• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.

News BREAKING: Putin orders Russian troops to Donetsk and Luhansk, eastern Ukraine.

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1250
  • Start date
If Putin has been in a position of power since the late 90's and regularly voted for since the 2000's can we really say that Russian citizens aren't complicit in this?

As far as I can see his lowest vote count was still over 53%.
People voted for Obama after his drone strike program, maybe you ought not to talk about people being complicit in war crimes, glass houses and all that
 
If Putin has been in a position of power since the late 90's and regularly voted for since the 2000's can we really say that Russian citizens aren't complicit in this?

As far as I can see his lowest vote count was still over 53%.
Why are you assuming they want to go to war? And what about the 47% of people?
 
It doesnt really matter, because they are at war NOW with all it's consequences.

You seem more and more unhinged with every post. Unless you are actively trolling i suggest for you to take some time off from news and such....
 
0
If Putin has been in a position of power since the late 90's and regularly voted for since the 2000's can we really say that Russian citizens aren't complicit in this?

As far as I can see his lowest vote count was still over 53%.
I'm not sure if you want to go down this road of saying "this country deserves to suffer because of a chunk of the voters elected a right-winger"
 
0
He absolutely is a madmen. I not only doubt his sanity, im sure his mind is somehow damaged. Would not be the first one in this age. The question is just, to what level. And even if not, he's a killer that can't be trusted.

And yes, i take his speach very seriously. As seriously as europe should have taken Hitler's speaches before the start of WW2. No, Putin is not Hitler, but he is of the same psychopath personality. If he says so and given how russian Propaganda works, we should prepare for the worst.

He planned this or at least something like this from the beginning. He fund extreme right and leftwing partys for centurys, to weaken democracys all over the world. Trump is the top result of this. A capitalist USA, that fucked over it's own educational and social system, was an easy loot. Putin wage a hybrid war with destabilize democracys, putting out tons of fakenews per RT, even paying a cyber centrum with trolls that flood social media and news sections with fascist shit, massive cyber attacks, the literalbkilling of oppostion qnd the modernization of the russian army.

It is very obvious that he will take what he can get for his legacy, even with blood and fire.
If you think that Putin is a madman who is already trying to do something he is unable to do because of a lack of resources, why do you think that sanctions would stop him?
 
Yes he's funding right and leftwing partys, for example the german afd , die linke or the france national, etc... That is proofen many times ...

What is just wrong with you people...
You’re the one who claimed Putin has been puppet master pulling the strings for centuries lol
 
All I know is this world is a shitty place because those in power always exercise their influence over those that are not. All through society, and on the level of states as well.

If the US and Russia kindly fucked off and stopped utilising others for their own geopolitical gain, that would be swell. But of course, others would rise to fill the vacuum.
 
0
People voted for Obama after his drone strike program, maybe you ought not to talk about people being complicit in war crimes, glass houses and all that
I'm not American, nor did I think Obama deserved the noble peace prize because of his warmongering ways.

And to the person saying 47% didn't want Putin, that was in 2000. He got 76.69% of the vote in 2018.
 
I'm not American, nor did I think Obama deserved the noble peace prize because of his warmongering ways.

And to the person saying 47% didn't want Putin, that was in 2000. He got 76.69% of the vote in 2018.
Putin being popular in his last election is not the same thing as war with Ukraine being popular. US wars usually poll poorly even if the president has decent popularity
 
0
Why is this, that you don't know about his funding of leftist and right- wing movements all around the globe? It is a known fact. Also that he pays cyber warriors to influence public opinion in his favor. How is it even possible to not know about???
Are you sure you're not talking about the US?
 
0
Why is this, that you don't know about his funding of leftist and right- wing movements all around the globe? It is a known fact. Also that he pays cyber warriors to influence public opinion in his favor. How is it even possible to not know about???
if its an easily proven fact, dropping a source shouldn't be hard no?
 

if its an easily proven fact, dropping a source shouldn't be hard no?

Question, are you asking "SOURCE??" because you believe that Putin has never funded political movements around the globe?
Or do you know that Putin has funded political movements around the globe, and you're just sick of Rainbow's shit?


 
The thing with the Russian meddling-- you can argue the extent of it but at the end of the day it can only be successful/make an impact if the country they're meddling in has huge fundamental problems to exploit. It's a problem that can be solved, even if doing so would be difficult.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you rephrase this in ooga-booga terms
 
I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you rephrase this in ooga-booga terms
Even if you pay for an army of Russian trolls to start talking shit on Facebook about Hillary Clinton, the system that keeps the US together are more or less resilient to that. Donald Trump didn't win because Putin said so, he won because Clinton was a dog shit candidate, and the US still has a massive problem with bigotry.
 
Question, are you asking "SOURCE??" because you believe that Putin has never funded political movements around the globe?
Or do you know that Putin has funded political movements around the globe, and you're just sick of Rainbow's shit?


