Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

REPORT: AXIOS, citing sources with direct knowledge of the proposal, reports that the U.S. peace plan for the war in Ukraine is as follows:

- Russia will get De Jure U.S. recognition of Russian control over Crimea and de facto recognition of Russian control over the captured…

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) April 23, 2025

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.

---

Didn't say he banned all non-state media. I said the "private" media owned by the oligarchs are essentially state run, and he has banned pretty much any reporting he deems critical of the govt. or Russian armed forces. He's also banned pretty much all outside media:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests

https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-bans-over-eu-80-media-outlets-on-its-territory-counter-restrictions/

The more interesting thing about your post, however, is the admission you haven't felt the need to look into these issues a little closer. I suspect reasonable people would agree that it's a good idea to look into the credibility of an information source before parroting what are essentially its talking points regarding the War in Ukraine and Russia's motivations. You've been parroting them for more than a year on this thread, and yet you didn't think it might be a good idea to look into Putin's conduct and veracity for truthfulness?

What a telling admission.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.

---

Didn't say he banned all non-state media. I said the "private" media owned by the oligarchs are essentially state run, and he has banned pretty much any reporting he deems critical of the govt. or Russian armed forces. He's also banned pretty much all outside media:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests

https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-bans-over-eu-80-media-outlets-on-its-territory-counter-restrictions/

The more interesting thing about your post, however, is the admission you haven't felt the need to look into these issues a little closer. I suspect reasonable people would agree that it's a good idea to look into the credibility of an information source before parroting what are essentially state talking points regarding the War in Ukraine and Russia's motivations. You've been parroting them for more than a year on this thread, and yet you didn't think it might be a good idea to look into Russia and Putin's conduct and veracity for truthfulness?

What a telling admission.

---

What's telling is that you assume my information could only come from Russian talking points. Evidently you yourself haven't looked far beyond Western corporate media, most of which might as well be state-owned when it comes to foreign policy.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.

---

Didn't say he banned all non-state media. I said the "private" media owned by the oligarchs are essentially state run, and he has banned pretty much any reporting he deems critical of the govt. or Russian armed forces. He's also banned pretty much all outside media:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests

https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-bans-over-eu-80-media-outlets-on-its-territory-counter-restrictions/

The more interesting thing about your post, however, is the admission you haven't felt the need to look into these issues a little closer. I suspect reasonable people would agree that it's a good idea to look into the credibility of an information source before parroting what are essentially state talking points regarding the War in Ukraine and Russia's motivations. You've been parroting them for more than a year on this thread, and yet you didn't think it might be a good idea to look into Russia and Putin's conduct and veracity for truthfulness?

What a telling admission.

---

What's telling is that you assume my information could only come from Russian talking points. Evidently you yourself haven't looked far beyond Western corporate media, most of which might as well be state-owned when it comes to foreign policy.

---

There are plenty of news sources that parrot Russian talking points. Hell, even Western sources parrot them. See Tucker Carlson. Which of the non-Western sources are you referencing?

To be clear, since you now seem to be hedging, do you believe Putin to be an authoritarian or not? Do you believe he's lied about anything? And do you believe being an authoritarian might affect one's credibility?

Do you believe the list of examples I posted several posts ago regarding his authoritarian polices are inaccurate? Which of his positions have you independently confirmed to be accurate?

KaiBear said:

---

Becoming obvious this board has only about 8 guys arguing back and forth with maybe another 8 who chime in occaisionally.

Boring .



.

---

Vance Outlines U.S. Plan for Ukraine That Sharply Favors Russia
Vice President JD Vance said the cease-fire plan would freeze territory along the current front lines of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and that the U.S. would "walk away" if both parties did not agree.

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Becoming obvious this board has only about 8 guys arguing back and forth with maybe another 8 who chime in occaisionally.

Boring .



.

---

Vance Outlines U.S. Plan for Ukraine That Sharply Favors Russia
Vice President JD Vance said the cease-fire plan would freeze territory along the current front lines of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and that the U.S. would "walk away" if both parties did not agree.

---

Why the hell would Russia agree to the current line when they can just wait to get all of it? I don't blame JD as he likely has absolutely no input into the actual plan though

ron.reagan said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Becoming obvious this board has only about 8 guys arguing back and forth with maybe another 8 who chime in occaisionally.

Boring .



.

---

Vance Outlines U.S. Plan for Ukraine That Sharply Favors Russia
Vice President JD Vance said the cease-fire plan would freeze territory along the current front lines of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and that the U.S. would "walk away" if both parties did not agree.

---

Why the hell would Russia agree to the current line when they can just wait to get all of it?

---

Yup. It benefits Russia if the US walks away. Walking away from Ukraine likely means Russia can finally accomplish what it intended from the get-go: toppling Ukraine's pro-West govt., incorporating large swaths of Ukrainian territory, and installing a puppet regime who will bend knee to Putin - similar to what it has done in other former Russian provinces.

So, essentially, the US plan is to let Russian win.

Mothra said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Becoming obvious this board has only about 8 guys arguing back and forth with maybe another 8 who chime in occaisionally.

Boring .



.

---

Vance Outlines U.S. Plan for Ukraine That Sharply Favors Russia
Vice President JD Vance said the cease-fire plan would freeze territory along the current front lines of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and that the U.S. would "walk away" if both parties did not agree.

---

Why the hell would Russia agree to the current line when they can just wait to get all of it?

---

Yup. It benefits Russia if the US walks away. Walking away from Ukraine likely means Russia can finally accomplish what it intended from the get-go: toppling Ukraine's pro-West govt., incorporating large swaths of Ukrainian territory, and installing a puppet regime who will bend knee to Putin - similar to what it has done in other former Russian provinces.

So, essentially, the US plan is to let Russian win.

---

It is theoretically possible to defend Ukraine's pro-Western government and contain the Russians to the four oblasts they currently occupy, but I'm not sure Trump is prepared to do what it would take. More likely he will let the Russians win.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Becoming obvious this board has only about 8 guys arguing back and forth with maybe another 8 who chime in occaisionally.

Boring .



.

---

Vance Outlines U.S. Plan for Ukraine That Sharply Favors Russia
Vice President JD Vance said the cease-fire plan would freeze territory along the current front lines of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and that the U.S. would "walk away" if both parties did not agree.

---

Why the hell would Russia agree to the current line when they can just wait to get all of it?

---

Yup. It benefits Russia if the US walks away. Walking away from Ukraine likely means Russia can finally accomplish what it intended from the get-go: toppling Ukraine's pro-West govt., incorporating large swaths of Ukrainian territory, and installing a puppet regime who will bend knee to Putin - similar to what it has done in other former Russian provinces.

So, essentially, the US plan is to let Russian win.

---

It is theoretically possible to defend Ukraine's pro-Western government and contain the Russians to the four oblasts they currently occupy, but I'm not sure Trump is prepared to do what it would take.

How is that possible? What would it take?

More likely he will let the Russians win.

Well, at that result will make you happy. The little non-authoritarian wins his Just War.

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Becoming obvious this board has only about 8 guys arguing back and forth with maybe another 8 who chime in occaisionally.

Boring .



.

---

Vance Outlines U.S. Plan for Ukraine That Sharply Favors Russia
Vice President JD Vance said the cease-fire plan would freeze territory along the current front lines of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and that the U.S. would "walk away" if both parties did not agree.

---

Why the hell would Russia agree to the current line when they can just wait to get all of it?

---

Yup. It benefits Russia if the US walks away. Walking away from Ukraine likely means Russia can finally accomplish what it intended from the get-go: toppling Ukraine's pro-West govt., incorporating large swaths of Ukrainian territory, and installing a puppet regime who will bend knee to Putin - similar to what it has done in other former Russian provinces.

So, essentially, the US plan is to let Russian win.

