchs, and did not involve interference by a foreign power. And I proved all 3 incorrect, so now you make another distinction. Yes, there are many distinctions. They happened 250 years apart, too. None of which is relevant to your point.

    My goal is not to be a contrarian but I do think it is important to demystify the American revolution, as much as it is to demystify a lot of history. Because mystification is a cause for supremacism (however "noble") and supremacism is the cause of injustice and oppression (e.g., US going around the world destroying countries and displacing millions in the name of "our great democracy" or similar bull). Just like it is important to demystify the Holohoax as that event is also used to perpetrate countless injustices.

    Your initial point was that the US revolution saw a “radical change of socioeconomic and political system”, did not involved oligarchs, and did not involve interference by a foreign power.

    My point was only that it was a radical change of socioeconomic and political system (and it was) — as opposed to a mere coup, replacing one ruling coalition with another, without changing the underlying structure. Which makes (in the context of the American revolution) the oligarchs and foreign powers second or third-level details. Obviously, whatever’s happening in politics, influential individuals and institutions are being, well, influential.

    My goal is not to be a contrarian but I do think it is important to demystify the American revolution, as much as it is to demystify a lot of history.

    I agree, and personally I don’t assign any divine significance or superficial meaning to it. But it would be silly to deny that it was a real change.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    My point was only that it was a radical change of socioeconomic and political system (and it was) — as opposed to a mere coup, replacing one ruling coalition with another, without changing the underlying structure.
     
    I still don't see what radically changed in the socioeconomic and political system with regard to the vast majority of the population. Sure the ruling class was replaced, but that happened in Ukraine too - one group of oligarchs for another. As I noted, after the US revolution, Native Americans were still being exterminated, Africans were still being enslaved, women's rights did not change, the economic system did not change. What fundamentally changed in day-to-day life?

    Now compare in Ukraine. After the coup, we had: the separation of Crimea; the civil war (not just in Donbass); a re-orientation away from the East to the West; the de-Communization of Ukraine (Lenin statutes and other symbols); the end of glorification of Communism; the glorification (by some elements) of the hitherto-forbidden national socialism; etc. And these things all happened in just a few months - what did the US Revolution accomplish in a few months?

    In many ways I see the two events as quite similar. In both cases some important things changed, and many important things did not. Most critically, Ukraine is still run largely by Jewish oligarchs (Pinchuk, Kolomisky, Akhmetov, Feldman, Firtash, Rabinovich, probably even Poroshenko, etc.), which alone proves, more than anything else, the absolute absurdity of the "UkroNazi" claims of the Russian and pro-Russian media.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. CalDre says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Your initial point was that the US revolution saw a “radical change of socioeconomic and political system”, did not involved oligarchs, and did not involve interference by a foreign power.
     
    My point was only that it was a radical change of socioeconomic and political system (and it was) -- as opposed to a mere coup, replacing one ruling coalition with another, without changing the underlying structure. Which makes (in the context of the American revolution) the oligarchs and foreign powers second or third-level details. Obviously, whatever's happening in politics, influential individuals and institutions are being, well, influential.

    My goal is not to be a contrarian but I do think it is important to demystify the American revolution, as much as it is to demystify a lot of history.
     
    I agree, and personally I don't assign any divine significance or superficial meaning to it. But it would be silly to deny that it was a real change.

    My point was only that it was a radical change of socioeconomic and political system (and it was) — as opposed to a mere coup, replacing one ruling coalition with another, without changing the underlying structure.

    I still don’t see what radically changed in the socioeconomic and political system with regard to the vast majority of the population. Sure the ruling class was replaced, but that happened in Ukraine too – one group of oligarchs for another. As I noted, after the US revolution, Native Americans were still being exterminated, Africans were still being enslaved, women’s rights did not change, the economic system did not change. What fundamentally changed in day-to-day life?

    Now compare in Ukraine. After the coup, we had: the separation of Crimea; the civil war (not just in Donbass); a re-orientation away from the East to the West; the de-Communization of Ukraine (Lenin statutes and other symbols); the end of glorification of Communism; the glorification (by some elements) of the hitherto-forbidden national socialism; etc. And these things all happened in just a few months – what did the US Revolution accomplish in a few months?

    In many ways I see the two events as quite similar. In both cases some important things changed, and many important things did not. Most critically, Ukraine is still run largely by Jewish oligarchs (Pinchuk, Kolomisky, Akhmetov, Feldman, Firtash, Rabinovich, probably even Poroshenko, etc.), which alone proves, more than anything else, the absolute absurdity of the “UkroNazi” claims of the Russian and pro-Russian media.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    I still don’t see what radically changed in the socioeconomic and political system with regard to the vast majority of the population.
     
    Well, like I said, it seems perfectly obvious to me; for one thing what used to be a British colony had become an independent country, governed by domestic oligarchs.

    But yeah, if you're a trapper in the middle of a forest somewhere, yeah, you might not notice. But that's even more is true for the separation of Crimea - who did it affect outside Crimea?

    As for Lenin's statues and different propaganda themes, that's just ridiculous. That's neither socioeconomic nor (structural) political change; just a bunch of different (if more unpleasant) bullshit.

    As for the ukronazi label, it doesn't have anything to do with the religious background of ancestors of some of the Ukrainian oligarchs (Akhmetov is Tatar, btw). It's about the nazi ideology (as you noticed yourself) of the regime supporters. You know, Ernst Rohm, the leader of the nazi storm troopers was a homosexual. According to the nazi ideology the homosexuals deserved to be exterminated, and yet he was also a nazi leader. Go figure.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @CalDre

    My point was only that it was a radical change of socioeconomic and political system (and it was) — as opposed to a mere coup, replacing one ruling coalition with another, without changing the underlying structure.
     
    I still don't see what radically changed in the socioeconomic and political system with regard to the vast majority of the population. Sure the ruling class was replaced, but that happened in Ukraine too - one group of oligarchs for another. As I noted, after the US revolution, Native Americans were still being exterminated, Africans were still being enslaved, women's rights did not change, the economic system did not change. What fundamentally changed in day-to-day life?

    Now compare in Ukraine. After the coup, we had: the separation of Crimea; the civil war (not just in Donbass); a re-orientation away from the East to the West; the de-Communization of Ukraine (Lenin statutes and other symbols); the end of glorification of Communism; the glorification (by some elements) of the hitherto-forbidden national socialism; etc. And these things all happened in just a few months - what did the US Revolution accomplish in a few months?

    In many ways I see the two events as quite similar. In both cases some important things changed, and many important things did not. Most critically, Ukraine is still run largely by Jewish oligarchs (Pinchuk, Kolomisky, Akhmetov, Feldman, Firtash, Rabinovich, probably even Poroshenko, etc.), which alone proves, more than anything else, the absolute absurdity of the "UkroNazi" claims of the Russian and pro-Russian media.

    I still don’t see what radically changed in the socioeconomic and political system with regard to the vast majority of the population.

    Well, like I said, it seems perfectly obvious to me; for one thing what used to be a British colony had become an independent country, governed by domestic oligarchs.

    But yeah, if you’re a trapper in the middle of a forest somewhere, yeah, you might not notice. But that’s even more is true for the separation of Crimea – who did it affect outside Crimea?

    As for Lenin’s statues and different propaganda themes, that’s just ridiculous. That’s neither socioeconomic nor (structural) political change; just a bunch of different (if more unpleasant) bullshit.

    As for the ukronazi label, it doesn’t have anything to do with the religious background of ancestors of some of the Ukrainian oligarchs (Akhmetov is Tatar, btw). It’s about the nazi ideology (as you noticed yourself) of the regime supporters. You know, Ernst Rohm, the leader of the nazi storm troopers was a homosexual. According to the nazi ideology the homosexuals deserved to be exterminated, and yet he was also a nazi leader. Go figure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. CalDre says:

    what used to be a British colony had become an independent country, governed by domestic oligarchs“. Ostensibly, one can argue whether or not US is still part of the Commonwealth (examining Freemasonry and other secret societies). But whether or not the political control still ultimately rests with the British royalty, the US for all purposes is part of the Commonwealth which moves as a monolithic movement. Hence independence is far from clear. For sure there was no longer open, direct rule from UK. However that was not a radical political change (in general UK was moving from direct colonialism to more nuanced imperialism and toward recognizing rights of man). And socio-economically, the change was even less.

    the separation of Crimea – who did it affect outside Crimea“. Anyone who had a family member in Crimea, and for those in Crimea, the change was quite significant both politically and economically. Although not “fundamental”.

    As for the ukronazi label, it doesn’t have anything to do with the religious background of ancestors of some of the Ukrainian oligarchs (Akhmetov is Tatar, btw). LOL. You are right, being Jewish has little to do with religion – most Ukrainian Jews are atheists, but they are Jews nonetheless. Jews are an extremely ethnocentric tribe, and, in particular, National Socialists would not obey Jews running a non-Jewish country (of course it’s fine for Jews to run Israel – and while no doubt Israeli Jews would not be pleased if the 2% Bedouin population ruled Israel, they get utterly offended if a non-Jewish country objects to minority Jewish rule). Yet the so-called “UkroNazis” do. In any event, Akhmetov is no Tatar, he has blonde hair and blue eyes, lol. He’s a Jew (though obviously not a Hebrew either, but then again, pretty much no Jews today are Hebrew or the so-called “chosen ones”).

    homosexuals deserved to be exterminated. Nazis did not exterminate homosexuals, though, like Saudi Arabia today or USSR under Stalin, they did not permit its open expression and punished it with extended hard labor. In comparison, the US Revolution did not change social laws and customs regarding homosexuality. Which brings me back to my point, the US revolution hardly changed a thing (the biggest change from England was religious freedom but that already existed in the colonies prior to the revolution).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  169. You are right, being Jewish has little to do with religion

    So, what is it, then? Self identification? I’d agree with that, but then I’m 100% certain that Akhmetov does NOT self-identify as a ‘Jew’, and you still believe he is. What gives?

    Jews are an extremely ethnocentric tribe

    About as ethnocentric as any ethnic minority with a strong martyr complex in its culture, I’d say. Ukrainians in Canada, for example. Still, some do participate in ethnic mafias, some don’t, and some just assimilate.

    and, in particular, National Socialists would not obey Jews running a non-Jewish country

    And yet they do. Thousands of heavily armed thugs with swastikas tattooed all over them are perfectly willing to obey Kolomoisky, at least for as long as he’s paying. Doesn’t surprise me at all. So, the empirical evidence indicates that something’s wrong with your worldview. Perhaps it is a bit idealistic?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    Akhmetov does NOT self-identify as a ‘Jew’, and you still believe he is. What gives?
     
    Where does he expressly identify as a Tatar? He could be a crypto-Jew. He is reportedly Jewish according to JTA (reprinted in Haaretz), another article in JTA (confirmed by the executive director of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee), the Jewish Virtual Library, and Tablet. If there is solid evidence to dispute that, let's have it. As the articles claiming he is a Tartar also claim he is a devout Muslim, there should be pictures of him doing his daily prayers. Do you have any?

    So, the empirical evidence indicates that something’s wrong with your worldview. Perhaps it is a bit idealistic?
     
    I'd say there's something with your worldview. National socialists would never take money from a Jew to kill other Whites, especially ones as similar as the people in Donbass are to their attackers. You just don't get it. THEY ARE NOT NATIONAL SOCIALISTS. It's like saying your Christian if you don't believe in Jesus - racial identity is a fundamental aspect of National Socialism. So a more apposite example: it's like a zealous Zionist Jew taking money from Palestinians to kill Jews in the West Bank (as Jews, in general, are as racially conscious as Nazis, even have their "master race" synonym with "chosen people" and all that entails). You want to call them Nazis because you don't like them, that's your prerogative, but it's intellectually ridiculous and only done as a short-hand form of demonization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. CalDre says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    You are right, being Jewish has little to do with religion
     
    So, what is it, then? Self identification? I'd agree with that, but then I'm 100% certain that Akhmetov does NOT self-identify as a 'Jew', and you still believe he is. What gives?

    Jews are an extremely ethnocentric tribe
     
    About as ethnocentric as any ethnic minority with a strong martyr complex in its culture, I'd say. Ukrainians in Canada, for example. Still, some do participate in ethnic mafias, some don't, and some just assimilate.

    and, in particular, National Socialists would not obey Jews running a non-Jewish country
     
    And yet they do. Thousands of heavily armed thugs with swastikas tattooed all over them are perfectly willing to obey Kolomoisky, at least for as long as he's paying. Doesn't surprise me at all. So, the empirical evidence indicates that something's wrong with your worldview. Perhaps it is a bit idealistic?

    Akhmetov does NOT self-identify as a ‘Jew’, and you still believe he is. What gives?

    Where does he expressly identify as a Tatar? He could be a crypto-Jew. He is reportedly Jewish according to JTA (reprinted in Haaretz), another article in JTA (confirmed by the executive director of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee), the Jewish Virtual Library, and Tablet. If there is solid evidence to dispute that, let’s have it. As the articles claiming he is a Tartar also claim he is a devout Muslim, there should be pictures of him doing his daily prayers. Do you have any?

    So, the empirical evidence indicates that something’s wrong with your worldview. Perhaps it is a bit idealistic?

    I’d say there’s something with your worldview. National socialists would never take money from a Jew to kill other Whites, especially ones as similar as the people in Donbass are to their attackers. You just don’t get it. THEY ARE NOT NATIONAL SOCIALISTS. It’s like saying your Christian if you don’t believe in Jesus – racial identity is a fundamental aspect of National Socialism. So a more apposite example: it’s like a zealous Zionist Jew taking money from Palestinians to kill Jews in the West Bank (as Jews, in general, are as racially conscious as Nazis, even have their “master race” synonym with “chosen people” and all that entails). You want to call them Nazis because you don’t like them, that’s your prerogative, but it’s intellectually ridiculous and only done as a short-hand form of demonization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    He could be a crypto-Jew.
     
    He could also be a well-camouflaged alien life form from alpha centauri. However, since he defines his background as Tatar, that's what he actually is. He is what he says he is, not what JTA says he is.

    THEY ARE NOT NATIONAL SOCIALISTS
     
    So, they parade with swastikas and fuehrer's portraits, scream 'sieg heil', but they are not real nazis because they don't satisfy your strict requirements for antisemitism? Well, most people are not that particular. Besides, they do manifest plenty of racial hatred, just not for that particular ethnic group at this time. Why does it matter which ethnic group is declared the supper-evil villain?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. AP says:
    @Jon0815

    France provided the American revolutionists with a few thousand soldiers, and billions of dollars of economic aid. The West did less for Maidan. So if one was a coup, why wasn’t the other?
     
    Or, if the (alleged) involvement of Russian troops means the Donbass conflict is a "Russian invasion", why wasn't the American Revolution actually a French invasion?

    And "coup" isn't really a good term to describe French support for the American revolutionists. The Americans were seeking independence, not to overthrow the government in London.

