The situation in Ukraine...

[Foxi4]

Was there ever any chance of that actually happening, though? Putin was literally willing to kill to manipulate people into voting for him. I imagine he wasn't the only morally bankrupt holdover that had been trained in covert ops by the KGB. The obvious first step for Russia should've been barring everybody with any involvement in the Soviet Union from running for office ever again.

That’s effectively what we did - there were courts held, with the express intent of investigating each and every prominent figure, whether or not they collaborated with the system, and whether that warranted some kind of punishment or simply public record. The process was called “lustration”, from the Latin “lustratio”. The U.S.S.R was very inefficient, but they kept pretty solid records. You could argue that this process continues even today as more and more files are found every year, often in private hands. People stole them from archives to gain hooks on politicians, others fabricated them in order to destroy reputations. As you might imagine, it’s still a pretty involved forensic process each time a new revelation sees the light of day. The difference with Russia is that they were the “country in charge”, so to speak - they had at least some reasons to think fondly of the past, we have almost none.

As far as Putin is concerned, when he was *first* elected, I think he did have quite a bit of support from the general population. Of course that dwindled over the years, but his spiel of “Russian strongman” really worked on people, even if it was pretend for the most part.

 

[smf]

You know socialists don't really discern between citizens and criminals right?

He was pretty explicit about what he was suggesting.

So all you're doing is arguing that he means something else and then arguing with that.

If that is what we're doing, he was talking in code. It wasn't about guns at all.

ghost guns, because jfk is a ghost and he was shot with a gun.

He was telling qanon that they were right and JFK was coming back. But not to inaugurate Trump, it's to kill him.

Abraham Lincoln is also coming back to be the new ghost president and Elvis Presley is his vice ghost president.

(if it's not obvious, this was a joke).

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

In all fairness, Russia was always messed up. When the Iron Curtain fell and the U.S.S.R crumbled, all Soviet states and satellites experienced a very brief moment of freedom and prosperity. Some of those states later leaned either into the future, like the Czech Republic, Slovakia (formerly Czechoslovakia), Poland etc., or into the past, like Russia or Belarus. After Yeltsin rapidly introduced a capitalist economy, it didn’t come without some sacrifices - economic freedom has a price. Large swathes of the population wanted quick solutions - that’s where Putin’s never-ending reign comes into play. I think the key failing in those states was picking political figures deeply entrenched in the previous system, people who were aiming at consolidating power rather than pushing for actual reform. I can’t help but wonder how Russia would’ve looked like if somebody else won the 2000 election. Putin was a bad egg from the start, but Russians were enamoured by the idea of a powerful state, in part because they missed the one that crumbled.

It has nothing to do with freedom. Russians wanted a strong leadership because they were taken advantage of. They sold their resources for below the price of aquiring them. Putin put a stop to it. The oligarchs everyone likes to talk about, were (to a large extent) the result of rich people buying state-owned assets and becoming super-rich. The people who are depicted as victims and freedom fighters in the west were often criminals, e.g. a a man who took the money of millions of people in an insurance scam. Oligarchs tend to run a country by lobbying (which is bribery), blatant bribery and e.g. NGOs (including the West). Putin did not get rid of all oligarchs as long as they didn´t interfer with his government´s politics. The result is that the oligarchs in Russia do not work as strongly against the people as in e.g. European countries.

 

[Foxi4]

It has nothing to do with freedom. Russians wanted a strong leadership because they were taken advantage of. They sold their resources for below the price of aquiring them. Putin put a stop to it. The oligarchs everyone likes to talk about, were (to a large extent) the result of rich people buying state-owned assets and becoming super-rich. The people who are depicted as victims and freedom fighters in the west were often criminals, e.g. a a man who took the money of millions of people in an insurance scam. Oligarchs tend to run a country by lobbying (which is bribery), blatant bribery and e.g. NGOs (including the West). Putin did not get rid of all oligarchs as long as they didn´t interfer with his government´s politics. The result is that the oligarchs in Russia do not work as strongly against the people as in e.g. European countries.

Good assessment on how oligarchs rose to power in Russia, complete miss on the relationship between big business, government and the people. Russia has easily one of the most corrupt governments out there, in no small part due to the oligarchy being in bed with the state. It’s a holdover from the previous system - all of those people in the upper echelons of society are best buddies with long rap sheets.

 

[smf]

Putin put a stop to it. The oligarchs everyone likes to talk about, were (to a large extent) the result of rich people buying state-owned assets and becoming super-rich.

No, he didn't.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61028866

Putin's inner circle didn't start off rich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleyman_Kerimov#Early_career

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

No, he didn't.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61028866

Putin's inner circle didn't start off rich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleyman_Kerimov#Early_career

The sentence was referring to the previous sentence:
"They sold their resources for below the price of aquiring them"
That´s when he became the enemy of the West.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Good assessment on how oligarchs rose to power in Russia, complete miss on the relationship between big business, government and the people. Russia has easily one of the most corrupt governments out there, in no small part due to the oligarchy being in bed with the state. It’s a holdover from the previous system - all of those people in the upper echelons of society are best buddies with long rap sheets.

I have not disputed corruption. Russia is heavily influenced by a few super rich, just like the US. It´s just that we call our oligarchs anthropists and billionaires.

 

[smf]

The sentence was referring to the previous sentence:
"They sold their resources for below the price of aquiring them"
That´s when he became the enemy of the West.