---

It is theoretically possible to defend Ukraine's pro-Western government and contain the Russians to the four oblasts they currently occupy, but I'm not sure Trump is prepared to do what it would take.

How is that possible? What would it take?

More likely he will let the Russians win.

Well, at that result will make you happy. The little non-authoritarian wins his Just War.

---

---

Simply recognize Ukraine's neutrality and Russia's annexation of the four oblasts and Crimea.

It won't happen because that would also be considered a victory for Russia. We could have conceded just two oblasts in early 2022, but that, too, would have been a victory for Russia. We could have implemented the Minsk Agreement and preserved all of Ukraine's territory, but again, victory for Russia. We could even have negotiated a trade deal, left Ukraine's relatively friendly, legitimate government in place, and avoided the civil war in 2014, but sadly even that would have been a victory for Russia.

So land-locked rump state it will be.

But we have managed to accomplish one thing. We've strengthened NATO and depleted Russia's military capacity for decades to come strengthened Russia and depleted NATO's military capacity for decades to come. So at least there's that.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Becoming obvious this board has only about 8 guys arguing back and forth with maybe another 8 who chime in occaisionally.

Boring .



.

---

Vance Outlines U.S. Plan for Ukraine That Sharply Favors Russia
Vice President JD Vance said the cease-fire plan would freeze territory along the current front lines of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and that the U.S. would "walk away" if both parties did not agree.

---

Why the hell would Russia agree to the current line when they can just wait to get all of it?

---

Yup. It benefits Russia if the US walks away. Walking away from Ukraine likely means Russia can finally accomplish what it intended from the get-go: toppling Ukraine's pro-West govt., incorporating large swaths of Ukrainian territory, and installing a puppet regime who will bend knee to Putin - similar to what it has done in other former Russian provinces.

So, essentially, the US plan is to let Russian win.

---

It is theoretically possible to defend Ukraine's pro-Western government and contain the Russians to the four oblasts they currently occupy, but I'm not sure Trump is prepared to do what it would take.

How is that possible? What would it take?

More likely he will let the Russians win.

Well, at that result will make you happy. The little non-authoritarian wins his Just War.

---

---

Simply recognize Ukraine's neutrality and Russia's annexation of the four oblasts and Crimea.

It won't happen because that would also be considered a victory for Russia. We could have conceded just two oblasts in early 2022, but that, too, would have been a victory for Russia. We could have implemented the Minsk Agreement and preserved all of Ukraine's territory, but again, victory for Russia. We could even have negotiated a trade deal, left Ukraine's relatively friendly, legitimate government in place, and avoided the civil war in 2014, but sadly even that would have been a victory for Russia.

So land-locked rump state it will be.

But we have managed to accomplish one thing. We've strengthened NATO and depleted Russia's military capacity for decades to come strengthened Russia and depleted NATO's military capacity for decades to come. So at least there's that.

---

Leave it to traitor Sam to advocate for our enemies and continuing to lie and spread their lies.

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Becoming obvious this board has only about 8 guys arguing back and forth with maybe another 8 who chime in occaisionally.

Boring .



.

---

Vance Outlines U.S. Plan for Ukraine That Sharply Favors Russia
Vice President JD Vance said the cease-fire plan would freeze territory along the current front lines of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and that the U.S. would "walk away" if both parties did not agree.

---

Why the hell would Russia agree to the current line when they can just wait to get all of it?

---

Yup. It benefits Russia if the US walks away. Walking away from Ukraine likely means Russia can finally accomplish what it intended from the get-go: toppling Ukraine's pro-West govt., incorporating large swaths of Ukrainian territory, and installing a puppet regime who will bend knee to Putin - similar to what it has done in other former Russian provinces.

So, essentially, the US plan is to let Russian win.

---

It is theoretically possible to defend Ukraine's pro-Western government and contain the Russians to the four oblasts they currently occupy, but I'm not sure Trump is prepared to do what it would take.

How is that possible? What would it take?

More likely he will let the Russians win.

Well, at that result will make you happy. The little non-authoritarian wins his Just War.

---

---

Simply recognize Ukraine's neutrality and Russia's annexation of the four oblasts and Crimea.

It won't happen because that would also be considered a victory for Russia. We could have conceded just two oblasts in early 2022, but that, too, would have been a victory for Russia. We could have implemented the Minsk Agreement and preserved all of Ukraine's territory, but again, victory for Russia. We could even have negotiated a trade deal, left Ukraine's relatively friendly, legitimate government in place, and avoided the civil war in 2014, but sadly even that would have been a victory for Russia.

So land-locked rump state it will be.

But we have managed to accomplish one thing. We've strengthened NATO and depleted Russia's military capacity for decades to come strengthened Russia and depleted NATO's military capacity for decades to come. So at least there's that.

---

Leave it to traitor Sam to advocate for our enemies and continuing to lie and spread their lies.

---

A most revealing admonition on your part. No loyal American is capable of treason against Ukraine, as our allegiance lies elsewhere.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.

---

Didn't say he banned all non-state media. I said the "private" media owned by the oligarchs are essentially state run, and he has banned pretty much any reporting he deems critical of the govt. or Russian armed forces. He's also banned pretty much all outside media:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests

https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-bans-over-eu-80-media-outlets-on-its-territory-counter-restrictions/

The more interesting thing about your post, however, is the admission you haven't felt the need to look into these issues a little closer. I suspect reasonable people would agree that it's a good idea to look into the credibility of an information source before parroting what are essentially state talking points regarding the War in Ukraine and Russia's motivations. You've been parroting them for more than a year on this thread, and yet you didn't think it might be a good idea to look into Russia and Putin's conduct and veracity for truthfulness?

What a telling admission.

---

What's telling is that you assume my information could only come from Russian talking points. Evidently you yourself haven't looked far beyond Western corporate media, most of which might as well be state-owned when it comes to foreign policy.

---

There are plenty of news sources that parrot Russian talking points. Hell, even Western sources parrot them. See Tucker Carlson. Which of the non-Western sources are you referencing?

To be clear, since you now seem to be hedging, do you believe Putin to be an authoritarian or not? Do you believe he's lied about anything? And do you believe being an authoritarian might affect one's credibility?

Do you believe the list of examples I posted several posts ago regarding his authoritarian polices are inaccurate? Which of his positions have you independently confirmed to be accurate?

---

Much of what is now considered Russian propaganda was part of mainstream thinking among American politicians and diplomats a few years ago. They understood that Russia wanted better relations and was not inherently a threat to the West. They understood that expanding NATO and abrogating our arms control agreements would lead to conflict. And so it has.

I would say your examples are generally misleading at best. Corrupt Russian oligarchs were more powerful under Yeltsin, which is one of the reasons we liked him. They were happy to do business on terms highly favorable to the West, which meant stripping Russian industry and resources to the bone. Putin curtailed much of their activity and channeled the rest of it in ways that were more beneficial to the national interest (and, it must be admitted, beneficial to Putin himself in terms of the loyalty he demanded).

Putin has always claimed to want closer ties with the West, and his actions have borne that out. His military doctrine and limited interventions in neighboring countries, far from evidencing imperial ambitions, have been defensive in nature. He has opposed a return to Soviet-style governance and advocated gradual democratization. But there are significant internal and external obstacles to reform, chief of which has been the increasing hostility of the West.

Russia was in an extremely precarious position at the end of the Cold War -- poor, vulnerable, and politically unstable. Unlike most great powers, they voluntarily negotiated their own retirement from imperial status. They relied on help and cooperation from the West which turned out not to be forthcoming. They had democratic dreams but no real tradition of democracy. They had a long history of being rebuffed by Europe. This is not even to mention the rising tide of Islamism in the region, or the rival power of China on Russia's border. Topping it all off, there was NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the US invasion of Iraq, new missile installations in Europe, and the threat of regime change in Russia itself. It was in this context that Russia saw the Maidan revolution and the possibility of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, despite Ukraine's previous relinquishment of such weapons and its pledge of neutrality.