    Or, if the (alleged) involvement of Russian troops means the Donbass conflict is a “Russian invasion”, why wasn’t the American Revolution actually a French invasion?

    I wouldn’t consider the Donbass rebellion to be a “Russian invasion”. It’s a rebellion by some local activists augmented by a lot of Russian volunteers, kept alive by massive Russian support. A very rough analogy might be what the Syrian government has been dealing with – local rebellion augmented by many foreign volunteers, armed by foreign interests.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. AP says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    There's a bit of a difference (perhaps too subtle for you to understand) between the American revolution - a radical change of the socioeconomic and political system, from a British colony to an independent republic - and a putsch in Kiev, where neonazi gangs, supported by the west and local oligarchs, overthrew the constitutional lawfully elected government, replacing it with corrupt politicians hand-picked by American neocons.

    The point of the analogy was the level of foreign support not the nature of the revolt.

    The Russian nationalists described the events in Kiev as a foreign coup because Nuland was running around Ukraine, America gave the revolutionaries diplomatic cover, Ukraine had received $5 billion since independence.

    Well, France obviously did far far more for the Americans than the West did for the Maidanists.

    If the extent of the West’s support for Maidan made it a coup, then the the extent of French support for the American Revolution made it even more of a coup.

    Rather than acknowledge this, you change the subject and describe how the Maidanists are different in nature form the American revolutionaries.

    Do you understand now?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. AP says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    If a bunch of California Mexicans and volunteers from Mexico, supplied by the Mexican government, took over parts of the US Southwest, it would be normal and natural for the American state to use force against this, for Americans from Nevada or Oregan to fight them.
     
    If a bunch of armed Alabamians attacked the US government in DC, took control of it, and declared themselves the new US government, California would've seceded for sure.

    And then if the new regime in DC attacked, California might've had some volunteers from Mexico too, but that would've been a minor detail. The root cause of these hypothetical events (just like the real events in the former state of Ukraine) would've been the coup in the capital, not the volunteers.

    If a bunch of armed Alabamians attacked the US government in DC, took control of it, and declared themselves the new US government, California would’ve seceded for sure.

    1. Most of the Kiev protesters were locals. Western Ukrainians were overepresented at Maidan (about 30% of Maidan were from western Ukraine) but majority were still locals.

    2. Your analogy doesn’t go far back enough. I’ll complete it for you:

    - An LA-born Mexican legitimately wins the election, becoming president. He then forces several Supreme Court members to resign, appointing his people from LA. He then (without new elections) flips the Congress.

    - Mexican immigrant is installed as Speaker of the House/Senate leader (Ukraine has a unicameral legislature). Another Mexican immigrant gets placed in charge of the army.

    -Spanish becomes an official state language throughout the Southwest.

    -His party sinks in popularity, but “reforms” pushed through by the new government make it so his party wins the next congressional election despite losing the popular vote.

    -Potential deal with the EU is abandoned in favor of economic integration with Latin America.

    -Mass protests, dominated by American natives, occur. Loyalist police from LA beat the protesters. Gangsters from LA abduct and kill some of the protesters.

    -A bunch of armed people from Virginia and Maryland, joined by a large number of armed Southerners and Midwesterners, attacked the US government in DC, took control of it, and declared themselves the new US government. The pro-American political party that had won the popular vote in the most recent election comes to power.

    - The legitimately elected president flees to Mexico.

    - California secedes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    An LA-born Mexican
     
    Jeez. You're a certified russophobe, aren't you? Nearly every politician there was born in the Soviet Union. Those few who didn't - in the current puppet regime - were born in the US or Canada.

    The country was always split into the west-center and east-south. An uneasy balance had been maintained, with the east-south cheated of their victory in 2004, resulting in the disgraced and universally hated 'pro-western' president Mr Yushchenko getting 5% of the vote in the 2010 elections. How does this fit into your scenario? No, it's not Mexican vs American, it's half of the country against the other half.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. AP says:
    @CalDre

    Moreover, this is after all Ukrainian territory. If a bunch of California Mexicans and volunteers from Mexico, supplied by the Mexican government, took over parts of the US Southwest, it would be normal and natural for the American state to use force against this, for Americans from Nevada or Oregan to fight them.
     
    Hmm, obviously you have not been to Southwest US in a long time and have no idea about politics, so let me explain it to you: not only are the Mexicans (unlike Russians in Donbass, of a very different ethnic stock, culture and language from the locals) supported by the Mexican government taking over the US Southwest, but when the locals object, even just to build a wall to slow them down, they are called "racist" and "xenophobes".

    There are not thousands of Ukrainian volunteers in Russian territory killing Russians in their own country, nor is Ukraine sending bullets and weapons to Russia for this. But Russia, the champion of misguided white people, is doing this to another white country.
     
    No, those thousands of Ukrainian volunteers instead are intent on killing their own fellow citizens, because these fellow citizens refused to support a foreign-sponsored coup that overthrew the democratically elected government. Donbass has a right of self-defense against the Russophobic Ukrainian extremists, and have a right not to be ruled by the corrupt dystopian oligarchs that run the rest of Ukraine. And in case you haven't noticed, the people in Donbass are fighting the globalist Empire (the Beast) - if you were White and Christian as you pretend to be you would see them as your brothers, not your enemies. The enemy is the globalist Empire.

    “There are not thousands of Ukrainian volunteers in Russian territory killing Russians in their own country, nor is Ukraine sending bullets and weapons to Russia for this. But Russia, the champion of misguided white people, is doing this to another white country.”

    No, those thousands of Ukrainian volunteers instead are intent on killing their own fellow citizens, because these fellow citizens refused to support a foreign-sponsored coup that overthrew the democratically elected government.

    There is a difference between a country using force within its own borders to enforce its government’s control, and a country sending weapons, bullets and armed volunteers into another country’s borders to kill people.

    The so-called “coup” overthrew a government in Ukraine with a non-Ukrainian president and an PM who was an immigrants, who arrived in Ukraine when he was in his thirties. The president was voted in (barely) but the PM was in power not through elections but through the president’s power-grab, that was undemocratic.

    It was a native revolt. See my other comment for a detailed analogy/description.

    Donbass has a right of self-defense against the Russophobic Ukrainian extremists, and have a right not to be ruled by the corrupt dystopian oligarchs that run the rest of Ukraine

    Donbass is controlled by warlords and unelected Russian activists. If the local elected Party of Regions, or Yanukovich (who had been popular there) had been behind the revolt you would have a legitimate argument about “self-determination.”

    if you were White and Christian as you pretend to be you would see them as your brothers,

    Donbas is the HIV capital of the white world, abortion capital of the world, the least church-going part of Ukraine, and venerates Stalin. It is also the most diverse part of Ukraine (though this isn’t saying much, as Ukraine overall lack diversity). Western Ukraine is the most church-going part of Ukraine and leads Ukraine on all social indicators associated with Christianity. The Donbass rebels have even used massive Chechen support. Kadyrov’s Chechens deployed to Ukraine to kill Ukrainian Christians in their own country on behalf of the Russian government.*

    Guess whose side you support in this conflict?

    *there are also anti-Russian Chechens fighting for the Ukrainians but the Chechens fighting for the Donbas rebels are about three times as numerous

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    There is a difference between a country using force within its own borders to enforce its government’s control
     
    Not when that government is illegitimate and hateful toward half the country's population.

    and a country sending weapons, bullets and armed volunteers into another country’s borders to kill people.
     
    The people of Donbass and Lugansk have not gone around Ukraine to kill; they have merely defended themselves. Rather it is your heroes that travel the country to murder their brethren, which started when the Kiev junta used violence to attempt to silence opponents of the illegal coup.

    the PM was in power not through elections but through the president’s power-grab, that was undemocratic.
     
    Such power grabs (and much worse) have a long history in Ukraine, and it had to do with a constitutional amendment which may or may not have been properly enacted (i.e., legality was debatable). The coup itself was a much more stark example of violence, lawlessness, and foreign interference.

    It was a native revolt.
     
    I know what was the "revolt", I lived in Kiev during Maidan and have lived in many parts of Ukraine and Crimea. The coup was not native at all, it was supported by a very small number of violent extremists, a few thousand. Do not even try to tell me lies about this, I know. Yes many opposed Yanukovych (like many many more opposed Yatz while he remained in power for years and even now many more oppose Poroshenko, but I gather you don't think a violent coup by Eastern Ukrainian elements would be as wonderful as your Banderite coup, eh?), but they did not want the murders of the Heavenly Hundred (by the Banderites), the coup, or the civil war (all of which I predicted as early as October when I visited Maidan and saw the nature of the "protesters").

    Donbass is controlled by warlords and unelected Russian activists.
     
    And the rest of Ukraine isn't? LOL. (Though the activists are Banderites by and large.) Party of Regions did support, so did Communists, as much as they could (the ones in Kiev faced 20 years in prison for "supporting separatism" so there were limits, but the local officials certainly supported it). They also tried having elections but Ukraine was always firmly against and sabotaged them anyway they could.

    Western Ukraine is the most church-going part of Ukraine and leads Ukraine on all social indicators associated with Christianity.
     
    Not the impression I got in my visits there.

    All your other stale propaganda about Chechens this, blah blah, heard it before, boring nonsense.

    Guess whose side you support in this conflict?
     
    Proudly, not your side.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @CalDre

    Akhmetov does NOT self-identify as a ‘Jew’, and you still believe he is. What gives?
     
    Where does he expressly identify as a Tatar? He could be a crypto-Jew. He is reportedly Jewish according to JTA (reprinted in Haaretz), another article in JTA (confirmed by the executive director of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee), the Jewish Virtual Library, and Tablet. If there is solid evidence to dispute that, let's have it. As the articles claiming he is a Tartar also claim he is a devout Muslim, there should be pictures of him doing his daily prayers. Do you have any?

    So, the empirical evidence indicates that something’s wrong with your worldview. Perhaps it is a bit idealistic?
     
    I'd say there's something with your worldview. National socialists would never take money from a Jew to kill other Whites, especially ones as similar as the people in Donbass are to their attackers. You just don't get it. THEY ARE NOT NATIONAL SOCIALISTS. It's like saying your Christian if you don't believe in Jesus - racial identity is a fundamental aspect of National Socialism. So a more apposite example: it's like a zealous Zionist Jew taking money from Palestinians to kill Jews in the West Bank (as Jews, in general, are as racially conscious as Nazis, even have their "master race" synonym with "chosen people" and all that entails). You want to call them Nazis because you don't like them, that's your prerogative, but it's intellectually ridiculous and only done as a short-hand form of demonization.

    He could be a crypto-Jew.

    He could also be a well-camouflaged alien life form from alpha centauri. However, since he defines his background as Tatar, that’s what he actually is. He is what he says he is, not what JTA says he is.

    THEY ARE NOT NATIONAL SOCIALISTS

    So, they parade with swastikas and fuehrer’s portraits, scream ‘sieg heil’, but they are not real nazis because they don’t satisfy your strict requirements for antisemitism? Well, most people are not that particular. Besides, they do manifest plenty of racial hatred, just not for that particular ethnic group at this time. Why does it matter which ethnic group is declared the supper-evil villain?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    However, since he defines his background as Tatar
     
    So I guess if I describe myself as an alien from Alpha Centauri, I must be, since everyone is what you (without evidence despite several requests) claim he is. Look, and I am done arguing over this nonsense, Tatars are Turks; I have been to Turkey and I have lived around many Turks and they absolutely are not nor will they ever be blonde with blue eyes. Is that so hard to comprendez?

    they are not real nazis because they don’t satisfy your strict requirements for antisemitism
     
    No, they are not Nazis because they do not satisfy by any means - in fact, are the opposite - of the defining traits of national socialism. The serving of Jews and hating of fellow Slavs is only one of the many fundamental Nazi ideologies and values they do not share. The only thing you can point to, aside from Bandera symbols (not Nazi symbols to which you disingenuously refer, no doubt there are some Ukrainians who have Nazi tattoos like in any other country but the marches are Banderite), is the fact that they hate Russians and hate is a dominating motivational factor. Well they do, but that is Banderite, not Nazi; under Nazi ideology of ethnocentrism they should join with their Russian brethren to fight the Jewish oligarchs (just like Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews join together to fight the Palestinian ... well, victims, though it would be interesting to see Palestinian oligarchs controlling Israel - indeed Zionists and Nazis are much more similar than Nazis and Banderivtsi).

    most people are not that particular
     
    Yes, most people are brainwashed sheep and associate Nazis with genocide and everything evil. It appeared to me you were more educated and sophisticated and were using the term "Nazi" to refer to a particular political party rather than some fairy tale notion of evil, but apparently I was wrong.

    Why does it matter which ethnic group is declared the supper-evil villain?
     
    Genetically Ukrainians and Russians are almost identical. There is a bigger genetic drift among Germans or French. To hate members of one's own ethnic group as the Banderites do is utterly insane and if I may be frank is the result of years of Jewish oligarch instigation. If the Banderites were national socialists they would realize (a) Jews were the Bolsheviks that brought Communism, not Russians (though Russians and Ukrainians both worked with the Bolshevik Jews), and (b) post-Soviet Union, the Ukrainian Jews (oligarchs) have fomented Ukrainian-Russian hatred (for various reasons beyond the scope of this thread, but suffice to note that the Jewish oligarchs control almost the entire mass media in Ukraine). The fact that Banderites are marching to Jewish drums against their brothers (in a National Socialist ideology) proves beyond any doubt that is not what they are. All they have is hate but that is by no means a particularly Nazi trait.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @AP

    If a bunch of armed Alabamians attacked the US government in DC, took control of it, and declared themselves the new US government, California would’ve seceded for sure.
     
    1. Most of the Kiev protesters were locals. Western Ukrainians were overepresented at Maidan (about 30% of Maidan were from western Ukraine) but majority were still locals.

    2. Your analogy doesn't go far back enough. I'll complete it for you:

    - An LA-born Mexican legitimately wins the election, becoming president. He then forces several Supreme Court members to resign, appointing his people from LA. He then (without new elections) flips the Congress.

    - Mexican immigrant is installed as Speaker of the House/Senate leader (Ukraine has a unicameral legislature). Another Mexican immigrant gets placed in charge of the army.

    -Spanish becomes an official state language throughout the Southwest.

    -His party sinks in popularity, but "reforms" pushed through by the new government make it so his party wins the next congressional election despite losing the popular vote.

    -Potential deal with the EU is abandoned in favor of economic integration with Latin America.

    -Mass protests, dominated by American natives, occur. Loyalist police from LA beat the protesters. Gangsters from LA abduct and kill some of the protesters.

    -A bunch of armed people from Virginia and Maryland, joined by a large number of armed Southerners and Midwesterners, attacked the US government in DC, took control of it, and declared themselves the new US government. The pro-American political party that had won the popular vote in the most recent election comes to power.

    - The legitimately elected president flees to Mexico.

    - California secedes.