I took it to refer to "Russians wanted a strong leadership because they were taken advantage of."

He became an enemy of the west because of the killings & the disingenous accusations.

 

[Coto]

He was pretty explicit about what he was suggesting.

So all you're doing is arguing that he means something else and then arguing with that.

If that is what we're doing, he was talking in code. It wasn't about guns at all.

ghost guns, because jfk is a ghost and he was shot with a gun.

He was telling qanon that they were right and JFK was coming back. But not to inaugurate Trump, it's to kill him.

Abraham Lincoln is also coming back to be the new ghost president and Elvis Presley is his vice ghost president.

(if it's not obvious, this was a joke).

That's a pretty bizarre interpretation of what I said. I am from the chilean army. Go read every post i've said because everything's explained in there. And yeah, the last post I wrote pretty much confirms Biden following United Nations civilian disarm of the United States. How can you guess that? Not by fuckery forgery of random concepts as you make it out to be, but because of the entire Latin America subdued to the same UN rules, where Chile takes the lead, being the international satellite of United Nations' Human Rights Watch socialist coup.

 

[Xzi]

As far as Putin is concerned, when he was *first* elected, I think he did have quite a bit of support from the general population. Of course that dwindled over the years, but his spiel of “Russian strongman” really worked on people, even if it was pretend for the most part.

Yeah it definitely helps win votes when you run on a national security platform and then orchestrate bombings on said nation. Dunno how that coincidental timing didn't draw more suspicion at the time.

And yeah, the last post I wrote pretty much confirms Biden following United Nations civilian disarm of the United States.

Republicans have predicted that each and every Democratic president since the 70s would come to seize our guns. At this point it's nothing but a marketing ploy to get idiots to run out and panic buy guns and ammo at a 300% markup.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

He became an enemy of the west because of the killings & the disingenous accusations.

You really believe our leaders care about killings?
I will not disturb your dream then.

 

[Xzi]

You really believe our leaders care about killings?
I will not disturb your dream then.

Of course they care about it when it's a foreign oligarch giving the order to kill. When it's Exxon Mobil giving the order, not so much.

 

[Coto]

Republicans have predicted that each and every Democratic president since the 70s would come to seize our guns. At this point it's nothing but a marketing ploy to get idiots to run out and panic buy guns and ammo at a 300% markup.

USA's constitution method of splitting sovereignty into 50 pieces, yeah would enable that. But for a Republic things are decided on a single, big paper backed up by a Congress, Senate and Socialism (geopolitics, not just the ideology) across a single big chunk of territory where the president would take the big decisions, later to be approved by them.

Case point would be Chilean Socialist Party in 1933 where they took over citizens sovereignty and private property in lieu of a socialist republic. Where the state dictated laws, worsening the individual economic output due to individual rights diminished, thus controlling the private property over citizens (same Socialist model would be later replicated by Salvador Allende in 1970, and would be very effective. People really lost the ability to wear guns and defend their property...)

 

[Xzi]

But for a Republic things are decided on a single, big paper backed up by a Congress, Senate and Socialism (geopolitics, not just the ideology) across a single big chunk of territory where the president takes the big decisions later, to be approved by them.

And? What indication is there that Democrats are in favor of undertaking an impossible task such as seizing all guns? They've introduced zero legislation to that effect, and the only president who has at any point seemingly been open to the idea of extrajudicial seizures was Donald Trump.

 

[Coto]

And? What indication is there that Democrats are in favor of undertaking an impossible task such as seizing all guns? They've introduced zero legislation to that effect, and the only president who has at any point seemingly been open to the idea of extrajudicial seizures was Donald Trump.

No. That means what I wrote earlier didn't really work for the Socialist Party of choice, so they decided to lend that task to United Nations, and... well yeah read the last 4 posts I wrote about it.

 

[Xzi]

No. That means what I wrote earlier didn't really work for the Socialist Party of choice, so they decided to lend that task to United Nations, and... well yeah read the last 2 posts I wrote about it.

A. Socialists are very much against most forms of gun control. "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." - Karl Marx

B. The UN is an ineffectual joke, they couldn't seize candy from a baby. Any large US city on its own would manage to repel their efforts. Of course this is just a baseless conspiracy theory on your part, so entertaining it any further would be pointless.

 

[Coto]

A. Socialists are very much against gun control in any form.

don't make me laugh , for real

 

[Xzi]

don't make me laugh

No, don't make me laugh. The Democratic party is a center-right, capitalist party through and through. If you're unable to distinguish them from actual Socialists who want to seize the means of production for the working class, that weakens your credibility by quite a lot.

 

[Coto]

No, don't make me laugh. The Democratic party is a center-right, capitalist party through and through. If you're unable to distinguish them from actual Socialists who want to seize the means of production for the working class, that weakens your credibility by quite a lot.

Try to argue with facts rather than feelings next time, lol. (hint: go read about Socialism, what causes it, effects over private property, and how Communist states are born out of that). Marxism is also Socialism

 

[Xzi]

Try to argue with facts rather than feelings next time, lol.

LMAO okay bud, guess you don't care if nobody here takes you seriously from now on. FFS, we don't even have universal healthcare in the US and neither party is interested in implementing it. But sure why not, we're a Socialist paradise that spends nothing on social services.

Marxism is also Socialism

True, so maybe if we ever establish a major Marxist political party in the US, then you'll have a leg to stand on in this argument. Until then, you've kinda backed yourself into a corner.