For all these reasons, Putin's priorities were more pragmatic than idealistic. As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages. Putin's long tenure in office allowed him to spend a decade or more preparing for Western sanctions. His control of Russian industry allowed for rapid expansion of arms production. These weren't necessarily things he wanted to do, but the circumstances required it. At least some of his restrictions on foreign influence, protest, and proselytizing exist for the same reasons. Every country regulates public expression in some way, but Russia has the added problem of dealing with active subversion by a rival superpower.

I can't say that being authoritarian affects Putin's credibility with regard to the United States. I consider Biden less authoritarian than Trump, and his dealings with his domestic public were somewhat more credible than Trump's. On the other hand, I don't think Biden had any credibility whatsoever in his dealings with Russia. I would probably trust Trump or Putin more than Biden or Clinton on matters of foreign policy.

I would say Putin is more authoritarian than most American leaders. He's also less authoritarian than most Russian leaders. The label is relative and doesn't necessarily tell you all you need to know. Medieval monarchs were authoritarian by today's standards, but many of them were wise and trustworthy rulers. Justice, the right interests of the people, and faithfulness to the law are more important than outward forms and labels.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.

---

Didn't say he banned all non-state media. I said the "private" media owned by the oligarchs are essentially state run, and he has banned pretty much any reporting he deems critical of the govt. or Russian armed forces. He's also banned pretty much all outside media:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests

https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-bans-over-eu-80-media-outlets-on-its-territory-counter-restrictions/

The more interesting thing about your post, however, is the admission you haven't felt the need to look into these issues a little closer. I suspect reasonable people would agree that it's a good idea to look into the credibility of an information source before parroting what are essentially state talking points regarding the War in Ukraine and Russia's motivations. You've been parroting them for more than a year on this thread, and yet you didn't think it might be a good idea to look into Russia and Putin's conduct and veracity for truthfulness?

What a telling admission.

---

What's telling is that you assume my information could only come from Russian talking points. Evidently you yourself haven't looked far beyond Western corporate media, most of which might as well be state-owned when it comes to foreign policy.

---

There are plenty of news sources that parrot Russian talking points. Hell, even Western sources parrot them. See Tucker Carlson. Which of the non-Western sources are you referencing?

To be clear, since you now seem to be hedging, do you believe Putin to be an authoritarian or not? Do you believe he's lied about anything? And do you believe being an authoritarian might affect one's credibility?

Do you believe the list of examples I posted several posts ago regarding his authoritarian polices are inaccurate? Which of his positions have you independently confirmed to be accurate?

---

Much of what is now considered Russian propaganda was part of mainstream thinking among American politicians and diplomats a few years ago. They understood that Russia wanted better relations and was not inherently a threat to the West. They understood that expanding NATO and abrogating our arms control agreements would lead to conflict. And so it has.

I would say your examples are generally misleading at best. Corrupt Russian oligarchs were more powerful under Yeltsin, which is one of the reasons we liked him. They were happy to do business on terms highly favorable to the West, which meant stripping Russian industry and resources to the bone. Putin curtailed much of their activity and channeled the rest of it in ways that were more beneficial to the national interest (and, it must be admitted, beneficial to Putin himself in terms of the loyalty he demanded).

Putin has always claimed to want closer ties with the West, and his actions have borne that out. His military doctrine and limited interventions in neighboring countries, far from evidencing imperial ambitions, have been defensive in nature. He has opposed a return to Soviet-style governance and advocated gradual democratization. But there are significant internal and external obstacles to reform, chief of which has been the increasing hostility of the West.

Russia was in an extremely precarious position at the end of the Cold War -- poor, vulnerable, and politically unstable. Unlike most great powers, they voluntarily negotiated their own retirement from imperial status. They relied on help and cooperation from the West which turned out not to be forthcoming. They had democratic dreams but no real tradition of democracy. They had a long history of being rebuffed by Europe. This is not even to mention the rising tide of Islamism in the region, or the rival power of China on Russia's border. Topping it all off, there was NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the US invasion of Iraq, new missile installations in Europe, and the threat of regime change in Russia itself. It was in this context that Russia saw the Maidan revolution and the possibility of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, despite Ukraine's previous relinquishment of such weapons and its pledge of neutrality.

For all these reasons, Putin's priorities were more pragmatic than idealistic. As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages. Putin's long tenure in office allowed him to spend a decade or more preparing for Western sanctions. His control of Russian industry allowed for rapid expansion of arms production. These weren't necessarily things he wanted to do, but the circumstances required it. At least some of his restrictions on foreign influence, protest, and proselytizing exist for the same reasons. Every country regulates public expression in some way, but Russia has the added problem of dealing with active subversion by a rival superpower.

I can't say that being authoritarian affects Putin's credibility with regard to the United States. I consider Biden less authoritarian than Trump, and his dealings with his domestic public were somewhat more credible than Trump's. On the other hand, I don't think Biden had any credibility whatsoever in his dealings with Russia. I would probably trust Trump or Putin more than Biden or Clinton on matters of foreign policy.

I would say Putin is more authoritarian than most American leaders. He's also less authoritarian than most Russian leaders. The label is relative and doesn't necessarily tell you all you need to know. Medieval monarchs were authoritarian by today's standards, but many of them were wise and trustworthy rulers. Justice, the right interests of the people, and faithfulness to the law are more important than outward forms and labels.

---

Blah blah blah. We have all read your long winded crap before, traitor. "Pooooor Russia good, US bad."

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.

---

Didn't say he banned all non-state media. I said the "private" media owned by the oligarchs are essentially state run, and he has banned pretty much any reporting he deems critical of the govt. or Russian armed forces. He's also banned pretty much all outside media:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests

https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-bans-over-eu-80-media-outlets-on-its-territory-counter-restrictions/

The more interesting thing about your post, however, is the admission you haven't felt the need to look into these issues a little closer. I suspect reasonable people would agree that it's a good idea to look into the credibility of an information source before parroting what are essentially state talking points regarding the War in Ukraine and Russia's motivations. You've been parroting them for more than a year on this thread, and yet you didn't think it might be a good idea to look into Russia and Putin's conduct and veracity for truthfulness?

What a telling admission.

---

What's telling is that you assume my information could only come from Russian talking points. Evidently you yourself haven't looked far beyond Western corporate media, most of which might as well be state-owned when it comes to foreign policy.

---

There are plenty of news sources that parrot Russian talking points. Hell, even Western sources parrot them. See Tucker Carlson. Which of the non-Western sources are you referencing?

To be clear, since you now seem to be hedging, do you believe Putin to be an authoritarian or not? Do you believe he's lied about anything? And do you believe being an authoritarian might affect one's credibility?

Do you believe the list of examples I posted several posts ago regarding his authoritarian polices are inaccurate? Which of his positions have you independently confirmed to be accurate?

---

Much of what is now considered Russian propaganda was part of mainstream thinking among American politicians and diplomats a few years ago. They understood that Russia wanted better relations and was not inherently a threat to the West. They understood that expanding NATO and abrogating our arms control agreements would lead to conflict. And so it has.

I would say your examples are generally misleading at best. Corrupt Russian oligarchs were more powerful under Yeltsin, which is one of the reasons we liked him. They were happy to do business on terms highly favorable to the West, which meant stripping Russian industry and resources to the bone. Putin curtailed much of their activity and channeled the rest of it in ways that were more beneficial to the national interest (and, it must be admitted, beneficial to Putin himself in terms of the loyalty he demanded).

Putin has always claimed to want closer ties with the West, and his actions have borne that out. His military doctrine and limited interventions in neighboring countries, far from evidencing imperial ambitions, have been defensive in nature. He has opposed a return to Soviet-style governance and advocated gradual democratization. But there are significant internal and external obstacles to reform, chief of which has been the increasing hostility of the West.