    An LA-born Mexican

    Jeez. You’re a certified russophobe, aren’t you? Nearly every politician there was born in the Soviet Union. Those few who didn’t – in the current puppet regime – were born in the US or Canada.

    The country was always split into the west-center and east-south. An uneasy balance had been maintained, with the east-south cheated of their victory in 2004, resulting in the disgraced and universally hated ‘pro-western’ president Mr Yushchenko getting 5% of the vote in the 2010 elections. How does this fit into your scenario? No, it’s not Mexican vs American, it’s half of the country against the other half.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Jeez. You’re a certified russophobe, aren’t you?
     
    Point out how it is "Russophobic" to mention that the deposed president of Ukraine was not an ethnic Ukrainian but the child of non-Ukrainian migrants to Ukraine (or, the Ukrainan SSR), who grew up in a majority non-Ukrainian town on the eastern periphery of Ukraine.

    I hire a private tutor so my kids speak proper Russian but I am a "certified russophobe."

    The country was always split into the west-center and east-south. An uneasy balance had been maintained, with the east-south cheated of their victory in 2004,
     
    I guess since you get all of your information about Ukraine form the Party of Regions and its heirs, you believe the bolded nonsense.

    As for uneasy balance being maintained - it worked when the country was run by ethnic Ukrainians from a more centrally located part of the southeast - Kuchma's clan from Dnipropetrovsk. When a bunch of ethnic Russians from the eastern fringe took over and consolidated power it became fatally unstable.

    disgraced and universally hated ‘pro-western’ president Mr Yushchenko getting 5% of the vote in the 2010 elections.
     
    This just means that other pro-Western politicians took his support.

    No, it’s not Mexican vs American, it’s half of the country against the other half.
     
    You don't think that if the Democratic Party ran a Mexican-American as its candidate it wouldn't get about half the votes in the American election? And that if the Mexican-American president started amassing power in undemocratic ways and packing the government with Mexican immigrants there wouldn't eventually be a backlash?

    Note that as Yanukovich's presidency progressed and he became more authoritarian, his support eroded. At the time of the Maidan about 40% of the country supported the Maidanists and only 21% supported the government that was being overthrown (the rest disliked both sides or were indifferent). If that were an election, it would have 61% turnout with Maidan winning 2/3 of the vote. And that was with Crimea and Donbas included.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. AP says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    An LA-born Mexican
     
    Jeez. You're a certified russophobe, aren't you? Nearly every politician there was born in the Soviet Union. Those few who didn't - in the current puppet regime - were born in the US or Canada.

    The country was always split into the west-center and east-south. An uneasy balance had been maintained, with the east-south cheated of their victory in 2004, resulting in the disgraced and universally hated 'pro-western' president Mr Yushchenko getting 5% of the vote in the 2010 elections. How does this fit into your scenario? No, it's not Mexican vs American, it's half of the country against the other half.

    Jeez. You’re a certified russophobe, aren’t you?

    Point out how it is “Russophobic” to mention that the deposed president of Ukraine was not an ethnic Ukrainian but the child of non-Ukrainian migrants to Ukraine (or, the Ukrainan SSR), who grew up in a majority non-Ukrainian town on the eastern periphery of Ukraine.

    I hire a private tutor so my kids speak proper Russian but I am a “certified russophobe.”

    The country was always split into the west-center and east-south. An uneasy balance had been maintained, with the east-south cheated of their victory in 2004,

    I guess since you get all of your information about Ukraine form the Party of Regions and its heirs, you believe the bolded nonsense.

    As for uneasy balance being maintained – it worked when the country was run by ethnic Ukrainians from a more centrally located part of the southeast – Kuchma’s clan from Dnipropetrovsk. When a bunch of ethnic Russians from the eastern fringe took over and consolidated power it became fatally unstable.

    disgraced and universally hated ‘pro-western’ president Mr Yushchenko getting 5% of the vote in the 2010 elections.

    This just means that other pro-Western politicians took his support.

    No, it’s not Mexican vs American, it’s half of the country against the other half.

    You don’t think that if the Democratic Party ran a Mexican-American as its candidate it wouldn’t get about half the votes in the American election? And that if the Mexican-American president started amassing power in undemocratic ways and packing the government with Mexican immigrants there wouldn’t eventually be a backlash?

    Note that as Yanukovich’s presidency progressed and he became more authoritarian, his support eroded. At the time of the Maidan about 40% of the country supported the Maidanists and only 21% supported the government that was being overthrown (the rest disliked both sides or were indifferent). If that were an election, it would have 61% turnout with Maidan winning 2/3 of the vote. And that was with Crimea and Donbas included.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Point out how it is “Russophobic” to mention that the deposed president of Ukraine was not an ethnic Ukrainian but the child of non-Ukrainian migrants to Ukraine (or, the Ukrainan SSR), who grew up in a majority non-Ukrainian town on the eastern periphery of Ukraine.
     
    This sort of sentiment, if held by enough people, inevitably destroys any polity, any state.

    I'm amazed I have to explain this, but 'Ukraine' used to have two meaning: nationality, and ethnicity. The "the deposed president of Ukraine" was a perfectly legitimate Ukrainian, Ukrainian citizen. 'Ukraine', the state, was not the state of ethnic Ukrainians. It was (and I'm sure it's right there in their constitution) the state of its citizens, equally, regardless of their self-identification, or their religion, or culture, or ancestry.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @AP

    Jeez. You’re a certified russophobe, aren’t you?
     
    Point out how it is "Russophobic" to mention that the deposed president of Ukraine was not an ethnic Ukrainian but the child of non-Ukrainian migrants to Ukraine (or, the Ukrainan SSR), who grew up in a majority non-Ukrainian town on the eastern periphery of Ukraine.

    I hire a private tutor so my kids speak proper Russian but I am a "certified russophobe."

    The country was always split into the west-center and east-south. An uneasy balance had been maintained, with the east-south cheated of their victory in 2004,
     
    I guess since you get all of your information about Ukraine form the Party of Regions and its heirs, you believe the bolded nonsense.

    As for uneasy balance being maintained - it worked when the country was run by ethnic Ukrainians from a more centrally located part of the southeast - Kuchma's clan from Dnipropetrovsk. When a bunch of ethnic Russians from the eastern fringe took over and consolidated power it became fatally unstable.

    disgraced and universally hated ‘pro-western’ president Mr Yushchenko getting 5% of the vote in the 2010 elections.
     
    This just means that other pro-Western politicians took his support.

    No, it’s not Mexican vs American, it’s half of the country against the other half.
     
    You don't think that if the Democratic Party ran a Mexican-American as its candidate it wouldn't get about half the votes in the American election? And that if the Mexican-American president started amassing power in undemocratic ways and packing the government with Mexican immigrants there wouldn't eventually be a backlash?

    Note that as Yanukovich's presidency progressed and he became more authoritarian, his support eroded. At the time of the Maidan about 40% of the country supported the Maidanists and only 21% supported the government that was being overthrown (the rest disliked both sides or were indifferent). If that were an election, it would have 61% turnout with Maidan winning 2/3 of the vote. And that was with Crimea and Donbas included.

    Point out how it is “Russophobic” to mention that the deposed president of Ukraine was not an ethnic Ukrainian but the child of non-Ukrainian migrants to Ukraine (or, the Ukrainan SSR), who grew up in a majority non-Ukrainian town on the eastern periphery of Ukraine.

    This sort of sentiment, if held by enough people, inevitably destroys any polity, any state.

    I’m amazed I have to explain this, but ‘Ukraine’ used to have two meaning: nationality, and ethnicity. The “the deposed president of Ukraine” was a perfectly legitimate Ukrainian, Ukrainian citizen. ‘Ukraine’, the state, was not the state of ethnic Ukrainians. It was (and I’m sure it’s right there in their constitution) the state of its citizens, equally, regardless of their self-identification, or their religion, or culture, or ancestry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Sure, but if any state becomes lopsidedly dominated by an ethnic minority who act against the wishes and interests of the majority (as occurred in Ukraine) it becomes inherently unstable. Particularly if the dominance is achieved through non-democratic means.

    Yanukovich, the non-Ukrainian, had every right to run for president and he won the presidency legitimately. But he did not win parliamentary elections legitimately - he flipped the parliament nondemocratically. And in so doing stacked the government with other Russians, even making Ukraine's PM an immigrant who moved to Ukraine from Russia when he was well into his thirties. This government then started doing stuff that the Ukrainian natives did not like. And eventually they threw him out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. AP says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Point out how it is “Russophobic” to mention that the deposed president of Ukraine was not an ethnic Ukrainian but the child of non-Ukrainian migrants to Ukraine (or, the Ukrainan SSR), who grew up in a majority non-Ukrainian town on the eastern periphery of Ukraine.
     
    This sort of sentiment, if held by enough people, inevitably destroys any polity, any state.

    I'm amazed I have to explain this, but 'Ukraine' used to have two meaning: nationality, and ethnicity. The "the deposed president of Ukraine" was a perfectly legitimate Ukrainian, Ukrainian citizen. 'Ukraine', the state, was not the state of ethnic Ukrainians. It was (and I'm sure it's right there in their constitution) the state of its citizens, equally, regardless of their self-identification, or their religion, or culture, or ancestry.

    Sure, but if any state becomes lopsidedly dominated by an ethnic minority who act against the wishes and interests of the majority (as occurred in Ukraine) it becomes inherently unstable. Particularly if the dominance is achieved through non-democratic means.

    Yanukovich, the non-Ukrainian, had every right to run for president and he won the presidency legitimately. But he did not win parliamentary elections legitimately – he flipped the parliament nondemocratically. And in so doing stacked the government with other Russians, even making Ukraine’s PM an immigrant who moved to Ukraine from Russia when he was well into his thirties. This government then started doing stuff that the Ukrainian natives did not like. And eventually they threw him out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    This government then started doing stuff that the Ukrainian natives did not like. And eventually they threw him out.
     
    All Ukrainian governments did stuff the natives did not like, including the current one (and even more so than Yanukovych).

    Yanukovych was a corrupt son of a bitch, and there is no love lost for him, but every single Ukrainian President has been a corrupt son of a bitch, including the current one. Yanukovych went a bit further with his mafioso takeover of businesses (and not just those of other oligarchs but of the "middle class"), but ironically he did this mainly in the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine.

    And "they" did not throw him out. A small, tiny minority did in an armed coup, supported by the CIA (which gave the green light/orders to the Ukrainian secret services to arrest/kill Yanukovych). What the vast majority of Ukrainians wanted was an end to corruption and poverty, and the coup has provided neither, indeed, it has worsened.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. CalDre says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    He could be a crypto-Jew.
     
    He could also be a well-camouflaged alien life form from alpha centauri. However, since he defines his background as Tatar, that's what he actually is. He is what he says he is, not what JTA says he is.

    THEY ARE NOT NATIONAL SOCIALISTS
     
    So, they parade with swastikas and fuehrer's portraits, scream 'sieg heil', but they are not real nazis because they don't satisfy your strict requirements for antisemitism? Well, most people are not that particular. Besides, they do manifest plenty of racial hatred, just not for that particular ethnic group at this time. Why does it matter which ethnic group is declared the supper-evil villain?

    However, since he defines his background as Tatar

    So I guess if I describe myself as an alien from Alpha Centauri, I must be, since everyone is what you (without evidence despite several requests) claim he is. Look, and I am done arguing over this nonsense, Tatars are Turks; I have been to Turkey and I have lived around many Turks and they absolutely are not nor will they ever be blonde with blue eyes. Is that so hard to comprendez?

    they are not real nazis because they don’t satisfy your strict requirements for antisemitism

    No, they are not Nazis because they do not satisfy by any means – in fact, are the opposite – of the defining traits of national socialism. The serving of Jews and hating of fellow Slavs is only one of the many fundamental Nazi ideologies and values they do not share. The only thing you can point to, aside from Bandera symbols (not Nazi symbols to which you disingenuously refer, no doubt there are some Ukrainians who have Nazi tattoos like in any other country but the marches are Banderite), is the fact that they hate Russians and hate is a dominating motivational factor. Well they do, but that is Banderite, not Nazi; under Nazi ideology of ethnocentrism they should join with their Russian brethren to fight the Jewish oligarchs (just like Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews join together to fight the Palestinian … well, victims, though it would be interesting to see Palestinian oligarchs controlling Israel – indeed Zionists and Nazis are much more similar than Nazis and Banderivtsi).

    most people are not that particular

    Yes, most people are brainwashed sheep and associate Nazis with genocide and everything evil. It appeared to me you were more educated and sophisticated and were using the term “Nazi” to refer to a particular political party rather than some fairy tale notion of evil, but apparently I was wrong.

    Why does it matter which ethnic group is declared the supper-evil villain?

    Genetically Ukrainians and Russians are almost identical. There is a bigger genetic drift among Germans or French. To hate members of one’s own ethnic group as the Banderites do is utterly insane and if I may be frank is the result of years of Jewish oligarch instigation. If the Banderites were national socialists they would realize (a) Jews were the Bolsheviks that brought Communism, not Russians (though Russians and Ukrainians both worked with the Bolshevik Jews), and (b) post-Soviet Union, the Ukrainian Jews (oligarchs) have fomented Ukrainian-Russian hatred (for various reasons beyond the scope of this thread, but suffice to note that the Jewish oligarchs control almost the entire mass media in Ukraine). The fact that Banderites are marching to Jewish drums against their brothers (in a National Socialist ideology) proves beyond any doubt that is not what they are. All they have is hate but that is by no means a particularly Nazi trait.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Look, and I am done arguing over this nonsense, Tatars are Turks; I have been to Turkey and I have lived around many Turks and they absolutely are not nor will they ever be blonde with blue eyes. Is that so hard to comprendez?
     
    Your ignorance is limitless. There are tons of blonde, blue eyed (they tend to be grey-eyed but whatever) Tatars, especially from the Volga but occasionally from Crimea (some of them assimilated Gothic people who had lived in the peninsula). Googelimage is your friend.

    ::::::::::::::::::

    So, you are a fan of Nazis and don't like Banderists to be compared to Nazis? That's your problem?

    You do realize that the Nazis didn't like Slavs either, and slaughtered millions of them. But they didn't consider Galicians to be real Slavs and tolerated them (while slaughtering millions of non-Galician Ukrainians). I guess you really like people who kill white people, as the Nazis did.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. CalDre says:
    @AP

    "There are not thousands of Ukrainian volunteers in Russian territory killing Russians in their own country, nor is Ukraine sending bullets and weapons to Russia for this. But Russia, the champion of misguided white people, is doing this to another white country."

    No, those thousands of Ukrainian volunteers instead are intent on killing their own fellow citizens, because these fellow citizens refused to support a foreign-sponsored coup that overthrew the democratically elected government.
     
    There is a difference between a country using force within its own borders to enforce its government's control, and a country sending weapons, bullets and armed volunteers into another country's borders to kill people.

