Wikimedia Says It 'Will Not Back Down' After Russia Threatens Wikipedia Block (theverge.com) 140
The Wikimedia Foundation has issued a statement supporting Russian Wikipedia volunteers after a censorship demand from internet regulators. From a report: On Tuesday, tech and communications regulator Roskomnadzor threatened to block Wikipedia over the Russian-language page covering Russia's invasion of Ukraine, claiming it contained "false messages" about war casualties and the effects of economic sanctions, among other things. "On March 1st 2022 the Wikimedia Foundation received a Russian government demand to remove content related to the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine posted by volunteer contributors to Russian Wikipedia," reads the statement sent to The Verge via email. "As ever, Wikipedia is an important source of reliable, factual information in this crisis. In recognition of this important role, we will not back down in the face of efforts to censor and intimidate members of our movement. We stand by our mission to deliver free knowledge to the world."
Wiki = one of most honorable institutions ever. (Score:3, Funny)
So it makes perfect sense that someone like Vladimir Putin...who is a complete alien to concepts like truth and honor...would feel enmity toward such an opposite example.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No they haven't:
>Wikipedia Is Badly Biased
https://larrysanger.org/2020/0... [larrysanger.org]
by Wikipedia founder Larry Sanger.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, I give Wikipedia well deserved grief for its shitty, transphobic as fuck Incestuous Admin Crowd, and the neonazi level antisemite admins who troll articles purveying historical erasure tactics (something that WW2 germans pioneered) as well.
But Sanger? The same Sanger whose beef is "they don't just let creationists and tinfoil hat wackjobs post whatever is sourced to an old Blogger post somewhere and pretend it's fact"?
Come on now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now this is an an amusing exchange. The GP (with the Sanger link) practically accuses Wikimedia of a left-liberal bias, and now you accuse Wikipedia being transphobic (i.e. against transgender rights)? Does that mean Wikipedia is in fact centrist? Kudos to them then.
Either that, or one of the two people you mentioned is right, and the other is a crazy off the hook wacko who thinks everyone around him is a neonazi (hmm... calling everyone who thinks different a nazi - seems popular among certain kind of assholes recently, doesn't it?).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reality has a well-known left-wing bias. -- Stephen Colbert
Re: (Score:2)
Don't embarrass yourself. You sound very sweaty saying such Orwellian nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
by Wikipedia founder Larry Sanger.
cool. In the opening paragraph, he says this:
Awesome, so let's have genuine balance on glob-earthism vs flat earthism and geology/evolution/etc vs the Earth being 6000 years old. Maybe some balance on whether cigarettes cause cancer: I'm sure some BAT executives have some alternative views. And there are armies of garage tinkere
Re: (Score:2)
Seems you have an axe to grind with wikipedia. Apparently they didn't find your edits to be neutral or unbiased, and now you think they are the devil incarnate. I would suggest a simpler explanation is you are far left, and anything not that far left is not left enough for you.
Re: (Score:2)
See? Anyone who doesn't agree with you or doesn't jump to defend you is a bigoted transphobic neonazi. Thanks for proving my point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Transphobic? Did they misgender somebody? - Repeatedly, maliciously. The levels of harassment they've given to trans editors are incredible.
Maintaining some neutrality on controversial topics does of course mean "Never woke enough for some". - Or you could try some honesty (rather than downmodding with your sockpuppets as the Wikipedia cult always does) and ask: why would the Hebrew transliterations of various foods of the levant region (felafel, za'atar, hummus to name just three), where Jewish presenc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whiplash (Score:3)
It's kind of crazy that people applaud both Wikimedia's continued insistence to serve Russians and other internet companies blocking of Russia. Two completely opposite actions. Either allowing Russians to access the internet is good, or it's bad. If connecting them is good, then we should not block Russian's access to the internet. If connecting them is bad, then everyone should block Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of crazy that people applaud both Wikimedia's continued insistence to serve Russians and other internet companies blocking of Russia.