Russia was in an extremely precarious position at the end of the Cold War -- poor, vulnerable, and politically unstable. Unlike most great powers, they voluntarily negotiated their own retirement from imperial status. They relied on help and cooperation from the West which turned out not to be forthcoming. They had democratic dreams but no real tradition of democracy. They had a long history of being rebuffed by Europe. This is not even to mention the rising tide of Islamism in the region, or the rival power of China on Russia's border. Topping it all off, there was NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the US invasion of Iraq, new missile installations in Europe, and the threat of regime change in Russia itself. It was in this context that Russia saw the Maidan revolution and the possibility of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, despite Ukraine's previous relinquishment of such weapons and its pledge of neutrality.

For all these reasons, Putin's priorities were more pragmatic than idealistic. As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages. Putin's long tenure in office allowed him to spend a decade or more preparing for Western sanctions. His control of Russian industry allowed for rapid expansion of arms production. These weren't necessarily things he wanted to do, but the circumstances required it. At least some of his restrictions on foreign influence, protest, and proselytizing exist for the same reasons. Every country regulates public expression in some way, but Russia has the added problem of dealing with active subversion by a rival superpower.

I can't say that being authoritarian affects Putin's credibility with regard to the United States. I consider Biden less authoritarian than Trump, and his dealings with his domestic public were somewhat more credible than Trump's. On the other hand, I don't think Biden had any credibility whatsoever in his dealings with Russia. I would probably trust Trump or Putin more than Biden or Clinton on matters of foreign policy.

I would say Putin is more authoritarian than most American leaders. He's also less authoritarian than most Russian leaders. The label is relative and doesn't necessarily tell you all you need to know. Medieval monarchs were authoritarian by today's standards, but many of them were wise and trustworthy rulers. Justice, the right interests of the people, and faithfulness to the law are more important than outward forms and labels.

---

Blah blah blah. We have all read your long winded crap before, traitor. "Pooooor Russia good, US bad."

---

I'm glad you're convinced that you and your Banderite buddies are all good and benevolent. Best of luck in the modern world...without US support, you're going to need it.

An enormous attack on Kyiv, Trump tweating he is upset. It's almost like he wasn't honest about being able to stop this war

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Becoming obvious this board has only about 8 guys arguing back and forth with maybe another 8 who chime in occaisionally.

Boring .



.

---

Vance Outlines U.S. Plan for Ukraine That Sharply Favors Russia
Vice President JD Vance said the cease-fire plan would freeze territory along the current front lines of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and that the U.S. would "walk away" if both parties did not agree.

---

Why the hell would Russia agree to the current line when they can just wait to get all of it?

---

Yup. It benefits Russia if the US walks away. Walking away from Ukraine likely means Russia can finally accomplish what it intended from the get-go: toppling Ukraine's pro-West govt., incorporating large swaths of Ukrainian territory, and installing a puppet regime who will bend knee to Putin - similar to what it has done in other former Russian provinces.

So, essentially, the US plan is to let Russian win.

---

It is theoretically possible to defend Ukraine's pro-Western government and contain the Russians to the four oblasts they currently occupy, but I'm not sure Trump is prepared to do what it would take.

How is that possible? What would it take?

More likely he will let the Russians win.

Well, at that result will make you happy. The little non-authoritarian wins his Just War.

---

---

Simply recognize Ukraine's neutrality and Russia's annexation of the four oblasts and Crimea.

It won't happen because that would also be considered a victory for Russia. We could have conceded just two oblasts in early 2022, but that, too, would have been a victory for Russia. We could have implemented the Minsk Agreement and preserved all of Ukraine's territory, but again, victory for Russia. We could even have negotiated a trade deal, left Ukraine's relatively friendly, legitimate government in place, and avoided the civil war in 2014, but sadly even that would have been a victory for Russia.

So land-locked rump state it will be.

But we have managed to accomplish one thing. We've strengthened NATO and depleted Russia's military capacity for decades to come strengthened Russia and depleted NATO's military capacity for decades to come. So at least there's that.

---

We don't disagree on what peace deal should have been made, and what conduct the Biden admin (and Obama before it) should not have engaged in.

The question is, would Russia accept that deal today? I don't think so.

ron.reagan said:

---

An enormous attack on Kyiv, Trump tweating he is upset. It's almost like he wasn't honest about being able to stop this war

---

Well, to be fair, after cutting a bunch of military aid and taking away pretty much any leverage Ukraine had to get a deal done, he is really upset that Russia continues to attack with abandon on twitter.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-launches-deadly-strikes-ukraine-063452834.html

Crazy that Russia would be emboldened by taking away any leverage either the US or Ukraine had... Just not like that reasonable and good guy, Putin.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.

---

Didn't say he banned all non-state media. I said the "private" media owned by the oligarchs are essentially state run, and he has banned pretty much any reporting he deems critical of the govt. or Russian armed forces. He's also banned pretty much all outside media:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests

https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-bans-over-eu-80-media-outlets-on-its-territory-counter-restrictions/

The more interesting thing about your post, however, is the admission you haven't felt the need to look into these issues a little closer. I suspect reasonable people would agree that it's a good idea to look into the credibility of an information source before parroting what are essentially state talking points regarding the War in Ukraine and Russia's motivations. You've been parroting them for more than a year on this thread, and yet you didn't think it might be a good idea to look into Russia and Putin's conduct and veracity for truthfulness?

What a telling admission.

---

What's telling is that you assume my information could only come from Russian talking points. Evidently you yourself haven't looked far beyond Western corporate media, most of which might as well be state-owned when it comes to foreign policy.

---

There are plenty of news sources that parrot Russian talking points. Hell, even Western sources parrot them. See Tucker Carlson. Which of the non-Western sources are you referencing?

To be clear, since you now seem to be hedging, do you believe Putin to be an authoritarian or not? Do you believe he's lied about anything? And do you believe being an authoritarian might affect one's credibility?

Do you believe the list of examples I posted several posts ago regarding his authoritarian polices are inaccurate? Which of his positions have you independently confirmed to be accurate?

---

Much of what is now considered Russian propaganda was part of mainstream thinking among American politicians and diplomats a few years ago. They understood that Russia wanted better relations and was not inherently a threat to the West. They understood that expanding NATO and abrogating our arms control agreements would lead to conflict. And so it has.

I would say your examples are generally misleading at best. Corrupt Russian oligarchs were more powerful under Yeltsin, which is one of the reasons we liked him. They were happy to do business on terms highly favorable to the West, which meant stripping Russian industry and resources to the bone. Putin curtailed much of their activity and channeled the rest of it in ways that were more beneficial to the national interest (and, it must be admitted, beneficial to Putin himself in terms of the loyalty he demanded).

Putin has always claimed to want closer ties with the West, and his actions have borne that out. His military doctrine and limited interventions in neighboring countries, far from evidencing imperial ambitions, have been defensive in nature. He has opposed a return to Soviet-style governance and advocated gradual democratization. But there are significant internal and external obstacles to reform, chief of which has been the increasing hostility of the West.

Russia was in an extremely precarious position at the end of the Cold War -- poor, vulnerable, and politically unstable. Unlike most great powers, they voluntarily negotiated their own retirement from imperial status. They relied on help and cooperation from the West which turned out not to be forthcoming. They had democratic dreams but no real tradition of democracy. They had a long history of being rebuffed by Europe. This is not even to mention the rising tide of Islamism in the region, or the rival power of China on Russia's border. Topping it all off, there was NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the US invasion of Iraq, new missile installations in Europe, and the threat of regime change in Russia itself. It was in this context that Russia saw the Maidan revolution and the possibility of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, despite Ukraine's previous relinquishment of such weapons and its pledge of neutrality.