    The so-called "coup" overthrew a government in Ukraine with a non-Ukrainian president and an PM who was an immigrants, who arrived in Ukraine when he was in his thirties. The president was voted in (barely) but the PM was in power not through elections but through the president's power-grab, that was undemocratic.

    It was a native revolt. See my other comment for a detailed analogy/description.

    Donbass has a right of self-defense against the Russophobic Ukrainian extremists, and have a right not to be ruled by the corrupt dystopian oligarchs that run the rest of Ukraine
     
    Donbass is controlled by warlords and unelected Russian activists. If the local elected Party of Regions, or Yanukovich (who had been popular there) had been behind the revolt you would have a legitimate argument about "self-determination."

    if you were White and Christian as you pretend to be you would see them as your brothers,
     
    Donbas is the HIV capital of the white world, abortion capital of the world, the least church-going part of Ukraine, and venerates Stalin. It is also the most diverse part of Ukraine (though this isn't saying much, as Ukraine overall lack diversity). Western Ukraine is the most church-going part of Ukraine and leads Ukraine on all social indicators associated with Christianity. The Donbass rebels have even used massive Chechen support. Kadyrov's Chechens deployed to Ukraine to kill Ukrainian Christians in their own country on behalf of the Russian government.*

    Guess whose side you support in this conflict?

    *there are also anti-Russian Chechens fighting for the Ukrainians but the Chechens fighting for the Donbas rebels are about three times as numerous

    There is a difference between a country using force within its own borders to enforce its government’s control

    Not when that government is illegitimate and hateful toward half the country’s population.

    and a country sending weapons, bullets and armed volunteers into another country’s borders to kill people.

    The people of Donbass and Lugansk have not gone around Ukraine to kill; they have merely defended themselves. Rather it is your heroes that travel the country to murder their brethren, which started when the Kiev junta used violence to attempt to silence opponents of the illegal coup.

    the PM was in power not through elections but through the president’s power-grab, that was undemocratic.

    Such power grabs (and much worse) have a long history in Ukraine, and it had to do with a constitutional amendment which may or may not have been properly enacted (i.e., legality was debatable). The coup itself was a much more stark example of violence, lawlessness, and foreign interference.

    It was a native revolt.

    I know what was the “revolt”, I lived in Kiev during Maidan and have lived in many parts of Ukraine and Crimea. The coup was not native at all, it was supported by a very small number of violent extremists, a few thousand. Do not even try to tell me lies about this, I know. Yes many opposed Yanukovych (like many many more opposed Yatz while he remained in power for years and even now many more oppose Poroshenko, but I gather you don’t think a violent coup by Eastern Ukrainian elements would be as wonderful as your Banderite coup, eh?), but they did not want the murders of the Heavenly Hundred (by the Banderites), the coup, or the civil war (all of which I predicted as early as October when I visited Maidan and saw the nature of the “protesters”).

    Donbass is controlled by warlords and unelected Russian activists.

    And the rest of Ukraine isn’t? LOL. (Though the activists are Banderites by and large.) Party of Regions did support, so did Communists, as much as they could (the ones in Kiev faced 20 years in prison for “supporting separatism” so there were limits, but the local officials certainly supported it). They also tried having elections but Ukraine was always firmly against and sabotaged them anyway they could.

    Western Ukraine is the most church-going part of Ukraine and leads Ukraine on all social indicators associated with Christianity.

    Not the impression I got in my visits there.

    All your other stale propaganda about Chechens this, blah blah, heard it before, boring nonsense.

    Guess whose side you support in this conflict?

    Proudly, not your side.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    The people of Donbass and Lugansk have not gone around Ukraine to kill; they have merely defended themselves.
     
    1. At the beginning, before they were stopped in Donbas, they were bragging that they would grab Kharkiv, Kiev and even Lviv.

    2. The fighters do not represent any elected political party so they do not represent "the people of Donbas", but rather Russian nationalist activists and adventurers. About 20% of them aren't even Ukrainian citizens. Some local armed fanatics augmented by foreign fighters chose to fight in populated areas and civilians got killed as a result of their choice. Sounds like Chechnya, or Syria, though Kiev has been much less bloody than the Russian and Syrian governments.

    Right next door to Donbas is another Russian-speaking Yanukovich-voting region that has not seen thousands of dead and mass destruction - Kharkiv. What is the difference between Donbas and Kharkiv? The latter was not blessed with the presence of Russian "Rambos" fighting from the cover of populated areas, their cause kept alive by Russian government support. Russian armed adventurers = death to civilians.

    It was a native revolt.

    I know what was the “revolt”, I lived in Kiev during Maidan and have lived in many parts of Ukraine and Crimea. The coup was not native at all, it was supported by a very small number of violent extremists, a few thousand.
     
    You are either lying when you said you were there, or lying when you said it was not a native revolt.

    The uprising had the support of 40% of Ukraine's population, it was opposed by 21%. In central Ukraine the ratio was 50% to 10%.

    The parties at the Maidan, who came to power afterwards, were the same parties who had won the popular vote in the most recent national parliamentary election. Their support was particularly strong in the center and west. In Kiev city, for example, 31% voted for the Fatherland Party, 25.5% voted for Klitschko's Udar, and 17% of Kievans voted for Svoboda. Those were the parties out on the Maidan. These were the 2012 election results, run while Yanukovich was president, so if any cheating was going on it would been against these parties.

    So that is actual evidence of mass support. Not some claim by a dishonest internet commenter like you.

    Donbass is controlled by warlords and unelected Russian activists.

    And the rest of Ukraine isn’t? LOL. (Though the activists are Banderites by and large.)
     
    You checked the election results? If you don't believe the post-Maidan results, you can look at the Yanukovich-era ones. Ukraine outside Donbas is actually ruled by people who won democratic elections in those regions.

    They also tried having elections but Ukraine was always firmly against and sabotaged them anyway they could.
     
    Only two political parties were allowed to participate in the Donbas elections: Donetsk Republic and Free Donbass. Even the Communists, who actually had significant support in Donbas (which is the heartland of Bolshevik-love in Ukraine), were banned.

    "Western Ukraine is the most church-going part of Ukraine and leads Ukraine on all social indicators associated with Christianity."

    Not the impression I got in my visits there.
     
    Thanks for sharing and demonstrating your the fact that your observations contradict reality. One can compare your claimed experiences with the facts:

    Percent non-religious by oblast:

    http://demostudy.blogspot.com/2012/05/blog-post_5646.html

    Ranges from 1.2% in Ternopil and 6.1% in Lviv oblast in the West, compared to 40% in Luhansk and 41% in Donetsk.

    HIV in Ukraine:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Registered_HIV_prevalence_in_Ukraine.jpg/400px-Registered_HIV_prevalence_in_Ukraine.jpg

    Percentage of pregnancies aborted by region:

    http://i.imgur.com/fToFLTR.gif

    I can do the same for unwed pregnancy, homicide rate, crime rate, birth rate, etc. for you.

    "Guess whose side you support in this conflict?"

    Proudly, not your side.
     
    It is, of course, your right to be on the side of relatively atheistic, aborting, HIV-carrying, crime-prone, Stalin-loving people of Donbas in their struggle against law-abiding, clean-living, church-going, baby-making western Ukrainians. And to be amusing if you call yourself some kind of "conservative" or "pro-white person" or whatever when doing so.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. CalDre says:
    @AP
    Sure, but if any state becomes lopsidedly dominated by an ethnic minority who act against the wishes and interests of the majority (as occurred in Ukraine) it becomes inherently unstable. Particularly if the dominance is achieved through non-democratic means.

    Yanukovich, the non-Ukrainian, had every right to run for president and he won the presidency legitimately. But he did not win parliamentary elections legitimately - he flipped the parliament nondemocratically. And in so doing stacked the government with other Russians, even making Ukraine's PM an immigrant who moved to Ukraine from Russia when he was well into his thirties. This government then started doing stuff that the Ukrainian natives did not like. And eventually they threw him out.

    This government then started doing stuff that the Ukrainian natives did not like. And eventually they threw him out.

    All Ukrainian governments did stuff the natives did not like, including the current one (and even more so than Yanukovych).

    Yanukovych was a corrupt son of a bitch, and there is no love lost for him, but every single Ukrainian President has been a corrupt son of a bitch, including the current one. Yanukovych went a bit further with his mafioso takeover of businesses (and not just those of other oligarchs but of the “middle class”), but ironically he did this mainly in the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine.

    And “they” did not throw him out. A small, tiny minority did in an armed coup, supported by the CIA (which gave the green light/orders to the Ukrainian secret services to arrest/kill Yanukovych). What the vast majority of Ukrainians wanted was an end to corruption and poverty, and the coup has provided neither, indeed, it has worsened.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. AP says:

    All Ukrainian governments did stuff the natives did not like, including the current one (and even more so than Yanukovych).

    He took things to a new level of corruption, and moreover was pushing Ukraine towards Russia, something the native Ukrainians did not want.

    And “they” did not throw him out. A small, tiny minority did in an armed coup,

    Hundreds of thousands were in the streets and various state governments had already moved against him. Maidan had the support of 40% of the population, the government the support of 21%. The parties that came to power were the exact same ones who had won the popular vote in the most recent election. So clearly it was a mass movement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    He took things to a new level of corruption
     
    Not really, he used some new techniques but the amount of money he stole was less than some of the other oligarchs / politicians.

    and moreover was pushing Ukraine towards Russia, something the native Ukrainians did not want.
     
    That's patently false. He did more to advance the EU Association Agreement than his predecessors. Eventually, however, he turned on the EU Association Agreement, not because he was anti-EU, but because it was a terrible deal for Ukraine.

    Hundreds of thousands were in the streets and various state governments had already moved against him.
     
    There were a couple Sundays where the 100,000 threshold was broken, particularly after some police brutality against students (which Yanukovych says he did not order, and there is no evidence he did). But you cannot say all of these people wanted a coup. As it turns out, Yanukovych did agree to early elections, only to have a violent coup imposed by a few hundreds of radicals (who even shot and killed other innocent, non-radical protesters to blame it on Yanukovych and accomplish the coup).

    There is nothing whatsoever democratic about Ukraine, fool. It is an utterly corrupt oligarchy, and everybody loathes the government. People got to pull a lever in Stalin's days too, I suppose that was a democracy, hmm?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. AP says:
    @CalDre

    There is a difference between a country using force within its own borders to enforce its government’s control
     
    Not when that government is illegitimate and hateful toward half the country's population.

    and a country sending weapons, bullets and armed volunteers into another country’s borders to kill people.
     
    The people of Donbass and Lugansk have not gone around Ukraine to kill; they have merely defended themselves. Rather it is your heroes that travel the country to murder their brethren, which started when the Kiev junta used violence to attempt to silence opponents of the illegal coup.

    the PM was in power not through elections but through the president’s power-grab, that was undemocratic.
     
    Such power grabs (and much worse) have a long history in Ukraine, and it had to do with a constitutional amendment which may or may not have been properly enacted (i.e., legality was debatable). The coup itself was a much more stark example of violence, lawlessness, and foreign interference.

    It was a native revolt.
     
    I know what was the "revolt", I lived in Kiev during Maidan and have lived in many parts of Ukraine and Crimea. The coup was not native at all, it was supported by a very small number of violent extremists, a few thousand. Do not even try to tell me lies about this, I know. Yes many opposed Yanukovych (like many many more opposed Yatz while he remained in power for years and even now many more oppose Poroshenko, but I gather you don't think a violent coup by Eastern Ukrainian elements would be as wonderful as your Banderite coup, eh?), but they did not want the murders of the Heavenly Hundred (by the Banderites), the coup, or the civil war (all of which I predicted as early as October when I visited Maidan and saw the nature of the "protesters").

    Donbass is controlled by warlords and unelected Russian activists.
     
    And the rest of Ukraine isn't? LOL. (Though the activists are Banderites by and large.) Party of Regions did support, so did Communists, as much as they could (the ones in Kiev faced 20 years in prison for "supporting separatism" so there were limits, but the local officials certainly supported it). They also tried having elections but Ukraine was always firmly against and sabotaged them anyway they could.

    Western Ukraine is the most church-going part of Ukraine and leads Ukraine on all social indicators associated with Christianity.
     
    Not the impression I got in my visits there.

    All your other stale propaganda about Chechens this, blah blah, heard it before, boring nonsense.

    Guess whose side you support in this conflict?
     
    Proudly, not your side.

    The people of Donbass and Lugansk have not gone around Ukraine to kill; they have merely defended themselves.

    1. At the beginning, before they were stopped in Donbas, they were bragging that they would grab Kharkiv, Kiev and even Lviv.

    2. The fighters do not represent any elected political party so they do not represent “the people of Donbas”, but rather Russian nationalist activists and adventurers. About 20% of them aren’t even Ukrainian citizens. Some local armed fanatics augmented by foreign fighters chose to fight in populated areas and civilians got killed as a result of their choice. Sounds like Chechnya, or Syria, though Kiev has been much less bloody than the Russian and Syrian governments.

    Right next door to Donbas is another Russian-speaking Yanukovich-voting region that has not seen thousands of dead and mass destruction – Kharkiv. What is the difference between Donbas and Kharkiv? The latter was not blessed with the presence of Russian “Rambos” fighting from the cover of populated areas, their cause kept alive by Russian government support. Russian armed adventurers = death to civilians.

    It was a native revolt.

    I know what was the “revolt”, I lived in Kiev during Maidan and have lived in many parts of Ukraine and Crimea. The coup was not native at all, it was supported by a very small number of violent extremists, a few thousand.

    You are either lying when you said you were there, or lying when you said it was not a native revolt.

    The uprising had the support of 40% of Ukraine’s population, it was opposed by 21%. In central Ukraine the ratio was 50% to 10%.

    The parties at the Maidan, who came to power afterwards, were the same parties who had won the popular vote in the most recent national parliamentary election. Their support was particularly strong in the center and west. In Kiev city, for example, 31% voted for the Fatherland Party, 25.5% voted for Klitschko’s Udar, and 17% of Kievans voted for Svoboda. Those were the parties out on the Maidan. These were the 2012 election results, run while Yanukovich was president, so if any cheating was going on it would been against these parties.

    So that is actual evidence of mass support. Not some claim by a dishonest internet commenter like you.

    Donbass is controlled by warlords and unelected Russian activists.

    And the rest of Ukraine isn’t? LOL. (Though the activists are Banderites by and large.)

    You checked the election results? If you don’t believe the post-Maidan results, you can look at the Yanukovich-era ones. Ukraine outside Donbas is actually ruled by people who won democratic elections in those regions.

    They also tried having elections but Ukraine was always firmly against and sabotaged them anyway they could.

    Only two political parties were allowed to participate in the Donbas elections: Donetsk Republic and Free Donbass. Even the Communists, who actually had significant support in Donbas (which is the heartland of Bolshevik-love in Ukraine), were banned.

    “Western Ukraine is the most church-going part of Ukraine and leads Ukraine on all social indicators associated with Christianity.”

    Not the impression I got in my visits there.