I didn't say anything about him never funding any political movements. Rainbow's claim was some horseshoe theory bullshit that Putin funds leftwing and rightwing groups, as if a capitalist oligarch is giving money to the people who want to abolish the economic system he benefits from. When they were pressed, they named two far-right parties in Europe and then refused to elaborate (multiple times) on which leftwing groups he's been funding. It's not the only thing they should start providing sources for either.
 
Last edited:
Even if you pay for an army of Russian trolls to start talking shit on Facebook about Hillary Clinton, the system that keeps the US together are more or less resilient to that. Donald Trump didn't win because Putin said so, he won because Clinton was a dog shit candidate, and the US still has a massive problem with bigotry.

Ah okay thanks for explaining that to me - that's what I thought Brock meant, but I wasn't sure.
So yes, I agree that Russian meddling is only "successful" if it attains its end goal.

But the matter at hand is that Russia is meddling at all. Attempted meddling vs successful meddling, if you will.

but at the end of the day it can only be successful/make an impact if the country they're meddling in has huge fundamental problems to exploit

True, but it doesn't detract from the fact that there was an attempted meddling in the first place. I don't think you expect the world to say "oh, okay, well, it didn't work, so no harm done, right?"
 
I didn't say anything about him never funding any political movements. Rainbow's claim was some horseshoe theory bullshit that Putin funds leftwing and rightwing groups, as if a capitalist oligarch is giving money to the people who want to abolish the economic system he benefits from. When they were pressed, they named two far-right parties in Europe and then refused to elaborate (multiple times) on which leftwing groups he's been funding. It's not the only thing they should start providing sources for either.
Oh, yeah, framing it as a capitalist oligarch giving money to the people who want to abolish the economic system he benefits from makes it sound contradictory.

But funding far-left (as well as far-right) movements in order to sow discourse and widen the political division of a unified country that he perceives as a threat is not only something Putin would find beneficial, but also pretty much right in his wheelhouse, right?

That being said, in the wall of links I pasted above, the vast discrepancy between the number of right-wing and the number of left-wing organizations Putin is accused to have funded is pretty.... interesting. And to your point.
 
As for sanctions:







Pick a point on the globe, the picture's the same.

And no, "targeted" or "smart" sanctions are not the cruelty-free alternative to "normal" sanctions.



It's a lot like how the US tries to dress up our drone strike program by touting their "precision." It's propaganda trying to sell you the same mass death we've always been selling. I understand wanting to do something that will hurt the people responsible for this, and I understand feeling helpless, but this is absolutely positively not the way to accomplish anything other than spreading disdain and misery to people are fundamentally not the ones responsible for this.
 
I mean you can argue that it's not good, but like, that kind of stuff is really common. The US has done that for decades.
 
The thing with the Russian meddling-- you can argue the extent of it but at the end of the day it can only be successful/make an impact if the country they're meddling in has huge fundamental problems to exploit. It's a problem that can be solved, even if doing so would be difficult.

I'm not sure there are any countries on the planet that don't have fundamental problems to exploit, humans are fundamentally flawed creatures, and I don't think getting rid of those is negotiable
 
0
Yeah not really interested in the ethics of meddling in the elections of other countries when the US is the #1 exporter of fascist regimes around the world since its inception.
 
0
Oh, yeah, framing it as a capitalist oligarch giving money to the people who want to abolish the economic system he benefits from makes it sound contradictory.

But funding far-left (as well as far-right) movements in order to sow discourse and widen the political division of a unified country that he perceives as a threat is not only something Putin would find beneficial, but also pretty much right in his wheelhouse, right?

That being said, in the wall of links I pasted above, the vast discrepancy between the number of right-wing and the number of left-wing organizations Putin is accused to have funded is pretty.... interesting. And to your point.

Putin learned well from our example. The US has spent every year since the end of WW2 funding fascists around the globe to crush communists so that our imperial demands could be served.

51dmg0Pq6vL.jpg


Centrists and center-left ideologies like socdems and liberals sure, because at the end of the day the thing fascists, center-right conservatives, liberals, socdems, etc have in common as that they all wish to uphold global capitalism. This is why, historically, socdems and liberals found themselves allying with the Nazis to purge communists as soon as it became feasible, and why the good ol' liberal US was so friendly with former nazis post-WW2. That's why I think the only winning play is to back a better alternative to capitalism, not just a more gentle monster. Part of that is imposing imperialism in all its forms, whether that be Putin invading a neighbor or the US doing US things.
 
Ah okay thanks for explaining that to me - that's what I thought Brock meant, but I wasn't sure.
So yes, I agree that Russian meddling is only "successful" if it attains its end goal.

But the matter at hand is that Russia is meddling at all. Attempted meddling vs successful meddling, if you will.