For all these reasons, Putin's priorities were more pragmatic than idealistic. As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages. Putin's long tenure in office allowed him to spend a decade or more preparing for Western sanctions. His control of Russian industry allowed for rapid expansion of arms production. These weren't necessarily things he wanted to do, but the circumstances required it. At least some of his restrictions on foreign influence, protest, and proselytizing exist for the same reasons. Every country regulates public expression in some way, but Russia has the added problem of dealing with active subversion by a rival superpower.

I can't say that being authoritarian affects Putin's credibility with regard to the United States. I consider Biden less authoritarian than Trump, and his dealings with his domestic public were somewhat more credible than Trump's. On the other hand, I don't think Biden had any credibility whatsoever in his dealings with Russia. I would probably trust Trump or Putin more than Biden or Clinton on matters of foreign policy.

I would say Putin is more authoritarian than most American leaders. He's also less authoritarian than most Russian leaders. The label is relative and doesn't necessarily tell you all you need to know. Medieval monarchs were authoritarian by today's standards, but many of them were wise and trustworthy rulers. Justice, the right interests of the people, and faithfulness to the law are more important than outward forms and labels.

---

"As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages."

This kind of says all we need to know right here. Wow.

Certainly, we've made some mistakes, no question. But the idea that Putin's authoritarian policies - of which there are many - were a direct response to NATO hostility is revisionist history at best. It's actually more the other way around - NATO hostility increased as it learned Putin was not the reformer we hoped for, and as he began to gradually rid Russia of the democratic reforms instituted after Yeltsin took office. Let's not pretend at this point Russia is any semblance of a democracy. It is a dictatorship, plain and simple.

There was a way for Putin to chart a course that could have led to much better relations with the West. But his desire for power, and Cold War beliefs, led Russia in another direction. In short, there was plenty of blame to go around.

But there's no question to any reasonable observer that Putin is, in fact, an authoritarian and dictator. Your inability to say that without caveats or hedging, speaks volumes. It also takes away what little credibility you have when you call Trump an authoritarian, or claim Russia is fighting a just war at this point.

Wonder how many ot those ferocious UK and French soldiers have gone over there, seen how weak Ukraine really is, and decided that it's not worth it...

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I took both the moral side and the constitutional side. Other countries experiences proved that all businesses did not need to be closed for weeks (as you suggested), vaccines did not need to be mandated (ruled unconstitutional) and healthy children simply did not need the jab. You let cowardice compromise your ethics and our freedoms.

And per usual, you claim regarding US responsibility for Russia's invasion is tenuous at best. We can agree that the US should not have taken the side of anti-Yanukovych demonstrators in 2013, and regarding who Ukrainians should choose to run the country, but the idea that such conduct justified an invasion of the country and incorporation of large swaths of territory is absurd. Even more absurd was the justification for 2022 invasion based on Biden's irresponsible rhetoric.

But no surprise you take away any Russian agency, and pretend we left it with no choice but to invade. Disgusting but par for the course. It appears war and death is ok with you as long as it's not the US waging it.

---

You have not even identified the issue correctly, much less taken the "constitutional" side of it. The vaccine decision was a matter of statutory construction. None of the justices questioned whether the mandate would be constitutional if Congress had duly legislated it.

The Court may or may not have decided that case correctly, but the immorality of your position doesn't consist in disagreeing with a vaccine mandate. Many reasonable people did and do. Rather it consists in your willful ignorance of the crisis that we faced and your callous disregard for the humanitarian purposes of masking, social distancing, etc. These mitigation strategies were never supposed to magically end the pandemic. As I've said from the beginning, and as you've never bothered to understand, they were meant to keep hospitals functioning and thus save lives.

I've listened to the stories of many local healthcare workers who dealt with the flood of critically ill patients. Patients from my own community who were healthy and would survive if they got Covid today. Who should have been in ICUs but instead were lined up on stretchers in the hallways. Who should have been monitored 24/7 but instead were checked once or twice a day. Who begged the nurses not to let them die, yet died because there simply weren't enough people to care for them. This is what hospital staff confronted every day for months and years. What they took home with them at night and still do. Meanwhile people like you spat in their faces when asked to wear a mask.

Good and decent people can disagree over the extent of lockdowns that should have been required. What they don't do is parrot cute phrases like "virus gonna virus" while turning a blind eye to others' suffering. That is real cowardice.

As for the war, I second Redbrick's point. You pontificate endlessly about Russia's depravity and seem to think you've actually said something. The only solution you've ever offered is to keep giving Ukraine money and keep prolonging the war, just not to give them too much or prolong it past...who knows when. Presumably whenever your self-righteous ecstasy subsides and you're ready to catch a breath before your next round of virtue signaling. Thanks, but no thanks.

And needless to say, you remain eerily silent on the real authoritarian threat staring us right in the face, namely your boy Donald Trump. For all your misguided flag-waving, no constitutional violation is too blatant for you to excuse as long as it's done by a Republican. Ethics and freedoms, indeed.

---

But, there is waste, fraud and abuse. Can't really find much, but it is there. We will keep looking until we find it.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.

---

Didn't say he banned all non-state media. I said the "private" media owned by the oligarchs are essentially state run, and he has banned pretty much any reporting he deems critical of the govt. or Russian armed forces. He's also banned pretty much all outside media:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests

https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-bans-over-eu-80-media-outlets-on-its-territory-counter-restrictions/

The more interesting thing about your post, however, is the admission you haven't felt the need to look into these issues a little closer. I suspect reasonable people would agree that it's a good idea to look into the credibility of an information source before parroting what are essentially state talking points regarding the War in Ukraine and Russia's motivations. You've been parroting them for more than a year on this thread, and yet you didn't think it might be a good idea to look into Russia and Putin's conduct and veracity for truthfulness?

What a telling admission.

---

What's telling is that you assume my information could only come from Russian talking points. Evidently you yourself haven't looked far beyond Western corporate media, most of which might as well be state-owned when it comes to foreign policy.

---

There are plenty of news sources that parrot Russian talking points. Hell, even Western sources parrot them. See Tucker Carlson. Which of the non-Western sources are you referencing?

To be clear, since you now seem to be hedging, do you believe Putin to be an authoritarian or not? Do you believe he's lied about anything? And do you believe being an authoritarian might affect one's credibility?

Do you believe the list of examples I posted several posts ago regarding his authoritarian polices are inaccurate? Which of his positions have you independently confirmed to be accurate?

---

Much of what is now considered Russian propaganda was part of mainstream thinking among American politicians and diplomats a few years ago. They understood that Russia wanted better relations and was not inherently a threat to the West. They understood that expanding NATO and abrogating our arms control agreements would lead to conflict. And so it has.

I would say your examples are generally misleading at best. Corrupt Russian oligarchs were more powerful under Yeltsin, which is one of the reasons we liked him. They were happy to do business on terms highly favorable to the West, which meant stripping Russian industry and resources to the bone. Putin curtailed much of their activity and channeled the rest of it in ways that were more beneficial to the national interest (and, it must be admitted, beneficial to Putin himself in terms of the loyalty he demanded).

Putin has always claimed to want closer ties with the West, and his actions have borne that out. His military doctrine and limited interventions in neighboring countries, far from evidencing imperial ambitions, have been defensive in nature. He has opposed a return to Soviet-style governance and advocated gradual democratization. But there are significant internal and external obstacles to reform, chief of which has been the increasing hostility of the West.

Russia was in an extremely precarious position at the end of the Cold War -- poor, vulnerable, and politically unstable. Unlike most great powers, they voluntarily negotiated their own retirement from imperial status. They relied on help and cooperation from the West which turned out not to be forthcoming. They had democratic dreams but no real tradition of democracy. They had a long history of being rebuffed by Europe. This is not even to mention the rising tide of Islamism in the region, or the rival power of China on Russia's border. Topping it all off, there was NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the US invasion of Iraq, new missile installations in Europe, and the threat of regime change in Russia itself. It was in this context that Russia saw the Maidan revolution and the possibility of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, despite Ukraine's previous relinquishment of such weapons and its pledge of neutrality.