    Thanks for sharing and demonstrating your the fact that your observations contradict reality. One can compare your claimed experiences with the facts:

    Percent non-religious by oblast:

    http://demostudy.blogspot.com/2012/05/blog-post_5646.html

    Ranges from 1.2% in Ternopil and 6.1% in Lviv oblast in the West, compared to 40% in Luhansk and 41% in Donetsk.

    HIV in Ukraine:

    Percentage of pregnancies aborted by region:

    I can do the same for unwed pregnancy, homicide rate, crime rate, birth rate, etc. for you.

    “Guess whose side you support in this conflict?”

    Proudly, not your side.

    It is, of course, your right to be on the side of relatively atheistic, aborting, HIV-carrying, crime-prone, Stalin-loving people of Donbas in their struggle against law-abiding, clean-living, church-going, baby-making western Ukrainians. And to be amusing if you call yourself some kind of “conservative” or “pro-white person” or whatever when doing so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. AP says:
    @CalDre

    However, since he defines his background as Tatar
     
    So I guess if I describe myself as an alien from Alpha Centauri, I must be, since everyone is what you (without evidence despite several requests) claim he is. Look, and I am done arguing over this nonsense, Tatars are Turks; I have been to Turkey and I have lived around many Turks and they absolutely are not nor will they ever be blonde with blue eyes. Is that so hard to comprendez?

    they are not real nazis because they don’t satisfy your strict requirements for antisemitism
     
    No, they are not Nazis because they do not satisfy by any means - in fact, are the opposite - of the defining traits of national socialism. The serving of Jews and hating of fellow Slavs is only one of the many fundamental Nazi ideologies and values they do not share. The only thing you can point to, aside from Bandera symbols (not Nazi symbols to which you disingenuously refer, no doubt there are some Ukrainians who have Nazi tattoos like in any other country but the marches are Banderite), is the fact that they hate Russians and hate is a dominating motivational factor. Well they do, but that is Banderite, not Nazi; under Nazi ideology of ethnocentrism they should join with their Russian brethren to fight the Jewish oligarchs (just like Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews join together to fight the Palestinian ... well, victims, though it would be interesting to see Palestinian oligarchs controlling Israel - indeed Zionists and Nazis are much more similar than Nazis and Banderivtsi).

    most people are not that particular
     
    Yes, most people are brainwashed sheep and associate Nazis with genocide and everything evil. It appeared to me you were more educated and sophisticated and were using the term "Nazi" to refer to a particular political party rather than some fairy tale notion of evil, but apparently I was wrong.

    Why does it matter which ethnic group is declared the supper-evil villain?
     
    Genetically Ukrainians and Russians are almost identical. There is a bigger genetic drift among Germans or French. To hate members of one's own ethnic group as the Banderites do is utterly insane and if I may be frank is the result of years of Jewish oligarch instigation. If the Banderites were national socialists they would realize (a) Jews were the Bolsheviks that brought Communism, not Russians (though Russians and Ukrainians both worked with the Bolshevik Jews), and (b) post-Soviet Union, the Ukrainian Jews (oligarchs) have fomented Ukrainian-Russian hatred (for various reasons beyond the scope of this thread, but suffice to note that the Jewish oligarchs control almost the entire mass media in Ukraine). The fact that Banderites are marching to Jewish drums against their brothers (in a National Socialist ideology) proves beyond any doubt that is not what they are. All they have is hate but that is by no means a particularly Nazi trait.

    Look, and I am done arguing over this nonsense, Tatars are Turks; I have been to Turkey and I have lived around many Turks and they absolutely are not nor will they ever be blonde with blue eyes. Is that so hard to comprendez?

    Your ignorance is limitless. There are tons of blonde, blue eyed (they tend to be grey-eyed but whatever) Tatars, especially from the Volga but occasionally from Crimea (some of them assimilated Gothic people who had lived in the peninsula). Googelimage is your friend.

    ::::::::::::::::::

    So, you are a fan of Nazis and don’t like Banderists to be compared to Nazis? That’s your problem?

    You do realize that the Nazis didn’t like Slavs either, and slaughtered millions of them. But they didn’t consider Galicians to be real Slavs and tolerated them (while slaughtering millions of non-Galician Ukrainians). I guess you really like people who kill white people, as the Nazis did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    Your ignorance is limitless. There are tons of blonde, blue eyed (they tend to be grey-eyed but whatever) Tatars
     
    So you are claiming he is Volga Tatar? Yes some of them are fair, but a picture of him and his parents show they were not. And now you are resorting to insults, even though you still have not provided any proof that he claims he is Tatar, nor any pictures of him doing his daily prayers. Why don't you Google crypto-Jew, you might learn something.

    So, you are a fan of Nazis and don’t like Banderists to be compared to Nazis?
     
    Not a fan, just not a mindless hater. Like many other political parties, they had their negatives, but they also had a lot of positives. In any event I don't buy into the fairy tale depiction of them, I don't believe the gas chamber hoax (for which there is actually no convincing evidence at all), and I do know something about their ideology (and not just from reading Mein Kamp). And Banderites are in no way, shape or form national socialists. They certainly lack the positive characteristics of the Nazis, and their negative ones are even more exaggerated.

    I guess you really like people who kill white people, as the Nazis did.
     
    Well people die in war, don't they? WW I wasn't started by Germany, neither were all of the British/French wars, the Napoleonic Wars, or the US Civil War, or the vast vast majority of wars in which Whites died. The German WW II effort was certainly ruthless, but they did not "slaughter millions of non-Galician Ukrainians". And the Allied war effort was equally ruthless, and not just because of the fire-bombing of various civilian cities and the nuclear bombs, but also the post-surrender slaughtering, raping and ethnic cleansing of millions.

    I am not a fan of war at all, though sometimes it is necessary in self-defense.

    Nazi's views on Slavs was nuanced. Several Slav countries were allies of the Nazis - Bulgaria, Slovakia and Croatia. And Hitler's primary animus against Slavs was not that they were Slavs, but that they were doing the bidding of Jews in the Jews' effort to take over the world with their "international revolution" (as Nazis saw it, and however ruthless they might have been, dumb they were not).

    Anyway, another huge tangent ....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. CalDre says:
    @AP

    All Ukrainian governments did stuff the natives did not like, including the current one (and even more so than Yanukovych).
     
    He took things to a new level of corruption, and moreover was pushing Ukraine towards Russia, something the native Ukrainians did not want.

    And “they” did not throw him out. A small, tiny minority did in an armed coup,
     
    Hundreds of thousands were in the streets and various state governments had already moved against him. Maidan had the support of 40% of the population, the government the support of 21%. The parties that came to power were the exact same ones who had won the popular vote in the most recent election. So clearly it was a mass movement.

    He took things to a new level of corruption

    Not really, he used some new techniques but the amount of money he stole was less than some of the other oligarchs / politicians.

    and moreover was pushing Ukraine towards Russia, something the native Ukrainians did not want.

    That’s patently false. He did more to advance the EU Association Agreement than his predecessors. Eventually, however, he turned on the EU Association Agreement, not because he was anti-EU, but because it was a terrible deal for Ukraine.

    Hundreds of thousands were in the streets and various state governments had already moved against him.

    There were a couple Sundays where the 100,000 threshold was broken, particularly after some police brutality against students (which Yanukovych says he did not order, and there is no evidence he did). But you cannot say all of these people wanted a coup. As it turns out, Yanukovych did agree to early elections, only to have a violent coup imposed by a few hundreds of radicals (who even shot and killed other innocent, non-radical protesters to blame it on Yanukovych and accomplish the coup).

    There is nothing whatsoever democratic about Ukraine, fool. It is an utterly corrupt oligarchy, and everybody loathes the government. People got to pull a lever in Stalin’s days too, I suppose that was a democracy, hmm?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. CalDre says:
    @AP

    Look, and I am done arguing over this nonsense, Tatars are Turks; I have been to Turkey and I have lived around many Turks and they absolutely are not nor will they ever be blonde with blue eyes. Is that so hard to comprendez?
     
    Your ignorance is limitless. There are tons of blonde, blue eyed (they tend to be grey-eyed but whatever) Tatars, especially from the Volga but occasionally from Crimea (some of them assimilated Gothic people who had lived in the peninsula). Googelimage is your friend.

    ::::::::::::::::::

    So, you are a fan of Nazis and don't like Banderists to be compared to Nazis? That's your problem?

    You do realize that the Nazis didn't like Slavs either, and slaughtered millions of them. But they didn't consider Galicians to be real Slavs and tolerated them (while slaughtering millions of non-Galician Ukrainians). I guess you really like people who kill white people, as the Nazis did.

    Your ignorance is limitless. There are tons of blonde, blue eyed (they tend to be grey-eyed but whatever) Tatars

    So you are claiming he is Volga Tatar? Yes some of them are fair, but a picture of him and his parents show they were not. And now you are resorting to insults, even though you still have not provided any proof that he claims he is Tatar, nor any pictures of him doing his daily prayers. Why don’t you Google crypto-Jew, you might learn something.

    So, you are a fan of Nazis and don’t like Banderists to be compared to Nazis?

    Not a fan, just not a mindless hater. Like many other political parties, they had their negatives, but they also had a lot of positives. In any event I don’t buy into the fairy tale depiction of them, I don’t believe the gas chamber hoax (for which there is actually no convincing evidence at all), and I do know something about their ideology (and not just from reading Mein Kamp). And Banderites are in no way, shape or form national socialists. They certainly lack the positive characteristics of the Nazis, and their negative ones are even more exaggerated.

    I guess you really like people who kill white people, as the Nazis did.

    Well people die in war, don’t they? WW I wasn’t started by Germany, neither were all of the British/French wars, the Napoleonic Wars, or the US Civil War, or the vast vast majority of wars in which Whites died. The German WW II effort was certainly ruthless, but they did not “slaughter millions of non-Galician Ukrainians”. And the Allied war effort was equally ruthless, and not just because of the fire-bombing of various civilian cities and the nuclear bombs, but also the post-surrender slaughtering, raping and ethnic cleansing of millions.

    I am not a fan of war at all, though sometimes it is necessary in self-defense.

    Nazi’s views on Slavs was nuanced. Several Slav countries were allies of the Nazis – Bulgaria, Slovakia and Croatia. And Hitler’s primary animus against Slavs was not that they were Slavs, but that they were doing the bidding of Jews in the Jews’ effort to take over the world with their “international revolution” (as Nazis saw it, and however ruthless they might have been, dumb they were not).

    Anyway, another huge tangent ….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. I have been to Turkey and I have lived around many Turks and they absolutely are not nor will they ever be blonde with blue eyes. Is that so hard to comprendez?

    No, it’s not hard. I now realize that you define people’s ethnic background neither by their culture/religion nor by their self-identification, but by interpreting their facial features. And from that, presumably, you deduce the ‘content of their character’? Is this something like ‘physiognomy’? It is very interesting, and I’d like to hear more.

    However, branding someone a ‘Jew’ because of their blonde hair and blue eyes seems kinda counter-intuitive. Are you sure Akhmetov isn’t, in fact, northern-European: German, Swede, or Norwegian?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    I now realize that you define people’s ethnic background neither by their culture/religion nor by their self-identification, but by interpreting their facial features.
     
    Ethnicity has a number of factors. Biology is one of them. If you have two white parents you will not be born as a black and saying you are "black" doesn't make it so; similar in the reverse. All I am saying is he is not, biologically/genetically, Turkish (which most Tatars, particularly Crimean Tatars and even more particularly his parents, are). Blonde hair and blue eyes does in fact convey genetic facts about a person, sorry if 20th century (heck, even Medieval) science has left you behind, I can suggest some reading material if you are inclined.

    I don't deduce character from genetics, another passive-aggressive "dig" at me.

    I didn't "brand" Akhmetov a "Jew" because of his blonde hair and blue eyes. Indeed most Jews aren't that, though a number of them are. Jews are a tribe, i.e., a political institution, not an ethnic group (Jews include Sephardic, Ashkenazi, Ethiopian, Persian, Mizrahim, Indian, and other ethnic groups, including quite a few Nordic/Germanic ones, such as the Rotshchilds; indeed many of the elite Jews are Germanic/Aryan) and not a religion (Jews range from atheists to Talmudists to Kabbalists to Orthodox to Hindus to pagans). So by Jew I mean: politically affiliated with/obedient to the Jewish tribe and its elite.

    And as I have written twice, though in your need to take passive-aggressive and quite pathetic cheap shots you have ignored this, I have concluded (after substantial research on all Ukrainian oligarchs) that Akhmetov is Jewish because a number of Jewish organizations, including Ukrainian ones, say he is, and I have linked man of those sources to you. Whereas your evidence of him being a Muslim Tatar is entirely illusory. Is there an iman that says he is a worshiper? Have you seen him do his five daily prayers? It's not easy to miss that. Has he made his journey to Mecca? Does he say "Peace be upon him" when he mentions Mohammed, and does he mention Mohammed in every letter and speech? Frankly your claim is pathetic and all you can do is come up with pathetic, ignorant passive-aggressive attacks. I thought you were an intelligent debater but clearly I was completely wrong.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. CalDre says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    I have been to Turkey and I have lived around many Turks and they absolutely are not nor will they ever be blonde with blue eyes. Is that so hard to comprendez?
     
    No, it's not hard. I now realize that you define people's ethnic background neither by their culture/religion nor by their self-identification, but by interpreting their facial features. And from that, presumably, you deduce the 'content of their character'? Is this something like 'physiognomy'? It is very interesting, and I'd like to hear more.

    However, branding someone a 'Jew' because of their blonde hair and blue eyes seems kinda counter-intuitive. Are you sure Akhmetov isn't, in fact, northern-European: German, Swede, or Norwegian?

    I now realize that you define people’s ethnic background neither by their culture/religion nor by their self-identification, but by interpreting their facial features.

    Ethnicity has a number of factors. Biology is one of them. If you have two white parents you will not be born as a black and saying you are “black” doesn’t make it so; similar in the reverse. All I am saying is he is not, biologically/genetically, Turkish (which most Tatars, particularly Crimean Tatars and even more particularly his parents, are). Blonde hair and blue eyes does in fact convey genetic facts about a person, sorry if 20th century (heck, even Medieval) science has left you behind, I can suggest some reading material if you are inclined.

    I don’t deduce character from genetics, another passive-aggressive “dig” at me.

    I didn’t “brand” Akhmetov a “Jew” because of his blonde hair and blue eyes. Indeed most Jews aren’t that, though a number of them are. Jews are a tribe, i.e., a political institution, not an ethnic group (Jews include Sephardic, Ashkenazi, Ethiopian, Persian, Mizrahim, Indian, and other ethnic groups, including quite a few Nordic/Germanic ones, such as the Rotshchilds; indeed many of the elite Jews are Germanic/Aryan) and not a religion (Jews range from atheists to Talmudists to Kabbalists to Orthodox to Hindus to pagans). So by Jew I mean: politically affiliated with/obedient to the Jewish tribe and its elite.