True, but it doesn't detract from the fact that there was an attempted meddling in the first place. I don't think you expect the world to say "oh, okay, well, it didn't work, so no harm done, right?"
That's true! My assumption is that every world power is trying stuff like this all the time (why would they not), so for our leaders to point to it when it works comes across to me as an excuse/abdication of responsibility. If people on message boards are able to snuff out Putin's plans, then why aren't the people we're supposed to trust able to do anything about it?
 
Putin learned well from our example. The US has spent every year since the end of WW2 funding fascists around the globe to crush communists so that our imperial demands could be served.

51dmg0Pq6vL.jpg


Centrists and center-left ideologies like socdems and liberals sure, because at the end of the day the thing fascists, center-right conservatives, liberals, socdems, etc have in common as that they all wish to uphold global capitalism. This is why, historically, socdems and liberals found themselves allying with the Nazis to purge communists as soon as it became feasible, and why the good ol' liberal US was so friendly with former nazis post-WW2. That's why I think the only winning play is to back a better alternative to capitalism, not just a more gentle monster. Part of that is imposing imperialism in all its forms, whether that be Putin invading a neighbor or the US doing US things.

Can you help me understand how this makes sense as a response to my comment? I'm trying to draw the connection.

But funding far-left (as well as far-right) movements in order to sow discourse and widen the political division of a unified country that he perceives as a threat is not only something Putin would find beneficial, but also pretty much right in his wheelhouse, right?
I don't see how anything in your comment relates to the above question, and

the vast discrepancy between the number of right-wing and the number of left-wing organizations Putin is accused to have funded is pretty.... interesting. And to your point.
I'm not sure what your response has to do with this.

Not trying to argue. Just help me understand the direct correlation here.
 
If people on message boards are able to snuff out Putin's plans,
well, we're not. We're able to hypothesize based on evidence, not actually affect anything. Let alone snuff it out.
then why aren't the people we're supposed to trust able to do anything about it?
Because the people who do identify things that Russia does that are worthy of pointing out (aka, the people we are supposed to trust) are trodden over and silenced by those in our government who find it beneficial to not call it out (other people we are supposed to trust)
 
well, we're not. We're able to hypothesize based on evidence, not actually affect anything. Let alone snuff it out.

Because the people who do identify things that Russia does that are worthy of pointing out (aka, the people we are supposed to trust) are trodden over and silenced by those in our government who find it beneficial to not call it out (other people we are supposed to trust)
I think that's just another excuse then. The question I always ask is "If you can't do anything, then what good are you?"
 
Can you help me understand how this makes sense as a response to my comment? I'm trying to draw the connection.


I don't see how anything in your comment relates to the above question, and


I'm not sure what your response has to do with this.

Not trying to argue. Just help me understand the direct correlation here.
I'm saying that he's a right-winger schooled by right-wingers who became experts in funding right-wing mass murder programs to wipe out communists, so it isn't surprising that he primarily funds right-wing groups and parties abroad. It doesn't profit him to fund the only ideological groups that are directly opposed to his, and other right-wingers', way of life. To that end, I can see him funding demsocs and liberal groups along with non-ideologically-aligned fringe groups in addition to the usual conservatives and fascists, but I haven't seen any evidence of him funding socialists or communists, and logically it wouldn't make sense for him to.
 
well, we're not. We're able to hypothesize based on evidence, not actually affect anything. Let alone snuff it out.

Because the people who do identify things that Russia does that are worthy of pointing out (aka, the people we are supposed to trust) are trodden over and silenced by those in our government who find it beneficial to not call it out (other people we are supposed to trust)
I think Brock is trying to ask you what autonomy do you have in this situation.
 
I'm saying that he's a right-winger schooled by right-wingers who became experts in funding right-wing mass murder programs to wipe out communists, so it isn't surprising that he primarily funds right-wing groups and parties abroad. It doesn't profit him to fund the only ideological groups that are directly opposed to his, and other right-wingers', way of life. To that end, I can see him funding demsocs and liberal groups along with non-ideologically-aligned fringe groups in addition to the usual conservatives and fascists, but I haven't seen any evidence of him funding socialists or communists, and logically it wouldn't make sense for him to.



It makes perfect sense for the Kremlin to fund and link in with leftist groups as well as right wing groups if it causes division.

The Brexit vote in the UK was implicitly funded by Russian money, because it forced a huge division in UK politics. Other such divisions exist in politics across the world, and Putin has been key in exploiting them. Even organisations like Stop The War Coalition have been linked with individuals and groups associated with the Kremlin:


Which isn't surprising given Stop The War has been repeating Kremlin propaganda, such as showing Crimea as part of Russia.
 
Last edited:
0
It doesn't profit him to fund the only ideological groups that are directly opposed to his
But it can, and it does, when his funding results in sowing divide and discontent rather than the furthering of their ideologies enough to hurt him.
 
0


Back
Top Bottom