For all these reasons, Putin's priorities were more pragmatic than idealistic. As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages. Putin's long tenure in office allowed him to spend a decade or more preparing for Western sanctions. His control of Russian industry allowed for rapid expansion of arms production. These weren't necessarily things he wanted to do, but the circumstances required it. At least some of his restrictions on foreign influence, protest, and proselytizing exist for the same reasons. Every country regulates public expression in some way, but Russia has the added problem of dealing with active subversion by a rival superpower.

I can't say that being authoritarian affects Putin's credibility with regard to the United States. I consider Biden less authoritarian than Trump, and his dealings with his domestic public were somewhat more credible than Trump's. On the other hand, I don't think Biden had any credibility whatsoever in his dealings with Russia. I would probably trust Trump or Putin more than Biden or Clinton on matters of foreign policy.

I would say Putin is more authoritarian than most American leaders. He's also less authoritarian than most Russian leaders. The label is relative and doesn't necessarily tell you all you need to know. Medieval monarchs were authoritarian by today's standards, but many of them were wise and trustworthy rulers. Justice, the right interests of the people, and faithfulness to the law are more important than outward forms and labels.

---

"As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages."

This kind of says all we need to know right here. Wow.

Certainly, we've made some mistakes, no question. But the idea that Putin's authoritarian policies - of which there are many - were a direct response to NATO hostility is revisionist history at best. It's actually more the other way around - NATO hostility increased as it learned Putin was not the reformer we hoped for, and as he began to gradually rid Russia of the democratic reforms instituted after Yeltsin took office. Let's not pretend at this point Russia is any semblance of a democracy. It is a dictatorship, plain and simple.

There was a way for Putin to chart a course that could have led to much better relations with the West. But his desire for power, and Cold War beliefs, led Russia in another direction. In short, there was plenty of blame to go around.

But there's no question to any reasonable observer that Putin is, in fact, an authoritarian and dictator. Your inability to say that without caveats or hedging, speaks volumes. It also takes away what little credibility you have when you call Trump an authoritarian, or claim Russia is fighting a just war at this point.

---

You're thought policing instead of thinking.

It is a fact that Russia has significant unused factory space and under-employed labor which it can use to rapidly increase production of military equipment. We can increase ours, given enough time, but the realities of profit and politics make it more difficult. That doesn't mean our system is worse than Russia's. It just happens that our Founders designed it for peace, trade, and friendship, not rushing headlong into war at the drop of a hat. Our people are also more accustomed to freedom and prosperity, not so much the discipline and sacrifice that go with commitment to a major war. The neoconservative agenda has failed, in part, because our society isn't built for it.

Being able to recognize all of this doesn't take away from my credibility. You might prefer that Russia modeled itself on the US, but that is really none of our business. When the conditions of peace and stability exist, more open economies and societies will tend to follow. That has been Russia's desire. Unfortunately the West has not opened the way for them. The truth is that we don't really want the competition.

Mothra said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Becoming obvious this board has only about 8 guys arguing back and forth with maybe another 8 who chime in occaisionally.

Boring .



.

---

Vance Outlines U.S. Plan for Ukraine That Sharply Favors Russia
Vice President JD Vance said the cease-fire plan would freeze territory along the current front lines of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and that the U.S. would "walk away" if both parties did not agree.

---

Why the hell would Russia agree to the current line when they can just wait to get all of it?

---

Yup. It benefits Russia if the US walks away. Walking away from Ukraine likely means Russia can finally accomplish what it intended from the get-go: toppling Ukraine's pro-West govt., incorporating large swaths of Ukrainian territory, and installing a puppet regime who will bend knee to Putin - similar to what it has done in other former Russian provinces.

So, essentially, the US plan is to let Russian win.

---

The Russians have been executing this plan for over 20 years. They'll drag it out for another decade if need be.

Assassin said:

---

Wonder how many ot those ferocious UK and French soldiers have gone over there, seen how weak Ukraine really is, and decided that it's not worth it...

---

Is it weak fighting Russia to a standstill despite being severely outnumbered and outgunned?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.

---

Didn't say he banned all non-state media. I said the "private" media owned by the oligarchs are essentially state run, and he has banned pretty much any reporting he deems critical of the govt. or Russian armed forces. He's also banned pretty much all outside media:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests

https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-bans-over-eu-80-media-outlets-on-its-territory-counter-restrictions/

The more interesting thing about your post, however, is the admission you haven't felt the need to look into these issues a little closer. I suspect reasonable people would agree that it's a good idea to look into the credibility of an information source before parroting what are essentially state talking points regarding the War in Ukraine and Russia's motivations. You've been parroting them for more than a year on this thread, and yet you didn't think it might be a good idea to look into Russia and Putin's conduct and veracity for truthfulness?

What a telling admission.

---

What's telling is that you assume my information could only come from Russian talking points. Evidently you yourself haven't looked far beyond Western corporate media, most of which might as well be state-owned when it comes to foreign policy.

---

There are plenty of news sources that parrot Russian talking points. Hell, even Western sources parrot them. See Tucker Carlson. Which of the non-Western sources are you referencing?

To be clear, since you now seem to be hedging, do you believe Putin to be an authoritarian or not? Do you believe he's lied about anything? And do you believe being an authoritarian might affect one's credibility?

Do you believe the list of examples I posted several posts ago regarding his authoritarian polices are inaccurate? Which of his positions have you independently confirmed to be accurate?

---

Much of what is now considered Russian propaganda was part of mainstream thinking among American politicians and diplomats a few years ago. They understood that Russia wanted better relations and was not inherently a threat to the West. They understood that expanding NATO and abrogating our arms control agreements would lead to conflict. And so it has.

I would say your examples are generally misleading at best. Corrupt Russian oligarchs were more powerful under Yeltsin, which is one of the reasons we liked him. They were happy to do business on terms highly favorable to the West, which meant stripping Russian industry and resources to the bone. Putin curtailed much of their activity and channeled the rest of it in ways that were more beneficial to the national interest (and, it must be admitted, beneficial to Putin himself in terms of the loyalty he demanded).

Putin has always claimed to want closer ties with the West, and his actions have borne that out. His military doctrine and limited interventions in neighboring countries, far from evidencing imperial ambitions, have been defensive in nature. He has opposed a return to Soviet-style governance and advocated gradual democratization. But there are significant internal and external obstacles to reform, chief of which has been the increasing hostility of the West.

Russia was in an extremely precarious position at the end of the Cold War -- poor, vulnerable, and politically unstable. Unlike most great powers, they voluntarily negotiated their own retirement from imperial status. They relied on help and cooperation from the West which turned out not to be forthcoming. They had democratic dreams but no real tradition of democracy. They had a long history of being rebuffed by Europe. This is not even to mention the rising tide of Islamism in the region, or the rival power of China on Russia's border. Topping it all off, there was NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the US invasion of Iraq, new missile installations in Europe, and the threat of regime change in Russia itself. It was in this context that Russia saw the Maidan revolution and the possibility of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, despite Ukraine's previous relinquishment of such weapons and its pledge of neutrality.

For all these reasons, Putin's priorities were more pragmatic than idealistic. As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages. Putin's long tenure in office allowed him to spend a decade or more preparing for Western sanctions. His control of Russian industry allowed for rapid expansion of arms production. These weren't necessarily things he wanted to do, but the circumstances required it. At least some of his restrictions on foreign influence, protest, and proselytizing exist for the same reasons. Every country regulates public expression in some way, but Russia has the added problem of dealing with active subversion by a rival superpower.