    And as I have written twice, though in your need to take passive-aggressive and quite pathetic cheap shots you have ignored this, I have concluded (after substantial research on all Ukrainian oligarchs) that Akhmetov is Jewish because a number of Jewish organizations, including Ukrainian ones, say he is, and I have linked man of those sources to you. Whereas your evidence of him being a Muslim Tatar is entirely illusory. Is there an iman that says he is a worshiper? Have you seen him do his five daily prayers? It’s not easy to miss that. Has he made his journey to Mecca? Does he say “Peace be upon him” when he mentions Mohammed, and does he mention Mohammed in every letter and speech? Frankly your claim is pathetic and all you can do is come up with pathetic, ignorant passive-aggressive attacks. I thought you were an intelligent debater but clearly I was completely wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Jews are a tribe, i.e., a political institution, not an ethnic group
     
    Sorry. I'm just trying to understand. Okay, so it's an organization. Secret organization with loyal membership. You believe that Mr Akhmetov is a member. Along with Messrs Pinchuk, Kolomoysky, and others, all acting in concert. Fine, although I highly doubt this is what JTA meant when they put him on their list. I strongly, very strongly suspect that they, in a typical parochial way, were digging into his ancestry, looking for someone named 'Hanna' (or something) there, to say - Aha!

    Anyhow. I read today that Akhmetov's wealth declined from $22 billion in 2013 to $3.5 billion today. Wikipedia tells me that Kolomoysky had $3 bil in 2012, only $1 bil today. What does it all mean, in the context you constructed? Fake numbers? Or is this organization being hammered by some other organization? Also, according to wikipedia Pinchuk sued Kolomoysky for $2 bil in 2015. What should I make of that?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @CalDre

    I now realize that you define people’s ethnic background neither by their culture/religion nor by their self-identification, but by interpreting their facial features.
     
    Ethnicity has a number of factors. Biology is one of them. If you have two white parents you will not be born as a black and saying you are "black" doesn't make it so; similar in the reverse. All I am saying is he is not, biologically/genetically, Turkish (which most Tatars, particularly Crimean Tatars and even more particularly his parents, are). Blonde hair and blue eyes does in fact convey genetic facts about a person, sorry if 20th century (heck, even Medieval) science has left you behind, I can suggest some reading material if you are inclined.

    I don't deduce character from genetics, another passive-aggressive "dig" at me.

    I didn't "brand" Akhmetov a "Jew" because of his blonde hair and blue eyes. Indeed most Jews aren't that, though a number of them are. Jews are a tribe, i.e., a political institution, not an ethnic group (Jews include Sephardic, Ashkenazi, Ethiopian, Persian, Mizrahim, Indian, and other ethnic groups, including quite a few Nordic/Germanic ones, such as the Rotshchilds; indeed many of the elite Jews are Germanic/Aryan) and not a religion (Jews range from atheists to Talmudists to Kabbalists to Orthodox to Hindus to pagans). So by Jew I mean: politically affiliated with/obedient to the Jewish tribe and its elite.

    And as I have written twice, though in your need to take passive-aggressive and quite pathetic cheap shots you have ignored this, I have concluded (after substantial research on all Ukrainian oligarchs) that Akhmetov is Jewish because a number of Jewish organizations, including Ukrainian ones, say he is, and I have linked man of those sources to you. Whereas your evidence of him being a Muslim Tatar is entirely illusory. Is there an iman that says he is a worshiper? Have you seen him do his five daily prayers? It's not easy to miss that. Has he made his journey to Mecca? Does he say "Peace be upon him" when he mentions Mohammed, and does he mention Mohammed in every letter and speech? Frankly your claim is pathetic and all you can do is come up with pathetic, ignorant passive-aggressive attacks. I thought you were an intelligent debater but clearly I was completely wrong.

    Jews are a tribe, i.e., a political institution, not an ethnic group

    Sorry. I’m just trying to understand. Okay, so it’s an organization. Secret organization with loyal membership. You believe that Mr Akhmetov is a member. Along with Messrs Pinchuk, Kolomoysky, and others, all acting in concert. Fine, although I highly doubt this is what JTA meant when they put him on their list. I strongly, very strongly suspect that they, in a typical parochial way, were digging into his ancestry, looking for someone named ‘Hanna’ (or something) there, to say – Aha!

    Anyhow. I read today that Akhmetov’s wealth declined from $22 billion in 2013 to $3.5 billion today. Wikipedia tells me that Kolomoysky had $3 bil in 2012, only $1 bil today. What does it all mean, in the context you constructed? Fake numbers? Or is this organization being hammered by some other organization? Also, according to wikipedia Pinchuk sued Kolomoysky for $2 bil in 2015. What should I make of that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    I wrote before about tribes (of which, by the way, there are quite a few amongst Arabic countries, you probably have heard about the ones in Iraq and Libya): "Jews are by far the largest and most successful of them." I would like to compare Jewish success in amassing and projecting power with British success in the 19th century (and even now but I want to pick a more obvious time period).

    At that time UK was a small island, with a relatively small population. Yet from that island its royal family was able to dominate almost the entire world. To observe this fact does not make one "anti-British" or a "conspiracy theorist" - it merely means one does not close ones eyes to history and reality.

    Jews strenuously object to people observing their massively disproportionate power and influence because, unlike Britain, they do not rely on military might to achieve their power, and hence, they can be easily defeated if people simply stop to listen to them. Stop buying Jewish Hollywood propaganda movies, reading Jewish New York Times, Washington Post or other mainstream media, which is predominantly Jewish (not just in US, but in Ukraine as well), stop using Jewish Facebook and Google, stop going to Jewish retail stores, etc. Basically an economic and propaganda boycott would be enough to reign in the excesses and restore Jewish power to where it should be.

    And back to Ukraine: if the Banderites were national socialists, that's exactly what they'd do. They don't have to be violent or even expel Jews (Jews, despite dominating the oligarchy in Ukraine, are only about 0.2% of the general population). Let them be. Just don't let them dominate you. It's quite simple really. And don't turn against your Slav brothers because Jews, who don't give a crap about you, are beating the war drums and pumping you full of hate with lies. Just like national socialists in Iraq do not turn against their Arab brothers because Americans, who don't give a crap about them, are beating the war drums and pumping them full of hate with lies. It's a simple matter, really, and not all "anti-Semitic" or anything "hateful" if you look at it in context of the truth, which is: Jews are a political group, like a State, building an Empire, and the "goy" (world) is their colony. So they are very much like Brits in the 19th Century (though Brits who leave the UK tend to assimilate within a few generations, not all due, and many in foreign lands for generations still "work for the Crown" (though now they call it the "Commonwealth")). Full circle.

    , @AP

    Fake numbers? Or is this organization being hammered by some other organization?
     
    Argentine author Ernesto Sabato revealed that the ultimate secret organization is that of the Blind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. CalDre says:

    Secret organization with loyal membership.

    Secret, generally not, most Jews are very proud of belonging to the club. But in some cases, yes, people make this (and virtually any other aspect of their lives, be it religion, sexual orientation, or political ideals) a secret. Is that stunning to you, that maybe somewhere in Communist Russia there was an Orthodox Christian that denied it? Nah, must be some crazy conspiracy theory!

    all acting in concert

    There are limits on how tightly any group acts in concert but they help each other out in general. Even though the American identity is not nearly as strong as the Jewish one, it serves as an analogy. Americans, like Jews, are composed of numerous ethnic groups and religions, but do help each other out, even go around the world and fight wars against others together, spy on others together, build an Empire together, take economic advantage of others together (now often the little guy doesn’t benefit, but the elites do). Sometimes they sue and kill each other too. Does that not make them loyal Americans? And, like I noted, the Jewish bond is far stronger than the American one. Simply consider this: after 2000 years of “exile” and being “scattered to the winds”, Jews still speak Hebrew, obsess about being Jews, live in Jewish communities, marry (predominantly) only other Jews, etc. Remove an American from the US for two generations and the third generation will have forgotten all about America.

    Perhaps you are just brainwashed by all the Jewish propaganda and cries of “anti-Semitism” once anyone looks at the truth of Jewish “identity politics” and power, so something that is rather quite obvious seems crazy to you. Such is the power of propaganda. If you want to know who rules over you, think whom you may not criticize.

    Political organizations – states or, more fundamentally, tribes – can exercise power in different ways. Some like to use military might. Jews have their own techniques, primarily based on network, spying, and economic power. But they are tried and practiced techniques, and very effective, make no mistake about it.

    Most people don’t understand this because they are small-minded and do not understand what is a tribe and how someone can be fiercely loyal to it. Tribes predate States and States by and large destroyed tribes, but there are exceptions, not just Jews, but Roma and many others. But Jews are by far the largest and most successful of them.

    Now, for the fourth time, what evidence have you that Akhmetov is a Muslim Tatar? I have spent significant time looking into this but aside from some claims by third parties (in each case without evidence and none of which was a Muslim or Tatar organization) I see none. Links, please.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  192. CalDre says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Jews are a tribe, i.e., a political institution, not an ethnic group
     
    Sorry. I'm just trying to understand. Okay, so it's an organization. Secret organization with loyal membership. You believe that Mr Akhmetov is a member. Along with Messrs Pinchuk, Kolomoysky, and others, all acting in concert. Fine, although I highly doubt this is what JTA meant when they put him on their list. I strongly, very strongly suspect that they, in a typical parochial way, were digging into his ancestry, looking for someone named 'Hanna' (or something) there, to say - Aha!

    Anyhow. I read today that Akhmetov's wealth declined from $22 billion in 2013 to $3.5 billion today. Wikipedia tells me that Kolomoysky had $3 bil in 2012, only $1 bil today. What does it all mean, in the context you constructed? Fake numbers? Or is this organization being hammered by some other organization? Also, according to wikipedia Pinchuk sued Kolomoysky for $2 bil in 2015. What should I make of that?

    I wrote before about tribes (of which, by the way, there are quite a few amongst Arabic countries, you probably have heard about the ones in Iraq and Libya): “Jews are by far the largest and most successful of them.” I would like to compare Jewish success in amassing and projecting power with British success in the 19th century (and even now but I want to pick a more obvious time period).

    At that time UK was a small island, with a relatively small population. Yet from that island its royal family was able to dominate almost the entire world. To observe this fact does not make one “anti-British” or a “conspiracy theorist” – it merely means one does not close ones eyes to history and reality.

    Jews strenuously object to people observing their massively disproportionate power and influence because, unlike Britain, they do not rely on military might to achieve their power, and hence, they can be easily defeated if people simply stop to listen to them. Stop buying Jewish Hollywood propaganda movies, reading Jewish New York Times, Washington Post or other mainstream media, which is predominantly Jewish (not just in US, but in Ukraine as well), stop using Jewish Facebook and Google, stop going to Jewish retail stores, etc. Basically an economic and propaganda boycott would be enough to reign in the excesses and restore Jewish power to where it should be.

    And back to Ukraine: if the Banderites were national socialists, that’s exactly what they’d do. They don’t have to be violent or even expel Jews (Jews, despite dominating the oligarchy in Ukraine, are only about 0.2% of the general population). Let them be. Just don’t let them dominate you. It’s quite simple really. And don’t turn against your Slav brothers because Jews, who don’t give a crap about you, are beating the war drums and pumping you full of hate with lies. Just like national socialists in Iraq do not turn against their Arab brothers because Americans, who don’t give a crap about them, are beating the war drums and pumping them full of hate with lies. It’s a simple matter, really, and not all “anti-Semitic” or anything “hateful” if you look at it in context of the truth, which is: Jews are a political group, like a State, building an Empire, and the “goy” (world) is their colony. So they are very much like Brits in the 19th Century (though Brits who leave the UK tend to assimilate within a few generations, not all due, and many in foreign lands for generations still “work for the Crown” (though now they call it the “Commonwealth”)). Full circle.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. AP says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Jews are a tribe, i.e., a political institution, not an ethnic group
     
    Sorry. I'm just trying to understand. Okay, so it's an organization. Secret organization with loyal membership. You believe that Mr Akhmetov is a member. Along with Messrs Pinchuk, Kolomoysky, and others, all acting in concert. Fine, although I highly doubt this is what JTA meant when they put him on their list. I strongly, very strongly suspect that they, in a typical parochial way, were digging into his ancestry, looking for someone named 'Hanna' (or something) there, to say - Aha!

    Anyhow. I read today that Akhmetov's wealth declined from $22 billion in 2013 to $3.5 billion today. Wikipedia tells me that Kolomoysky had $3 bil in 2012, only $1 bil today. What does it all mean, in the context you constructed? Fake numbers? Or is this organization being hammered by some other organization? Also, according to wikipedia Pinchuk sued Kolomoysky for $2 bil in 2015. What should I make of that?

    Fake numbers? Or is this organization being hammered by some other organization?

    Argentine author Ernesto Sabato revealed that the ultimate secret organization is that of the Blind.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. you probably have heard about the ones in Iraq and Libya

    I never heard about any tribes in Iraq and Libya. Tribes live in the jungle. The fellow tribesmen, primitive people, live close together, survive by hunting and gathering, and fight other tribes with sticks and spears. They are very communal, because that’s the only way they can survive.

    The only way the word ‘tribe’ can be used to describe a highly dispersed group of modern civilized people is idiomatic. And it’s an extremely loose idiom, describing something almost diametrically opposite of what the word actually means.

    Ethnic mafias do exist, of course, and I’m guessing this is what you’re talking about. But typically, successful people don’t belong; they don’t benefit from ethnic mafia structure (and yes, there’s always a structure: the code, the leader). And strong ethnic kinship is definitely a characteristic of the lower orders, typically petty criminals and lumpen-proletarians. Well-to-do educated city-people don’t have it (by my observations).

    As for Rinat Akhmetov, well, he is, after all, Rinat Akhmetov, son of Leonid Akhmetov, coal-miner, and Nyakiya Nasredinovna, shop assistant. The parents came from some village in the middle of nowhere where Tatars live. Never claimed to be a Jew. For what possible reason could he turn out to be a jew? I just don’t understand this at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    I never heard about any tribes in Iraq and Libya.
     
    Although Wikipedia is a source of much disinformation, this is a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Libya#Tribal_groups . Another tribe you may have heard of is the Kurds, who also tend to live in tribes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_tribes

    Tribes live in the jungle. The fellow tribesmen, primitive people, live close together, survive by hunting and gathering, and fight other tribes with sticks and spears. They are very communal, because that’s the only way they can survive.
     
    Yeah, right. You might read this small blurb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe#Tribes_and_states . Jews started out as tribes, what is very unique about Jews is that they have remained one despite the Diaspora - i.e., regardless of where they went, refused to assimilate (as is the requirement for a State citizenship) as to language, religion, law (even in 19th Century Germany, Jewish legal disputes were not settled in German courts, which Jews rejected, but in synagogues), culture, intermarriage, ethnocentrism (but it's really tribalism, since Jews do not share the same ethnicity), etc.

