[RUS] Putin - the most moderate Russian politician acceptable to the Russian public

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:27:54AM -0700, Sean Lynch wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 17:16 Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
> 
> > What many in the West don't get is that many Russians are a
> > patriotic lot, and hardy in their nationalism, and with the history
> > of the world since perestroika, they carry now a not insignificant
> > disdain for "the West".
> >
> > Putin really is the most moderate politician that is actually
> > acceptable/ electable in Russia.
> >
> > And this is not a comment on the particular man, Vladimir Putin, but
> > on the political positions or nature of him - by Russian
> > sensibilities he is very moderate, excessively accomodating to the
> > Western regimes, and a bit too much of a "weak pussy" who ought to
> > have stepped in and militarily protected the Donbass (the area where
> > the Russian people in Eastern Ukraine live), should teach the West a
> > royal lesson in Syria, and generally dish out some Russian justice
> > to the axis of Western evil.
> 
> You do realize you're insulting Russians by calling them jingoists,
> right?  But I guess you don't realize that, since you seem to think
> calling someone a "nationalist" is a compliment.

I'm an Australian nationalist.

And do you think I care how you and your pro-government, pro-USA,
pro-hegemon and forgetful positions, view that?


> This is like saying that we should be happy that PETA is only trying
> to ban horsemeat, and we shouldn't fight them on it, because what they
> REALLY want to do is ban ALL meat and pet ownership and force us to be
> vegetarians. Or let's go ahead and give Poland to the Nazis, because
> that's just a tiny thing compared to what they REALLY want!
> 
> I get that Russians are pissed about how they've been treated since
> the end of the Cold War. Far longer, really. Just like I get that
> Germans were pissed about how they were treated after they lost WWI.
> You see where I'm going with this?
> 
> The solution in both cases, by the way, is TRADE. When goods cross
> borders in sufficient quantities, ICBMs won't.

This is what USA government employees or "modern liberals" spout, and
try to ram down the throat of the world.

This is the PC term for "greed is good" which America backs up with
"bend over or be bombed or have your country coup overthrown".

As someone said some days ago - America, inparticular the CIA, plots and
plans coups for years, decades even, and has a crack sometimes multiple
times at the same country (see Syria history for example), and for you
(in other emails) to implicitly deny that this is what has happened in
Ukraine in the last 3 years is either incredibly ignorant or actively
undermining of the truth (or "pro USA establishment" or whatever PC term
you want to use).


Ukraine's "revolution" was anything but. I could believe some folks
genuinely got caught up in the coup, thinking it really was a revolution
- that of course does not change the fact it was an American lead, CIA
conducted, "most blatant and public coup in history" as EU officials and
others around the world have repeatedly named this black kettle.


Your blunt refusal to acknowledge the facts leaves you without
credibility. Which is a good thing - the ignorance of North Americans is
an excellent thing for others in the world to witness, especially those
compromised by their employment and golden cage lives.


> But the Russians seem
> to want the US to be run by a Putinesque strong man, too. One who
> thinks trade is a weapon to deployed only when it suits one's own
> interests.

Your words are ignorant. And simplistic. And bombastic.


> You seem to think Hillary has her finger on the nuclear
> button, but

so you seem to agree


> the fact of the matter is Trump does too.

As has been said before, Trump is possibly (hopefully) more like
flipping a coin. Whereas for war, Hillary is a certainty.


> The major difference between the two is that Hillary actually knows
> it, whereas Trump is suffering so badly from Dunning-Kruger (as are
> you, AFAICT, assuming you aren't simply a paid propagandist) that he
> genuinely thinks he'd make us safer by returning us to a pre-WWII
> world of 30% tariffs and trade wars.

Dichotomy. Projection. Lack of insight into alternatives. Implicit
individual employment compromise.

Not very entertaining for me right now, so I won't waste more time on
this one. Feel free to try going a little deeper, though it looks from
here like you're not particularly capable of that :/