I can't say that being authoritarian affects Putin's credibility with regard to the United States. I consider Biden less authoritarian than Trump, and his dealings with his domestic public were somewhat more credible than Trump's. On the other hand, I don't think Biden had any credibility whatsoever in his dealings with Russia. I would probably trust Trump or Putin more than Biden or Clinton on matters of foreign policy.

I would say Putin is more authoritarian than most American leaders. He's also less authoritarian than most Russian leaders. The label is relative and doesn't necessarily tell you all you need to know. Medieval monarchs were authoritarian by today's standards, but many of them were wise and trustworthy rulers. Justice, the right interests of the people, and faithfulness to the law are more important than outward forms and labels.

---

Unbelievable, these benevolent autocrat stories. Yeltsin had oligarch issues, but Yeltsin wasn't an oligarch. Putin is. Where Yeltsin tolerated their rise, Putin subsumed them. Early in his tenure, he consolidated power within the Kremlin by surrounding himself with a loyal circle of siloviki and began muscling into Russia's strategic industries. The turning point was the takedown of Yukos and the imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, signaling to the business elite that loyalty not legality would determine survival.

Putin systematically placed trusted confidants atop Russia's key sectors, energy, defense, banking blurring the lines between state power and personal enrichment. But controlling Russia wasn't enough. Realizing that economic expansion required navigating inconvenient international legal frameworks, Putin shifted gears. In his 2007 Munich speech, he threw down the gauntlet to the West. NATO was his rhetorical target, but the real threat was the European Union and its rules based economic order, one incompatible with the authoritarian crony capitalism he was constructing.

Putin has long sought control over Europe's energy gateways, recognizing that oil and gas are potent weapons for his aspirations. His playbook has involved everything from Gazprom backed leverage to Nord Stream entanglements, gas cutoffs, price wars, all designed to make select (and more vulnerable) European economies reliant and politically hesitant. You believe the invasions of Georgia and Crimea were NATO resistance, but they weren't just military operations, they were extensions of this strategic doctrine to dominate the near abroad, fracture the West, and erode democracy from the edges inward.

You can try to minimize it all you want, but domestically he's choked off any flicker of dissent. Independent media have been shuttered, opposition leaders jailed or assassinated, and Russian society ground under the weight of surveillance and propaganda. Rule of law has been replaced with rule by loyalty.
And now nearly 25 years in, Putin doesn't merely govern, he reigns. And we're just now understanding how far he will go, and the cost of having looked the other way for two decades.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.

---

Didn't say he banned all non-state media. I said the "private" media owned by the oligarchs are essentially state run, and he has banned pretty much any reporting he deems critical of the govt. or Russian armed forces. He's also banned pretty much all outside media:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests

https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-bans-over-eu-80-media-outlets-on-its-territory-counter-restrictions/

The more interesting thing about your post, however, is the admission you haven't felt the need to look into these issues a little closer. I suspect reasonable people would agree that it's a good idea to look into the credibility of an information source before parroting what are essentially state talking points regarding the War in Ukraine and Russia's motivations. You've been parroting them for more than a year on this thread, and yet you didn't think it might be a good idea to look into Russia and Putin's conduct and veracity for truthfulness?

What a telling admission.

---

What's telling is that you assume my information could only come from Russian talking points. Evidently you yourself haven't looked far beyond Western corporate media, most of which might as well be state-owned when it comes to foreign policy.

---

There are plenty of news sources that parrot Russian talking points. Hell, even Western sources parrot them. See Tucker Carlson. Which of the non-Western sources are you referencing?

To be clear, since you now seem to be hedging, do you believe Putin to be an authoritarian or not? Do you believe he's lied about anything? And do you believe being an authoritarian might affect one's credibility?

Do you believe the list of examples I posted several posts ago regarding his authoritarian polices are inaccurate? Which of his positions have you independently confirmed to be accurate?

---

Much of what is now considered Russian propaganda was part of mainstream thinking among American politicians and diplomats a few years ago. They understood that Russia wanted better relations and was not inherently a threat to the West. They understood that expanding NATO and abrogating our arms control agreements would lead to conflict. And so it has.

I would say your examples are generally misleading at best. Corrupt Russian oligarchs were more powerful under Yeltsin, which is one of the reasons we liked him. They were happy to do business on terms highly favorable to the West, which meant stripping Russian industry and resources to the bone. Putin curtailed much of their activity and channeled the rest of it in ways that were more beneficial to the national interest (and, it must be admitted, beneficial to Putin himself in terms of the loyalty he demanded).

Putin has always claimed to want closer ties with the West, and his actions have borne that out. His military doctrine and limited interventions in neighboring countries, far from evidencing imperial ambitions, have been defensive in nature. He has opposed a return to Soviet-style governance and advocated gradual democratization. But there are significant internal and external obstacles to reform, chief of which has been the increasing hostility of the West.

Russia was in an extremely precarious position at the end of the Cold War -- poor, vulnerable, and politically unstable. Unlike most great powers, they voluntarily negotiated their own retirement from imperial status. They relied on help and cooperation from the West which turned out not to be forthcoming. They had democratic dreams but no real tradition of democracy. They had a long history of being rebuffed by Europe. This is not even to mention the rising tide of Islamism in the region, or the rival power of China on Russia's border. Topping it all off, there was NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the US invasion of Iraq, new missile installations in Europe, and the threat of regime change in Russia itself. It was in this context that Russia saw the Maidan revolution and the possibility of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, despite Ukraine's previous relinquishment of such weapons and its pledge of neutrality.

For all these reasons, Putin's priorities were more pragmatic than idealistic. As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages. Putin's long tenure in office allowed him to spend a decade or more preparing for Western sanctions. His control of Russian industry allowed for rapid expansion of arms production. These weren't necessarily things he wanted to do, but the circumstances required it. At least some of his restrictions on foreign influence, protest, and proselytizing exist for the same reasons. Every country regulates public expression in some way, but Russia has the added problem of dealing with active subversion by a rival superpower.

I can't say that being authoritarian affects Putin's credibility with regard to the United States. I consider Biden less authoritarian than Trump, and his dealings with his domestic public were somewhat more credible than Trump's. On the other hand, I don't think Biden had any credibility whatsoever in his dealings with Russia. I would probably trust Trump or Putin more than Biden or Clinton on matters of foreign policy.

I would say Putin is more authoritarian than most American leaders. He's also less authoritarian than most Russian leaders. The label is relative and doesn't necessarily tell you all you need to know. Medieval monarchs were authoritarian by today's standards, but many of them were wise and trustworthy rulers. Justice, the right interests of the people, and faithfulness to the law are more important than outward forms and labels.

---

Unbelievable, these benevolent autocrat stories. Yeltsin had oligarch issues, but Yeltsin wasn't an oligarch. Putin is. Where Yeltsin tolerated their rise, Putin subsumed them. Early in his tenure, he consolidated power within the Kremlin by surrounding himself with a loyal circle of siloviki and began muscling into Russia's strategic industries. The turning point was the takedown of Yukos and the imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, signaling to the business elite that loyalty not legality would determine survival.

Putin systematically placed trusted confidants atop Russia's key sectors, energy, defense, banking blurring the lines between state power and personal enrichment. But controlling Russia wasn't enough. Realizing that economic expansion required navigating inconvenient international legal frameworks, Putin shifted gears. In his 2007 Munich speech, he threw down the gauntlet to the West. NATO was his rhetorical target, but the real threat was the European Union and its rules based economic order, one incompatible with the authoritarian crony capitalism he was constructing.

Putin has long sought control over Europe's energy gateways, recognizing that oil and gas are potent weapons for his aspirations. His playbook has involved everything from Gazprom backed leverage to Nord Stream entanglements, gas cutoffs, price wars, all designed to make select (and more vulnerable) European economies reliant and politically hesitant. You believe the invasions of Georgia and Crimea were NATO resistance, but they weren't just military operations, they were extensions of this strategic doctrine to dominate the near abroad, fracture the West, and erode democracy from the edges inward.