    You can call it idiomatic, or evolutionary. Language evolves much like social relationships do. For me tribe is the most appropriate and accurate word to describe people who identify as "Jews".


    Ethnic mafias do exist, of course, and I’m guessing this is what you’re talking about.
     
    No, I'm not. There are Jewish mafias and they do tend to be ethnic (i.e., no mixing of different Jewish ethnicities - e.g. Russian Jewish mafia). But these groups are engaged in organized crime, by definition, and hence the word is not appropriate for Jews in general, any more than it could be applied to the citizens of the British Empire (even though the State's crimes were quite organized).

    As to Akhmetov, you are reading too much Wikipedia. Wikipedia is proof of exactly nothing. Looking at the genetics of his parents and Rinat, he looks to be adopted. You'd have to do genetic testing to confirm that but that's not going to happen. But again, you have offered no proof whatsoever that he is Tatar or Muslim, only regurgitated what someone typed into Wikipedia, which itself is no proof whatsoever. The numerous sources I linked are (a) not anonymous, (b) experts in their fields, and (c) quite reliable when it comes to these things.

    As to why Rinat may lie about being a Jew: who knows, but one reason is suggested by one of the links I sent earlier from 2009: "Eduard Dolinsky, executive director of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, said the large number of Jews on the Korrespondent list [(including Akhmetov)] creates a mixture of pride and anxiety within the country’s Jewish community. He said it could strengthen anti-Semitic stereotypes during financial crises in Ukraine, where Jews comprise approximately one half of 1 percent of the population of 46 million." But there could be other reasons. One of them could be he in fact is not a Jew. But you have yet to provide any evidence of that whatsoever. And he certainly wouldn't be the first person to lie about his "ethnicity".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. CalDre says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    you probably have heard about the ones in Iraq and Libya
     
    I never heard about any tribes in Iraq and Libya. Tribes live in the jungle. The fellow tribesmen, primitive people, live close together, survive by hunting and gathering, and fight other tribes with sticks and spears. They are very communal, because that's the only way they can survive.

    The only way the word 'tribe' can be used to describe a highly dispersed group of modern civilized people is idiomatic. And it's an extremely loose idiom, describing something almost diametrically opposite of what the word actually means.

    Ethnic mafias do exist, of course, and I'm guessing this is what you're talking about. But typically, successful people don't belong; they don't benefit from ethnic mafia structure (and yes, there's always a structure: the code, the leader). And strong ethnic kinship is definitely a characteristic of the lower orders, typically petty criminals and lumpen-proletarians. Well-to-do educated city-people don't have it (by my observations).

    As for Rinat Akhmetov, well, he is, after all, Rinat Akhmetov, son of Leonid Akhmetov, coal-miner, and Nyakiya Nasredinovna, shop assistant. The parents came from some village in the middle of nowhere where Tatars live. Never claimed to be a Jew. For what possible reason could he turn out to be a jew? I just don't understand this at all.

    I never heard about any tribes in Iraq and Libya.

    Although Wikipedia is a source of much disinformation, this is a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Libya#Tribal_groups . Another tribe you may have heard of is the Kurds, who also tend to live in tribes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_tribes

    Tribes live in the jungle. The fellow tribesmen, primitive people, live close together, survive by hunting and gathering, and fight other tribes with sticks and spears. They are very communal, because that’s the only way they can survive.

    Yeah, right. You might read this small blurb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe#Tribes_and_states . Jews started out as tribes, what is very unique about Jews is that they have remained one despite the Diaspora – i.e., regardless of where they went, refused to assimilate (as is the requirement for a State citizenship) as to language, religion, law (even in 19th Century Germany, Jewish legal disputes were not settled in German courts, which Jews rejected, but in synagogues), culture, intermarriage, ethnocentrism (but it’s really tribalism, since Jews do not share the same ethnicity), etc.

    You can call it idiomatic, or evolutionary. Language evolves much like social relationships do. For me tribe is the most appropriate and accurate word to describe people who identify as “Jews”.

    Ethnic mafias do exist, of course, and I’m guessing this is what you’re talking about.

    No, I’m not. There are Jewish mafias and they do tend to be ethnic (i.e., no mixing of different Jewish ethnicities – e.g. Russian Jewish mafia). But these groups are engaged in organized crime, by definition, and hence the word is not appropriate for Jews in general, any more than it could be applied to the citizens of the British Empire (even though the State’s crimes were quite organized).

    As to Akhmetov, you are reading too much Wikipedia. Wikipedia is proof of exactly nothing. Looking at the genetics of his parents and Rinat, he looks to be adopted. You’d have to do genetic testing to confirm that but that’s not going to happen. But again, you have offered no proof whatsoever that he is Tatar or Muslim, only regurgitated what someone typed into Wikipedia, which itself is no proof whatsoever. The numerous sources I linked are (a) not anonymous, (b) experts in their fields, and (c) quite reliable when it comes to these things.

    As to why Rinat may lie about being a Jew: who knows, but one reason is suggested by one of the links I sent earlier from 2009: “Eduard Dolinsky, executive director of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, said the large number of Jews on the Korrespondent list [(including Akhmetov)] creates a mixture of pride and anxiety within the country’s Jewish community. He said it could strengthen anti-Semitic stereotypes during financial crises in Ukraine, where Jews comprise approximately one half of 1 percent of the population of 46 million.” But there could be other reasons. One of them could be he in fact is not a Jew. But you have yet to provide any evidence of that whatsoever. And he certainly wouldn’t be the first person to lie about his “ethnicity”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. You might read this small blurb

    Okay, done. It says that there was one anthropologist, Morton H. Fried, who suggested, back in 1975, his own notion of the ‘tribe’ concept. So what.

    what is very unique about Jews is that they have remained one despite the Diaspora – i.e., regardless of where they went, refused to assimilate

    This just isn’t true, they assimilate just fine. They don’t live in the ethnic ghetto, they speak local languages, fully participate in their countries’ (in the west, at least) cultural, political, and other affairs. That’s assimilation. Just like a typical self-identified ‘Italian-American’ or ‘Irish-American’, whose ancestors came to the US 100 years ago.

    You’re turning things to their head. In fact, you’re the one who rejects their assimilation, as the Akhmetov discussion clearly indicates, by reading tea leaves, and finding signs where there are none.

    Eduard Dolinsky, executive director of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, said

    This reminds me of something I heard many ago: that anti-semitism is, conceptually, exactly the same thing as philo-semitism: quasi-religious glorification (with + or -) of this ‘group’, that, arguably, doesn’t even really exist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    This just isn’t true, they assimilate just fine. They don’t live in the ethnic ghetto, they speak local languages
     
    Actually they do. They meet and hang with other Jews, they read Jewish newspapers, they obsess about being Jews, they speak Hebrew (by and large), they continue to celebrate Jewish traditions (such as bar mitzvah), they reject local religions, they take a great interest in Israel, and often live in Jewish neighborhoods.

    Now, let's compare other White ethnic groups (tribes) (and I say White as most Jews living in the US are White, not Hebrew or Semitic or even Slav). Let's compare them to Germans, Italians and French, who have been outside their "homeland" for about 100 years or so (compared to Jews' 2000!!! years). How many of them do you know to hang mostly with other Germans, French or Italians (and I don't mean Whites generally, I mean of those specific backgrounds), who regularly read German, French or Italian newspapers, who speak and read German, French or Italian fluently, who celebrate German, French or Italian traditions, who take a great interest in Germany, France or Italy, and who live in German, French or Italian neighborhoods? I don't know of a single one, but I know countless Jews who do. Indeed, I've never met a third-generation or later German, Italian or French American who spoke even basic German, French or Italian, or in any way identified with his or her "homeland". But that's all in the US. Go to Tehran. The Persian Jews are even less assimilated.

    If you claim you can't see that Jews are the lumps in the melting pot, you are blind or lying.


    fully participate in their countries’ (in the west, at least) cultural, political, and other affairs. That’s assimilation.
     
    No, it isn't, it's actually colonization. Just like when the Brits went to India. They also met and hung with other Brits, they read British newspapers, they obsessed about being Brits, they spoke English (by and large), they continued to celebrate British traditions, they rejected local religions, and often lived in British neighborhoods. Sound familiar?

    Oh yeah, and these Brits in India, they also fully participated in India's cultural, political, and other affairs. As colonizers / transformers / overlords, not as assimilated natives.


    You’re turning things to their head. In fact, you’re the one who rejects their assimilation
     
    Actually, it is you who turns the obvious on its head.

    I don't mind Jews not assimilating, that's their prerogative. In fact many of my best friends in my life, and some of my role models, have been Jews. In general, as individuals, they are good people. And I don't even mind that they are an aggressive tribe that tries to dominate those around them - in many ways, Americans, Brits, and every other Empire has been the same.

    What I object to is that the locals let the Jews dominate them. And if you point out the power that Jews hold over them, they actually get mad at you, insult you, get emotional. To me that is just stupid, but I guess that makes me a nationalist, not the Globalist that Jews are ("international revolution" is 100% kosher). And now we get back to the Banderites. What I think is utterly stupid about them is that they despise their Russian brethren, yet they obey and conform to their Jewish masters. That is NOT national socialism, it is the opposite, it is national suicide.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. CalDre says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    You might read this small blurb
     
    Okay, done. It says that there was one anthropologist, Morton H. Fried, who suggested, back in 1975, his own notion of the 'tribe' concept. So what.

    what is very unique about Jews is that they have remained one despite the Diaspora – i.e., regardless of where they went, refused to assimilate
     
    This just isn't true, they assimilate just fine. They don't live in the ethnic ghetto, they speak local languages, fully participate in their countries' (in the west, at least) cultural, political, and other affairs. That's assimilation. Just like a typical self-identified 'Italian-American' or 'Irish-American', whose ancestors came to the US 100 years ago.

    You're turning things to their head. In fact, you're the one who rejects their assimilation, as the Akhmetov discussion clearly indicates, by reading tea leaves, and finding signs where there are none.


    Eduard Dolinsky, executive director of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, said
     
    This reminds me of something I heard many ago: that anti-semitism is, conceptually, exactly the same thing as philo-semitism: quasi-religious glorification (with + or -) of this 'group', that, arguably, doesn't even really exist.

    This just isn’t true, they assimilate just fine. They don’t live in the ethnic ghetto, they speak local languages

    Actually they do. They meet and hang with other Jews, they read Jewish newspapers, they obsess about being Jews, they speak Hebrew (by and large), they continue to celebrate Jewish traditions (such as bar mitzvah), they reject local religions, they take a great interest in Israel, and often live in Jewish neighborhoods.

    Now, let’s compare other White ethnic groups (tribes) (and I say White as most Jews living in the US are White, not Hebrew or Semitic or even Slav). Let’s compare them to Germans, Italians and French, who have been outside their “homeland” for about 100 years or so (compared to Jews’ 2000!!! years). How many of them do you know to hang mostly with other Germans, French or Italians (and I don’t mean Whites generally, I mean of those specific backgrounds), who regularly read German, French or Italian newspapers, who speak and read German, French or Italian fluently, who celebrate German, French or Italian traditions, who take a great interest in Germany, France or Italy, and who live in German, French or Italian neighborhoods? I don’t know of a single one, but I know countless Jews who do. Indeed, I’ve never met a third-generation or later German, Italian or French American who spoke even basic German, French or Italian, or in any way identified with his or her “homeland”. But that’s all in the US. Go to Tehran. The Persian Jews are even less assimilated.

    If you claim you can’t see that Jews are the lumps in the melting pot, you are blind or lying.

    fully participate in their countries’ (in the west, at least) cultural, political, and other affairs. That’s assimilation.

    No, it isn’t, it’s actually colonization. Just like when the Brits went to India. They also met and hung with other Brits, they read British newspapers, they obsessed about being Brits, they spoke English (by and large), they continued to celebrate British traditions, they rejected local religions, and often lived in British neighborhoods. Sound familiar?

    Oh yeah, and these Brits in India, they also fully participated in India’s cultural, political, and other affairs. As colonizers / transformers / overlords, not as assimilated natives.

    You’re turning things to their head. In fact, you’re the one who rejects their assimilation

    Actually, it is you who turns the obvious on its head.

    I don’t mind Jews not assimilating, that’s their prerogative. In fact many of my best friends in my life, and some of my role models, have been Jews. In general, as individuals, they are good people. And I don’t even mind that they are an aggressive tribe that tries to dominate those around them – in many ways, Americans, Brits, and every other Empire has been the same.

    What I object to is that the locals let the Jews dominate them. And if you point out the power that Jews hold over them, they actually get mad at you, insult you, get emotional. To me that is just stupid, but I guess that makes me a nationalist, not the Globalist that Jews are (“international revolution” is 100% kosher). And now we get back to the Banderites. What I think is utterly stupid about them is that they despise their Russian brethren, yet they obey and conform to their Jewish masters. That is NOT national socialism, it is the opposite, it is national suicide.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    they speak Hebrew (by and large)
     
    I don't think so. The religious kind probably speak some ancient Hebrew, but in your construct every office accountant named 'Cohen' is a member, and I don't believe he does.

    True, Mr Cohen, the office accountant, is likely to be interested in all things Jewish, but probably just about as much as Mr O'Brien, the sales associate, is interested in all things Irish.

    IOW, it's just his background, not his essence.


    No, it isn’t, it’s actually colonization.
     
    Sorry, but that's absurd.

    What I object to is that the locals let the Jews dominate them.
     
    I object to colonialism and imperialism myself. I would object to any outsiders dominating locals anywhere. But the diaspora Jews living in places where their ancestor lived for hundreds or even (perhaps) thousands of years -- they are locals too. It wouldn't surprise me if Mr Kolomoysky's ancestors lived in eastern Europe (Poland, probably) for at least 10-15 generations. Hey, that's as local as they come.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @CalDre

    This just isn’t true, they assimilate just fine. They don’t live in the ethnic ghetto, they speak local languages
     
    Actually they do. They meet and hang with other Jews, they read Jewish newspapers, they obsess about being Jews, they speak Hebrew (by and large), they continue to celebrate Jewish traditions (such as bar mitzvah), they reject local religions, they take a great interest in Israel, and often live in Jewish neighborhoods.

    Now, let's compare other White ethnic groups (tribes) (and I say White as most Jews living in the US are White, not Hebrew or Semitic or even Slav). Let's compare them to Germans, Italians and French, who have been outside their "homeland" for about 100 years or so (compared to Jews' 2000!!! years). How many of them do you know to hang mostly with other Germans, French or Italians (and I don't mean Whites generally, I mean of those specific backgrounds), who regularly read German, French or Italian newspapers, who speak and read German, French or Italian fluently, who celebrate German, French or Italian traditions, who take a great interest in Germany, France or Italy, and who live in German, French or Italian neighborhoods? I don't know of a single one, but I know countless Jews who do. Indeed, I've never met a third-generation or later German, Italian or French American who spoke even basic German, French or Italian, or in any way identified with his or her "homeland". But that's all in the US. Go to Tehran. The Persian Jews are even less assimilated.