Not at all. Wikimedia/Wikipedia is a non-profit offering free and open source of information which is why people want it to continue serving Russians, to help them understand their situation. Other corporations are for-profit and simply engaging in commerce to enrich themselves.
The overall theme here is "do the right thing" which is a concept that many people here have difficulty comprehending.
Re: (Score:2)
Not disagreeing with you, but:
continue serving Russians, to help them understand their situation.
that has a massive smell to it. You're assuming russians need help and don't understand things. We used to talk like that about native africans back when we considered them half-humans. It's assuming a superior perspective and that's a tricky thing.
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming russians need help and don't understand things.
...
It's assuming a superior perspective
No, I'm assuming some people have been cut off from good sources of information. Stop trying to make this into something it's not.
Re: (Score:2)
Take it as feedback how your words could sound to someone else. Do whatever you want with that feedback.
Re: Whiplash (Score:2)
You shelled a nuclear power plant. Your argument is, in fact, invalid.
Re: (Score:2)
If connecting them is good, then we should not block Russian's access to the internet.
Nobody is seriously considering blocking Russian's access to the internet, except Russian itself.
We are blocking their propagandist content. IMHO that's not a good idea either. There is some much evidence of the fact of the situation let them post it just makes them look all the more ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say "nobody":
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/22/03/02/0351252/ukraine-proposes-icann-remove-russian-domains [slashdot.org]
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/22/03/04/2117251/key-us-provider-of-internet-to-russia-cuts-service-there-citing-unprovoked-invasion-of-ukraine [slashdot.org]
https://games.slashdot.org/story/22/03/02/2221246/ukrainian-government-calls-for-game-companies-to-cut-off-russia-during-invasion [slashdot.org]
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/22/03/01/1849222/web-hosting-provider-namecheap-to-ban-russia-based-users-citing-ukraine [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Different people have different views. News at 11.
Re: (Score:2)
other internet companies blocking of Russia
What Internet company is blocking Russia?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cogent Communications. (Was on Slashdot a few days ago.)
Yeah, I saw that after posting. However, Cogent is not actually trying to block Russian access to the Internet, they're just trying to avoid being a vector for Russian cyberwarfare. And they're not just shutting the tap off, they're giving their Russian clients time to find alternative connections. So they're not trying to disconnect Russians, they just don't want to be involved. It's a subtle distinction, but nuance matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Two completely opposite actions.
No they aren't. The internet is a thing with incredible breath of capabilities. Wikipedia is a tool to share information. The former can be used for economic gain as well, the latter can't.
The problem with cutting off internet is that it also cuts off information, but the net benefit of the economic hit outweighs the downside.
Now if someone has access to internet despite the blocks, then all the more reason *information* should be available.
There's a reason Russia is blocking Facebook, Twitter, and now figh
LOL (Score:4, Interesting)
Quote: "As ever, Wikipedia is an important source of reliable, factual information..."
My editing rights have been remove thrice in Wikipedia:
1) In the "CatalÃn" version, because I put that a painter born in France was French and not "Catalan of the North".
2) In the "Spanish" version for saying the earliest recording of "Te quiero mucho" song was done by a group providing the link to the US Musical Registry against the "beloved" singer that people keeps repeating ad nauseam wrongly. They banned me because I told to the user that kept removing the information without any proof that his recording was earlier that if he continued to do so without adding references I would ask that his editing rights be removed... and they removed mine.
3) In the "Spanish" version, for pointing in the "discussion" of a page about the "lack of neutrality" about information about censorship of Spanish dictator Franco with a list of Catalan poetry contests during the dictatorship and a sentence from the Hight Tribunal condemning a person for insulting catalan language. An exulted extreme-left user, whom other "librarians" wrote "was an excellent editor", removed the tag of "lack of neutrality" and refused to even read the information because it was hosted in a website akin to the dictator and, even more funny, he said he would not allow any information from a website of the dictator in an article about... the dictator. What a great editor. I was banned because I pointed his lack of reasoning.
So... resuming about the "quote": LOL.
Re: (Score:2)
he would not allow any information from a website of the dictator in an article about... the dictator.
A dictator's website isn't likely to be an unbiased source of information about said dictator -- or anything else, for that matter.
Would you trust the information you found about Kim Jong Un on a website he operated?
Wikipedia is a cesspit, sure, but they were right in this case.
Re: (Score:3)
Wikipedia is a cesspit, sure, but they were right in this case.
Wikipedia ain't perfect (what is) but I'd say 95%of the time someone here whinges about it, it transpires they have a huge axe to grind and wikipedia basically called it right.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia is a cesspit, sure, but they were right in this case.
Wikipedia ain't perfect (what is) but I'd say 95%of the time someone here whinges about it, it transpires they have a huge axe to grind and wikipedia basically called it right.
Mod parent +5 Insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
link to the US Musical Registry
Doesn't Wikipedia have a thing against using primary sources for some reason?
Re: (Score:2)
link to the US Musical Registry
Doesn't Wikipedia have a thing against using primary sources for some reason?
Yes. The reason is that Wikipedia is shit.
Re: (Score:2)
link to the US Musical Registry
Doesn't Wikipedia have a thing against using primary sources for some reason?
Wikipedia allows primary sources to be used, but carefully. There are very good reasons for this. Secondary, independent sources that reference primary sources are generally the best, though of course everything has to be evaluated for bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Quote: "As ever, Wikipedia is an important source of reliable, factual information..."
My editing rights have been remove thrice in Wikipedia:
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's always the alternative:
https://www.religimarole.com/p... [religimarole.com]
missing the real problem (Score:2)
The real issue with Wikipedia is that it relies entirely on sources as "evidence" of fact. Lots has been written about that problem and its consequences.
But in a war, that becomes a real issue, because you have to question ALL your sources. The western media just as much as the Russian media, because while we're not a military party to the conflict, we very much are a political party to it. There's a whole lot of mis-information and one-sided reporting going on. The main difference is that in the west you c
Re: (Score:2)
I think Wikipedia should abstain from live updating content on developing situations, especially where interests are involved that'll twist the narrative.
That would make it less useful. What they should do is take some of the piles of donation money they have (which they pretend not to have once a year while they ask for more) and instead of spending it on bullshit vanity projects like animated data visualizations they should spend it hiring actual and not merely self-professed experts to act as caretakers and moderators of important and contested articles. These articles' changes should be sent to the moderators.
Every news channel on the planet is reporting on this war, Wikipedia really isn't needed to fill a gap or anything.
Not every news channel on the planet is accur
Re: (Score:2)
That would make it less useful.
I must have missed Wikipedia turning into a news site.
An encyclopedia isn't useful because it has up-to-date live news reports. It's useful because you can look up established knowledge.
it hiring actual and not merely self-professed experts
Nah, that goes against the WP basic principles of shunning experts, pushing them out and telling them that "primary sources aren't allowed". Because we can't have, say, the person who discovered a new subatomic particle write an article about it. Someone living in their mother's basement who read three newspaper clippings is
Re: (Score:2)
An encyclopedia isn't useful because it has up-to-date live news reports. It's useful because you can look up established knowledge.
Welcome to 2022, where knowledge can be established much more quickly than it did in the era from which you borrowed these opinions, which was frankly over before you were born. Encyclopedias historically consisted of articles written by persons knowledgeable about a subject, who researched it and hopefully wrote about it from the most neutral point of view they could locate. Today most encyclopedia articles are collaborative, whether by virtue of having been written ages ago by a noteworthy individual and
Re: (Score:2)
By many and varied standards which are often inconsistent, and yet Wikipedia has successfully put together an encyclopedia which has not only been demonstrated to be about as accurate as print encyclopedias, but which is typically considerably more up to date.
Yes, that is true. On any past event or topic. I've generally found their news to be pretty shitty, while I do regularly use the encyclopedia section at least as a starting point to the listed sources, and very often a really good summary of a topic.
They not only carry information on a broad variety of subjects that no other encyclopedia finds noteworthy ...
Yes, yes. As an encyclopedia, yes. I mean in regards to delivering news, they aren't filling a gap. Well, maybe that of WP editors who feel like they'd like to be real journalists but can't get their articles accepted anywhere.
Fuck Putin's Russia! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also it is a brand new account named Russia Russia Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
The snowflake could take time to explain why the white supremacists are all supporting Putin in his attempt to take over another predominantly white country. I don't get the white supremacy angle here. After that the snowflake can leave.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Russians are fighting Ukrainian neo-Nazis. You know, literally the people walking around carrying swastikas.
Yeah, keep living in Bizarro World.
You mean the people at Republican rallies [imgur.com]? Or the ones who just advertise they're a Nazi [imgur.com]?
Or did you mean the actual neo-nazis in the PMC Wagner group [informnapalm.org] who attacked Ukrainians in the Luhansk and Donbas oblasts?
Re: And nothing of value was lost... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the Russian Fascist " " meme-response. Those who know history know how often the Russians have deployed that to distract from the Russian state's genocides and other crimes against humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And nothing of value was lost... (Score:2)
Genius!
Re: (Score:2)
I still want to know what the Russian government is expecting to get out of this
Then you're asking the wrong question. The right question is; what does Putin get out of this? The answer is power; Putin wants a great military victory that expands Russian authority and secures his reign as president for life: the great, bare chested Russian strongman, which is a formula that has always worked well for Russian leaders. The fact that it has always worked well is why the Russian people are culpable in all of this today, and for past atrocities.
One imagines the blowback has been rather
Re: (Score:2)
Russian people are culpable in all of this today, and for past atrocities.
Considering they haven't had free elections since, never... and that they are jailed if they are lucky, or killed for dissent, and that the state owns most (well, now all) and influences all media...
You want to blame the people?
Re: (Score:2)
Russian media already let it slip [youtube.com] when they forgot to fix the publish-on date of a prewritten "congratulations to Putin for winning his Nazi Style Blitzkrieg Anschluss" article.
Putin thinks he is going to "reunite" the USSR. [mil.in.ua]
An article by the propaganda publication RIA Novosti, which was to be published after the occupation of Ukraine, is preserved in the Web Archive. The Kremlin’s propaganda publication RIA-Novosti accidentally published an article that was to be published after the rapid occup
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is
[citation required]
Everything is full of rampant theories about "what Putin wants" right now. Many of them conflict with each other. Few of them take into account what he publicly stated he wants (not even to analyze and critizise the statements, or show if his actions conform to them, no just completely ignore).
You can't read his mind, you don't know what he wants.
You also wrongly assume that he acts alone. No world leader ever acts alone. They are surrounded by an army of advisors, allies and lobbyists. J
Re: (Score:2)
You can't read his mind, you don't know what he wants.
You can ignore his words and judge by his actions. Frankly you can tell that he's gone off the deep end if he thinks that any of this shit is a good idea. As usual nobody is buying the lies and justifications (except maybe some few Russians, but that any significant number are still on board is doubtful) and it's silly to think that Putin is both sanely and deliberately crashing Russia into a mountain. You'd have to invoke a lizard people conspiracy or something for that idea to have any kind of internal co
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, no.
He has stated clearly that his problem with Ukraine is the threat that NATO missiles in Ukraine pose to Russia. I read somewhere that the flight time from Ukraine to Moscow is just 7 minutes.
That's the wet dream of every US hardliner, and the nightmare of every Russian general. Taking into account detection and verification time, it reduces the time you have for decision making until your counterstrike order doesn't make it out anymore to what, one minute?
Just assume that either Putin or enou
Re: (Score:2)
He has stated clearly
Seriously, just fucking stop here. He said it so you believe it? I'm so done with your lack of logic.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, just fucking stop here. He said it so you believe it? I'm so done with your lack of logic.
You are overlooking that BELIEF guides decisions, not objective truth. If we are arguing why he did what he did, it doesn't matter if it is objectively true. It matters if he BELIEVES it is true. If he does, then what I outlined could be a logical train of thought. Again, it may be based on false assumptions. But that doesn't matter.
I have done negotiations professionally. You want to understand how the opposition thinks and why they think it. Even if it is total nonsense, you need to take it into account b
Re: And nothing of value was lost... (Score:2)
He attacked a nuclear power plant in a neighboring country. That told us all we needed to know. He's coo coo for Cocoa Puffs.
Someone needs to kill him before something terrible happens.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't fucking matter if he's coo or cool. He's got his fingers on the red button, like it or not you can't just ignore him.
Someone needs to kill him before something terrible happens.
If that someone has any connections whatsoever to the US, then something much, much more terrible will happen as a consequence. Get that shit into your head: The real world isn't a superhero movie where someone takes out the bad guy and saves the world.
Re: (Score:2)
If that someone has any connections whatsoever to the US, then something much, much more terrible will happen as a consequence. Get that shit into your head
That's going to happen anyway. Once you pay the danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane... until you kill him.
The real world isn't a superhero movie where someone takes out the bad guy and saves the world.
It's also not a coke-fueled Batman spinoff where the Joker runs a nuclear-armed superpower. Does Putin sound like a guy with a plan to you?
Re: (Score:2)
That's going to happen anyway.
[citation required]
That is an assumption, and it depends a lot on diplomacy and political actions. I'd prefer if the pessimists who think the end of the world is near wouldn't also attempt to fucking accelerate its coming. I know Eschatology runs deep in christian culture, but we now live in the nuclear age, so stuff it.
Does Putin sound like a guy with a plan to you?
Yes, he does. Our media does the best to paint him insane, but he has been consistently saying the same things for 20 years, and one of them is that Ukraine must at the very least be a buffe
Re: (Score:2)
Cuba was an offensive action by the Soviets. NATO is purely defensive with regard to Russia... if you have trouble with NATO, it's because you asked for it.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to understand how the opposition thinks and why they think it.
And you also need to recognize when what the opposition is saying aloud is propaganda that has nothing to fucking do with what they are really thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like the old saw "How do you know when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving."
I mean - almost everyone seems to believe that as a general principle. What I don't understand is why so many people suddenly believe otherwise when it's a foreign leader publicly speaking to the world. Or their own leader trying to drum up support for something.
Yeah, occasionally the truth will get the job done and they'll use that - but that should never be your default assumption. Even when the core messsage is
Re: (Score:2)
After a decades long history of occupying their neighbors and using tank invasions (Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine), Russia has absolutely NO right to insist their neighbors are defenseless. NATO is a defensive union, and Russia's repeated military invasions demonstrate the need for a strong defense.
The nearest missile bases are in Poland, at their request.
Unless you're saying Russians are cowards and fear something that has never attacked them, and only purpose is to defend against attack.
Is Russia afrai
Re: (Score:2)
After a decades long history of occupying their neighbors and using tank invasions (Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine), Russia has absolutely NO right to insist their neighbors are defenseless. NATO is a defensive union, and Russia's repeated military invasions demonstrate the need for a strong defense.
That is true.
However, if the schoolyard bully feels insecure, guess what he does? That's right, more bullying.
If you want PEACE instead of just the moral high ground no matter how many people need to die so you can feel good, you HAVE to calm the bully down, not stir him up.
Is Russia afraid of shadows? Is that it?
Yes, it is that. Read something about Russia in the 90s. Gang shootings on the street, economic collapse, utter disaster. Have you been to Russia outside the tourist areas? Do you know that the typical(!) russian appartment has a metal d
Re:And nothing of value was lost... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want PEACE instead of just the moral high ground no matter how many people need to die so you can feel good, you HAVE to calm the bully down, not stir him up.
You can't calm a paranoid.
Nobody was going to invade Russia. It's the shithole in the region. Its primary resources are fossil fuels that we have to stop using if we're going to survive. That's why this is happening. Russia felt threatened not by military assets, but by the future. Stop all this pretending that Putin felt cornered by NATO, that's ridiculous. There wasn't any profit in invading Russia, and that was sufficient to stop anyone sane from doing it.
Ukraine has resources Russia needs to continue to exist, and Russia is allergic to letting its economy develop in such a way that they could exist on fair trade alone because that would prevent the oligarchs from running away with all the money, and also break the established social order that keeps the plebes suppressed.
Note that growing wealth inequality in the USA proves that we're headed down the same track. Greed begets greed but wealth does not beget ability, in fact it tends to produce worthless layabouts who can't do shit because they've never had to do shit. And the USA has literally always operated as an oligarchy despite the Democracy label on the package. It was explicitly designed to do so, initially giving the vote only to landed white males who were already in charge, and only allowing other people to vote once systems were in place to make their votes largely irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody was going to invade Russia. It's the shithole in the region. Its primary resources are fossil fuel
I know of another shithole country that had nothing but fossil fuel and the US invaded it with a big pleasure. Twice.
Ukraine has resources Russia needs to continue to exist
Russia already was Ukraine's most important trade partner. Do they really stand to gain so much from a war if they were already getting what they need by trade?
It's an interesting thought. And indeed Ukraine does have a lot of natural resources, some of which it isn't yet exploiting because it's such a poor and corrupt country. So taking a very long view with enough time to rebuild the war da
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a "war for resources." Russian media already let it slip [youtube.com] when they forgot to fix the publish-on date of a prewritten "congratulations to Putin for winning his Nazi Style Blitzkrieg Anschluss" article.
Putin thinks he is going to "reunite" the USSR, "Anschluss"-style. [mil.in.ua] Which makes his DARVO-laden [uoregon.edu] bullshittery about "de-nazifying" Ukraine, and the false-flag crap and propaganda videos his illegitimate regime put out trying to justify their invasion, even more insane.
An article by the propaganda p
Re: (Score:2)
I read about that article. I don't give it much thought. Similar slip-ups have happened several times in western media, including eulogies on people who didn't die. It's fairly standard journalism practice to write articles in preparation of an expected event.
I've noticed strongly that the same media that has for decades described Putin as cold and calculating is now calling him irrational and questioning his mental health.
What if there is a perfectly rational (from his perspective) explanation? Why do we d
Re: (Score:3)
Why do we discard that option so easily?
Because the facts say his purported reasons are bullshit, every time. And because the very pronouncements of his regime contradict the gaslighting bullshit pretexting he tries to sell internationally, as shown by that media article prewritten assuming a quick and successful "anschluss" style attack.
Putin has behaved in the mode of an authoritarian abuser, a malignant narcissist. He is "cold and calculating" when determining how he's going to go about manipulating
Re: (Score:2)
Because the facts say his purported reasons are bullshit, every time.
Same as the Iraqi WMDs or the "humanitarian" intervention in Yugoslavia, or any number of wars and invasions, yes. I'm not talking about the immediate justifications, the "de-nazification" etc. - taking out the Azov Battalion would pretty much do that, no need to attack Kiev.
But "hey NATO, don't get any closer" has been Russian statements - with increasing significance - for the better part of 20 years. Do you think your statements explain that away?
Re: (Score:2)
But "hey NATO, don't get any closer" has been Russian statements - with increasing significance - for the better part of 20 years. Do you think your statements explain that away?
Belligerence against NATO, and specifically against nations showing signs of a desire to enter into agreements with NATO or join NATO, is common within Putin's foreign policy. This is not driven in anything legitimate, but rather in Putin's belief that those nations are Russia's or "his" property. This can be seen in the statemen
Re: (Score:2)
This is not driven in anything legitimate, but rather in Putin's belief that those nations are Russia's or "his" property.
There's a name for this fallacy where you assume you know better than the stated reasons of your opponent, simply because those stated reasons threaten your narrative. I just can't remember it right now.
He did not invade Ukraine over some kind of fear that Ukraine would join NATO
Again, you assume to know better. But you have no evidence except this statement or that. But you pick and choose. Thing A that Putin said you discard, but thing B that he said you accept and use it as evidence to disprove A. So what is it? Which of his words is truth and which is lie and how do YOU of all p
Re: (Score:2)
There's a name for this fallacy where you assume you know better than the stated reasons of your opponent, simply because those stated reasons threaten your narrative.
There's a phrase for believing the lies that a narcissistic manipulator is telling. It's called being completely fucking gullible.
But you've passed that line a long time back, Tom. You're pushing this bullshit as an enabler, nothing more.
Re: (Score:2)
Just this simple fact (followed by a bunch of falsehoods and propaganda talking points that are completely fucking disconnnected from reality)
Oh do shut up. No, he didn't say what you are trying to put in his mouth. And most importantly, he did not mention the agreement at all until Russia was attacking his goddamn country contrary to the very fucking treaty Russia had fucking signed.
Mentioning the treaty was reminding everyone that Ukraine has done the RIGHT thing, and calling for what the treaty cal
Re: (Score:2)
Kremlin Tom keeps trying to play at "well how do you decide what to believe?" One clear clue is the moments when the veil fucking slips, when the poker face drops.
The Russian video where the oligarchs couldn't remember which video they were recording? That tells you, this isn't about nuclear weapons or any other bullshit pretext, Putin just wants to invade and Anschluss the country of Ukraine.
The Russian news article [youtube.com] that RIA forgot to deschedule when the invasion didn't go well? [mil.in.ua]
That tells you what th
Re: (Score:2)
Kremlin Tom
Has a nice ring to it but that doesn't make it true. You could just say that you can't stand people with different opinions, you know? At least be honest.
That tells you, this isn't about nuclear weapons or any other bullshit pretext, Putin just wants to invade and Anschluss the country of Ukraine.
At the end of this, one of us will have to swallow his words and say that he was wrong. I wonder if you'd be man enough to do that if it turns out that it's you. Will you?
Re: (Score:2)
he did not mention the agreement at all until Russia was attacking his goddamn country
His speech is on YouTube. A transcript is here: https://kyivindependent.com/na... [kyivindependent.com]
Among other things he said:
Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt.
as well as
I want to believe that the North Atlantic Treaty and Article 5 will be more effective than the Budapest Memorandum.
The Munich Security Conference was 18 February - 20 February. The invasion began on 24 February.
Now how about you fuck off with your ad hominem bullshit that only betrays your irrationality and inability to admit other opinions? There are facts to be discussed, leave the hysterics to small girls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thus far Kremlin Tom has called me a "small girl", a "silly boy", and now made insinuations I'm not "man enough."
Yes we know, Kremlin Tom. You're desperately hoping Putin will let you suck his dick. Just admit it won't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Things to keep in mind.
Comparison to Cuba isn't really apt. Ukraine had nuclear weapons and gave them up, to Russia, back in 1986 in return for a promise to never invade. There was no proposal to station nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and Russia had already annexed one area, Crimea, and was materially supporting two other separatist states in rebellion in eastern Ukraine. Zelinsky's comments came AFTER the Russians had already invaded those three provinces.
Your Canada example is also lacking. The US would have
Re: (Score:2)
Stop all this pretending that Putin felt cornered by NATO, that's ridiculous. There wasn't any profit in invading Russia, and that was sufficient to stop anyone sane from doing it.
Ukraine has resources Russia needs to continue to exist . . .
I really wish more people would talk about the invasion from this angle. Personally, I think Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the decimation of the Ukrainian population isn't so much about NATO but about Ukraine's being Europe's bread basket and the uncertainty of global warming. Putin may view his legacy not as the person who reunified the Soviet Union but as the man who took ugly but necessary steps to feed his people while the world burned. The global warming worst-case trajectories are f-ing scary.
Hopef
Re: (Score:2)
If you want PEACE instead of just the moral high ground no matter how many people need to die so you can feel good, you HAVE to calm the bully down, not stir him up.
It's safer to just remove the bully from the schoolyard altogether. Especially when the schoolyard bully has a history of lying about being calm, and then launching into a physically assault on someone.
The rest of your description of "Russia in the 90s" and the "Lots of Russians blame that on the west meddling with their currency and econom
Re: (Score:2)
It's safer to just remove the bully from the schoolyard altogether.
In this case, the only way to do that is WW3 and I sincerely hope our leaders have enough brains left to discard that as an option. So without that option, what's your actual answer?
Oh fucking bullshit. The Russian economy was in a bad shape before AND after the fall of the USSR. The problems it ran into were structural, and the main damage was caused by Russian oligarchs sabotaging and rigging the economic transition for their benefit.
It absolutely had real, internal problems, no doubt about that. The Cold War crippled the country. I didn't say otherwise.
What I said is that the US kicked them when they were already down. Why is Soros hated in Russia? Because his speculation against the Rubel contributed to its crash.
We can discuss how much share exactly outsi
Re: (Score:2)
because the fact that matters is IF RUSSIANS ARE AFRAID OF THOSE SHADOWS
The only reason they're afraid of those "shadows" (by which you mean, bullshit lies they've been fed) is because that's what has been fed to them by Putin and the rest of the revolving right-wing fascist oligarchy that has run Russia like a fucking Banana Republic since the overthrow of the Tsar. (And yes I'm being blunt here. "Blah blah socialism" has always been a pretext, the Russian government has had the structure of a right-win
Re: (Score:2)
because that's what has been fed to them
Possibly, yes. It still is a belief held and guiding decisions. Even if it's total bonkers, we must take it into account because it explains why things are happening and what will happen next.
Reminds me, yet again, of this dumbshit one-testicled failed painter who took over Germany back in the 1930s while blaming everything on "juden" and feeding that line to the populace long enough that enough people bought into the scapegoating.
You don't need to go back that far in history. There was a time in the USA where everything was blamed on communists, and the mere accusation that you are associating with them could cost you your job. It seems a fairly common human trait to find scapegoats.
The solution to Putin is to remove him from the schoolyard altogether.
Do you have a path to that goal that doesn't include a conside
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a path to that goal that doesn't include a considerable risk of turning large parts of the planet uninhabitable?
There are a number of paths to that. Especially where the other alternative is his continuing to menace the world. And considering that the more irrational he gets in his closed-loop narcissistic delusions, the more likely he'll try to push the big red button over something imagined, or simply to assert his own "power."
Re: (Score:2)
Again, that's just scaremongering.
Also, taking a larger perspective helps. More people in this world live under fear of a US invasion than a Russian invasion. Oopsie.
I notice that for the past five or so answers, you've avoided pointing out any actual, practical ways. I'm assuming you don't actually know any, and just say that you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess, you're a pro-russian apologist? Because nothing you've said has shown any sign of you making your claims in good faith. I remember someone like you - a vice principal who argued there was "no such thing as a bully" and it was all just "kids who need to be understood."
While he was busy "understanding" the bullies, kids got injured. Until actual bones were broken and someone above him, and above the nitwit hands-off principal of the school, finally heard about it and stepped the fuck in.
We'r
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess, you're a pro-russian apologist?
No, I've said nowhere I support their war. In fact, some of my friends are Ukrainians.
But I have done negotiations as a job for several years. I know first hand that you get the best results (best for you and best for everyone, both) if you don't go in like a 5 year old child assuming the other side is the big bad wolf. Know what your opponent wants and why. Put yourself in their shoes. Understand what is non-negotiable and what is flexible. Make compromises and balance them with gains.
You STILL didn't answ
Re: (Score:2)
US building missile batteries right on the Russian border
What? Where?
Re: (Score:2)
Russia considers neighboring countries like Ukraine as their own, so the NATO defenses in Poland are right on their border. Russian logic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An account created today (no previous post history), spouting Putin propaganda that is easily debunked. It's idiots like this that makes me wish I could completely block some people, but I'll settle for marking him as "foe" so he's auto-modded.
Re: (Score:2)
They're the disinformation equivalent of the conscripts that were slaughtered in the early days of the Ukrainian war - their only value is their large numbers.