You can try to minimize it all you want, but domestically he's choked off any flicker of dissent. Independent media have been shuttered, opposition leaders jailed or assassinated, and Russian society ground under the weight of surveillance and propaganda. Rule of law has been replaced with rule by loyalty.
And now nearly 25 years in, Putin doesn't merely govern, he reigns. And we're just now understanding how far he will go, and the cost of having looked the other way for two decades.

---

Yeltsin did a lot more than just tolerate the oligarchs. Enormous volumes of state assets were privatized and awarded to his friends. It was the economic "shock therapy" advocated by the West that enabled this kind of thing. Khodorkovsky became the wealthiest man in Russia as a result of his corrupt deals with Yeltsin. Men like him were already deeply entrenched in the political system by the time Putin took power. Those who pledged loyalty were allowed to keep their wealth in exchange for supporting Putin and his agenda, or at least staying out of his way.

The agenda was basically to tap the brakes on privatization, save companies like Gazprom from rampant corruption and asset-stripping, and stop the hemorrhaging of profit from Russian resources. The only energy gateways Putin really controls are those coming from Russia itself. Of course selling Europe the energy it needs at a price it can afford is an intolerable offense from our point of view. We want Russia to join the free world economy, but only on our terms. Anything else is subversion of the "rules-based" order.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.

---

Didn't say he banned all non-state media. I said the "private" media owned by the oligarchs are essentially state run, and he has banned pretty much any reporting he deems critical of the govt. or Russian armed forces. He's also banned pretty much all outside media:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests

https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-bans-over-eu-80-media-outlets-on-its-territory-counter-restrictions/

The more interesting thing about your post, however, is the admission you haven't felt the need to look into these issues a little closer. I suspect reasonable people would agree that it's a good idea to look into the credibility of an information source before parroting what are essentially state talking points regarding the War in Ukraine and Russia's motivations. You've been parroting them for more than a year on this thread, and yet you didn't think it might be a good idea to look into Russia and Putin's conduct and veracity for truthfulness?

What a telling admission.

---

What's telling is that you assume my information could only come from Russian talking points. Evidently you yourself haven't looked far beyond Western corporate media, most of which might as well be state-owned when it comes to foreign policy.

---

There are plenty of news sources that parrot Russian talking points. Hell, even Western sources parrot them. See Tucker Carlson. Which of the non-Western sources are you referencing?

To be clear, since you now seem to be hedging, do you believe Putin to be an authoritarian or not? Do you believe he's lied about anything? And do you believe being an authoritarian might affect one's credibility?

Do you believe the list of examples I posted several posts ago regarding his authoritarian polices are inaccurate? Which of his positions have you independently confirmed to be accurate?

---

Much of what is now considered Russian propaganda was part of mainstream thinking among American politicians and diplomats a few years ago. They understood that Russia wanted better relations and was not inherently a threat to the West. They understood that expanding NATO and abrogating our arms control agreements would lead to conflict. And so it has.

I would say your examples are generally misleading at best. Corrupt Russian oligarchs were more powerful under Yeltsin, which is one of the reasons we liked him. They were happy to do business on terms highly favorable to the West, which meant stripping Russian industry and resources to the bone. Putin curtailed much of their activity and channeled the rest of it in ways that were more beneficial to the national interest (and, it must be admitted, beneficial to Putin himself in terms of the loyalty he demanded).

Putin has always claimed to want closer ties with the West, and his actions have borne that out. His military doctrine and limited interventions in neighboring countries, far from evidencing imperial ambitions, have been defensive in nature. He has opposed a return to Soviet-style governance and advocated gradual democratization. But there are significant internal and external obstacles to reform, chief of which has been the increasing hostility of the West.

Russia was in an extremely precarious position at the end of the Cold War -- poor, vulnerable, and politically unstable. Unlike most great powers, they voluntarily negotiated their own retirement from imperial status. They relied on help and cooperation from the West which turned out not to be forthcoming. They had democratic dreams but no real tradition of democracy. They had a long history of being rebuffed by Europe. This is not even to mention the rising tide of Islamism in the region, or the rival power of China on Russia's border. Topping it all off, there was NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the US invasion of Iraq, new missile installations in Europe, and the threat of regime change in Russia itself. It was in this context that Russia saw the Maidan revolution and the possibility of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, despite Ukraine's previous relinquishment of such weapons and its pledge of neutrality.

For all these reasons, Putin's priorities were more pragmatic than idealistic. As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages. Putin's long tenure in office allowed him to spend a decade or more preparing for Western sanctions. His control of Russian industry allowed for rapid expansion of arms production. These weren't necessarily things he wanted to do, but the circumstances required it. At least some of his restrictions on foreign influence, protest, and proselytizing exist for the same reasons. Every country regulates public expression in some way, but Russia has the added problem of dealing with active subversion by a rival superpower.

I can't say that being authoritarian affects Putin's credibility with regard to the United States. I consider Biden less authoritarian than Trump, and his dealings with his domestic public were somewhat more credible than Trump's. On the other hand, I don't think Biden had any credibility whatsoever in his dealings with Russia. I would probably trust Trump or Putin more than Biden or Clinton on matters of foreign policy.

I would say Putin is more authoritarian than most American leaders. He's also less authoritarian than most Russian leaders. The label is relative and doesn't necessarily tell you all you need to know. Medieval monarchs were authoritarian by today's standards, but many of them were wise and trustworthy rulers. Justice, the right interests of the people, and faithfulness to the law are more important than outward forms and labels.

---

Unbelievable, these benevolent autocrat stories. Yeltsin had oligarch issues, but Yeltsin wasn't an oligarch. Putin is. Where Yeltsin tolerated their rise, Putin subsumed them. Early in his tenure, he consolidated power within the Kremlin by surrounding himself with a loyal circle of siloviki and began muscling into Russia's strategic industries. The turning point was the takedown of Yukos and the imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, signaling to the business elite that loyalty not legality would determine survival.

Putin systematically placed trusted confidants atop Russia's key sectors, energy, defense, banking blurring the lines between state power and personal enrichment. But controlling Russia wasn't enough. Realizing that economic expansion required navigating inconvenient international legal frameworks, Putin shifted gears. In his 2007 Munich speech, he threw down the gauntlet to the West. NATO was his rhetorical target, but the real threat was the European Union and its rules based economic order, one incompatible with the authoritarian crony capitalism he was constructing.

Putin has long sought control over Europe's energy gateways, recognizing that oil and gas are potent weapons for his aspirations. His playbook has involved everything from Gazprom backed leverage to Nord Stream entanglements, gas cutoffs, price wars, all designed to make select (and more vulnerable) European economies reliant and politically hesitant. You believe the invasions of Georgia and Crimea were NATO resistance, but they weren't just military operations, they were extensions of this strategic doctrine to dominate the near abroad, fracture the West, and erode democracy from the edges inward.

You can try to minimize it all you want, but domestically he's choked off any flicker of dissent. Independent media have been shuttered, opposition leaders jailed or assassinated, and Russian society ground under the weight of surveillance and propaganda. Rule of law has been replaced with rule by loyalty.
And now nearly 25 years in, Putin doesn't merely govern, he reigns. And we're just now understanding how far he will go, and the cost of having looked the other way for two decades.

---

Sam: Well, to be fair, we don't have any definitive proof that Putin's opposition leaders didn't accidentally have their planes blow up, accidentally fell out of tall buildings, accidentally got poisoned or died of natural causes in a Russian gulag.

Plus, Putin seems like a nice, reserved dictator, just trying to make his way in the world.

Assassin said:

---

Wonder how many ot those ferocious UK and French soldiers have gone over there, seen how weak Ukraine really is, and decided that it's not worth it...

---

Man, you really want Ukraine to get slaughtered, don't you?

I am just curious: what's wrong with you?