    If you claim you can't see that Jews are the lumps in the melting pot, you are blind or lying.


    fully participate in their countries’ (in the west, at least) cultural, political, and other affairs. That’s assimilation.
     
    No, it isn't, it's actually colonization. Just like when the Brits went to India. They also met and hung with other Brits, they read British newspapers, they obsessed about being Brits, they spoke English (by and large), they continued to celebrate British traditions, they rejected local religions, and often lived in British neighborhoods. Sound familiar?

    Oh yeah, and these Brits in India, they also fully participated in India's cultural, political, and other affairs. As colonizers / transformers / overlords, not as assimilated natives.


    You’re turning things to their head. In fact, you’re the one who rejects their assimilation
     
    Actually, it is you who turns the obvious on its head.

    I don't mind Jews not assimilating, that's their prerogative. In fact many of my best friends in my life, and some of my role models, have been Jews. In general, as individuals, they are good people. And I don't even mind that they are an aggressive tribe that tries to dominate those around them - in many ways, Americans, Brits, and every other Empire has been the same.

    What I object to is that the locals let the Jews dominate them. And if you point out the power that Jews hold over them, they actually get mad at you, insult you, get emotional. To me that is just stupid, but I guess that makes me a nationalist, not the Globalist that Jews are ("international revolution" is 100% kosher). And now we get back to the Banderites. What I think is utterly stupid about them is that they despise their Russian brethren, yet they obey and conform to their Jewish masters. That is NOT national socialism, it is the opposite, it is national suicide.

    they speak Hebrew (by and large)

    I don’t think so. The religious kind probably speak some ancient Hebrew, but in your construct every office accountant named ‘Cohen’ is a member, and I don’t believe he does.

    True, Mr Cohen, the office accountant, is likely to be interested in all things Jewish, but probably just about as much as Mr O’Brien, the sales associate, is interested in all things Irish.

    IOW, it’s just his background, not his essence.

    No, it isn’t, it’s actually colonization.

    Sorry, but that’s absurd.

    What I object to is that the locals let the Jews dominate them.

    I object to colonialism and imperialism myself. I would object to any outsiders dominating locals anywhere. But the diaspora Jews living in places where their ancestor lived for hundreds or even (perhaps) thousands of years — they are locals too. It wouldn’t surprise me if Mr Kolomoysky’s ancestors lived in eastern Europe (Poland, probably) for at least 10-15 generations. Hey, that’s as local as they come.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    in your construct every office accountant named ‘Cohen’ is a member, and I don’t believe he does
     
    I think you purposefully misrepresent what I write. So this will be my last response, it's not worth discussing with someone who proceeds in bad faith. Now, to repeat: someone is a member of the Jewish tribe if they identify as a Jew, and the more they identify as a Jew, the more loyal they are to the tribe. Name, genetics, has nothing to do with it.

    True, Mr Cohen, the office accountant, is likely to be interested in all things Jewish, but probably just about as much as Mr O’Brien, the sales associate, is interested in all things Irish.
     
    Utter and total rubbish. Not only that, you are, again, neglecting that Mr. O'Brien is likely 3rd or 4th generation away from Ireland, whereas Jews are 60!!!! generations away from Israel. It seems the most obvious facts cannot get through the massive wall of propaganda you have constructed in your head.

    A recent Pew study shows 20% of 18-49 yos can have a conversation in Hebrew. Again, this is after 2,000 years (60-70 generations). Now, let's compare Native Americans, who have been "assimilating" for less than 200 years (6-7 generations) and who primarily live in "ghettos" (reservations). A recent US Census Bureau study shows among them, only 5.5% of those who live in the ghetto!! speak a native language (see Table 2).

    And I welcome you to conduct your own research. If you live in the US, go out amongst your friends who hare 3rd, 4th, 5th generation French, Italian, Spanish, German, and ask, how many can read the bible in their "native" language? It won't be 20%, it won't even be 2%. And again, they are MUCH more recent emigrants from their "homeland".

    And this is only language. The other aspects of tribal identity are even stronger, as they take less effort.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if Mr Kolomoysky’s ancestors lived in eastern Europe (Poland, probably) for at least 10-15 generations. Hey, that’s as local as they come.
     
    Again it seems you are intentionally missing the point. It may well be true that his family has lived in Ukraine for 10-15 generations, maybe he's a Khazar and his ancestors have lived in the area for 2000 years. The point is, however, he is still not assimilated; he is still Jewish. Do you think the assimilated people of Kiev even know what tribe their ancestors belonged to 2,000 years ago? Guaranteed they do not.

    Do you even know, what tribe(s) your ancestors belonged to 2,000 years ago? Do you speak those languages? Do you practice their customs? Do you seek out other members of those tribes to be your friends? Do you read the tribal newspapers of those tribes? Do you refuse to marry anyone who is not a member of that tribe(s)? Please, do tell us. And then tell us again how Jews are "assimilated" (and try at least a modicum of intellectual integrity, you might find it refreshing).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. CalDre says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    they speak Hebrew (by and large)
     
    I don't think so. The religious kind probably speak some ancient Hebrew, but in your construct every office accountant named 'Cohen' is a member, and I don't believe he does.

    True, Mr Cohen, the office accountant, is likely to be interested in all things Jewish, but probably just about as much as Mr O'Brien, the sales associate, is interested in all things Irish.

    IOW, it's just his background, not his essence.


    No, it isn’t, it’s actually colonization.
     
    Sorry, but that's absurd.

    What I object to is that the locals let the Jews dominate them.
     
    I object to colonialism and imperialism myself. I would object to any outsiders dominating locals anywhere. But the diaspora Jews living in places where their ancestor lived for hundreds or even (perhaps) thousands of years -- they are locals too. It wouldn't surprise me if Mr Kolomoysky's ancestors lived in eastern Europe (Poland, probably) for at least 10-15 generations. Hey, that's as local as they come.

    in your construct every office accountant named ‘Cohen’ is a member, and I don’t believe he does

    I think you purposefully misrepresent what I write. So this will be my last response, it’s not worth discussing with someone who proceeds in bad faith. Now, to repeat: someone is a member of the Jewish tribe if they identify as a Jew, and the more they identify as a Jew, the more loyal they are to the tribe. Name, genetics, has nothing to do with it.

    True, Mr Cohen, the office accountant, is likely to be interested in all things Jewish, but probably just about as much as Mr O’Brien, the sales associate, is interested in all things Irish.

    Utter and total rubbish. Not only that, you are, again, neglecting that Mr. O’Brien is likely 3rd or 4th generation away from Ireland, whereas Jews are 60!!!! generations away from Israel. It seems the most obvious facts cannot get through the massive wall of propaganda you have constructed in your head.

    A recent Pew study shows 20% of 18-49 yos can have a conversation in Hebrew. Again, this is after 2,000 years (60-70 generations). Now, let’s compare Native Americans, who have been “assimilating” for less than 200 years (6-7 generations) and who primarily live in “ghettos” (reservations). A recent US Census Bureau study shows among them, only 5.5% of those who live in the ghetto!! speak a native language (see Table 2).

    And I welcome you to conduct your own research. If you live in the US, go out amongst your friends who hare 3rd, 4th, 5th generation French, Italian, Spanish, German, and ask, how many can read the bible in their “native” language? It won’t be 20%, it won’t even be 2%. And again, they are MUCH more recent emigrants from their “homeland”.

    And this is only language. The other aspects of tribal identity are even stronger, as they take less effort.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if Mr Kolomoysky’s ancestors lived in eastern Europe (Poland, probably) for at least 10-15 generations. Hey, that’s as local as they come.

    Again it seems you are intentionally missing the point. It may well be true that his family has lived in Ukraine for 10-15 generations, maybe he’s a Khazar and his ancestors have lived in the area for 2000 years. The point is, however, he is still not assimilated; he is still Jewish. Do you think the assimilated people of Kiev even know what tribe their ancestors belonged to 2,000 years ago? Guaranteed they do not.

    Do you even know, what tribe(s) your ancestors belonged to 2,000 years ago? Do you speak those languages? Do you practice their customs? Do you seek out other members of those tribes to be your friends? Do you read the tribal newspapers of those tribes? Do you refuse to marry anyone who is not a member of that tribe(s)? Please, do tell us. And then tell us again how Jews are “assimilated” (and try at least a modicum of intellectual integrity, you might find it refreshing).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    So this will be my last response, it’s not worth discussing with someone who proceeds in bad faith.
     
    I'm not, and this has been an interesting conversation to me, actually. I appreciate you patience.

    someone is a member of the Jewish tribe if they identify as a Jew, and the more they identify as a Jew, the more loyal they are to the tribe. Name, genetics, has nothing to do with it.
     
    So, we're back to self-identification. Good, I agree with ethnicity by self-identification. We have a common ground here. And people with the last name 'Cohen' usually self-identify as 'Jewish'. But the concept of 'loyalty to the tribe' needs more explanation. Normally, people with common identity (the stamp collectors, for example) feel some solidarity. Is this something different?

    Mr. O’Brien is likely 3rd or 4th generation away from Ireland, whereas Jews are 60!!!! generations away from Israel.
     
    I didn't say anything about Israel or Ireland. What's important is that people identify as 'Jewish' and 'Irish'. Indeed, modern days Jews are far away from the ancient Hebrews, but they are not too far from their religious grandparents, plus Zionism plays a role, and other historical phenomena. It's a bit of a special case, I admit.

    Your pew link says: "Roughly one-in-ten Jews say they can carry on a conversation in Hebrew". Unlike American Indian languages, Hebrew is the official language in Israel, the self-proclaimed "Jewish State" (although I don't believe it's a state, but rather a settler-colonial entity). Anyway, 10% sounds reasonable. And why should it be "3rd, 4th, 5th generation"? Surely some (many, probably) of these 10% are Israeli immigrants, first and second generation.


    Again it seems you are intentionally missing the point.
     
    Most definitely, I'm not missing the point intentionally. You said: 'locals', and I said: 'he is a local'.

    Sure, he is a local who identifies as a Jew, in addition to identifying as Ukrainian. He probably has a bunch of other identities: a stamp collector, for example (I don't know if really is). As a stamp collector he might read stamp collectors' magazines, hang out with other stamp collectors, etc. I don't see a problem here.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @CalDre

    in your construct every office accountant named ‘Cohen’ is a member, and I don’t believe he does
     
    I think you purposefully misrepresent what I write. So this will be my last response, it's not worth discussing with someone who proceeds in bad faith. Now, to repeat: someone is a member of the Jewish tribe if they identify as a Jew, and the more they identify as a Jew, the more loyal they are to the tribe. Name, genetics, has nothing to do with it.

    True, Mr Cohen, the office accountant, is likely to be interested in all things Jewish, but probably just about as much as Mr O’Brien, the sales associate, is interested in all things Irish.
     
    Utter and total rubbish. Not only that, you are, again, neglecting that Mr. O'Brien is likely 3rd or 4th generation away from Ireland, whereas Jews are 60!!!! generations away from Israel. It seems the most obvious facts cannot get through the massive wall of propaganda you have constructed in your head.

    A recent Pew study shows 20% of 18-49 yos can have a conversation in Hebrew. Again, this is after 2,000 years (60-70 generations). Now, let's compare Native Americans, who have been "assimilating" for less than 200 years (6-7 generations) and who primarily live in "ghettos" (reservations). A recent US Census Bureau study shows among them, only 5.5% of those who live in the ghetto!! speak a native language (see Table 2).

    And I welcome you to conduct your own research. If you live in the US, go out amongst your friends who hare 3rd, 4th, 5th generation French, Italian, Spanish, German, and ask, how many can read the bible in their "native" language? It won't be 20%, it won't even be 2%. And again, they are MUCH more recent emigrants from their "homeland".

    And this is only language. The other aspects of tribal identity are even stronger, as they take less effort.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if Mr Kolomoysky’s ancestors lived in eastern Europe (Poland, probably) for at least 10-15 generations. Hey, that’s as local as they come.
     
    Again it seems you are intentionally missing the point. It may well be true that his family has lived in Ukraine for 10-15 generations, maybe he's a Khazar and his ancestors have lived in the area for 2000 years. The point is, however, he is still not assimilated; he is still Jewish. Do you think the assimilated people of Kiev even know what tribe their ancestors belonged to 2,000 years ago? Guaranteed they do not.

    Do you even know, what tribe(s) your ancestors belonged to 2,000 years ago? Do you speak those languages? Do you practice their customs? Do you seek out other members of those tribes to be your friends? Do you read the tribal newspapers of those tribes? Do you refuse to marry anyone who is not a member of that tribe(s)? Please, do tell us. And then tell us again how Jews are "assimilated" (and try at least a modicum of intellectual integrity, you might find it refreshing).

    So this will be my last response, it’s not worth discussing with someone who proceeds in bad faith.

    I’m not, and this has been an interesting conversation to me, actually. I appreciate you patience.

    someone is a member of the Jewish tribe if they identify as a Jew, and the more they identify as a Jew, the more loyal they are to the tribe. Name, genetics, has nothing to do with it.

    So, we’re back to self-identification. Good, I agree with ethnicity by self-identification. We have a common ground here. And people with the last name ‘Cohen’ usually self-identify as ‘Jewish’. But the concept of ‘loyalty to the tribe’ needs more explanation. Normally, people with common identity (the stamp collectors, for example) feel some solidarity. Is this something different?

    Mr. O’Brien is likely 3rd or 4th generation away from Ireland, whereas Jews are 60!!!! generations away from Israel.

    I didn’t say anything about Israel or Ireland. What’s important is that people identify as ‘Jewish’ and ‘Irish’. Indeed, modern days Jews are far away from the ancient Hebrews, but they are not too far from their religious grandparents, plus Zionism plays a role, and other historical phenomena. It’s a bit of a special case, I admit.

    Your pew link says: “Roughly one-in-ten Jews say they can carry on a conversation in Hebrew“. Unlike American Indian languages, Hebrew is the official language in Israel, the self-proclaimed “Jewish State” (although I don’t believe it’s a state, but rather a settler-colonial entity). Anyway, 10% sounds reasonable. And why should it be “3rd, 4th, 5th generation”? Surely some (many, probably) of these 10% are Israeli immigrants, first and second generation.

    Again it seems you are intentionally missing the point.

    Most definitely, I’m not missing the point intentionally. You said: ‘locals’, and I said: ‘he is a local’.

    Sure, he is a local who identifies as a Jew, in addition to identifying as Ukrainian. He probably has a bunch of other identities: a stamp collector, for example (I don’t know if really is). As a stamp collector he might read stamp collectors’ magazines, hang out with other stamp collectors, etc. I don’t see a problem here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Is there any reason to believe that US cops and soldiers would be more willing than the KGB special forces to massacre their own people?

    Indeed there IS a very serious reason to believe US cops would be willing to massacre their own people: US cops are trained by Israel. We’re all Palestinians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All The Saker Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation