World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
When opposition death and injury rate seems a little higher than usual
date
newest »
newest »
message 201:
by
Ian
(new)
Feb 21, 2024 11:49PM
Zero doubt and no physical evidence. Think about that for a moment.
reply
|
flag
Thought for a moment: you can’t have evidence while putler is head of state otherwise whoever provided it follows Navalny to the afterworld. Facts: dead opposition leader whike in putler’s custody, where he should be safest. Didn’t even pretend to stage a “suicide”
"Where he should be safest"??? Where on Earth did you get that idea? Navalny was sent to that prison to die. The difference between our explanations is that the original intention/hope was that as I see it, Putin intended to let nature take its course, and I argue that could well have happened. The conditions in the prison would be so severe that the rate of bodily decay would be greatly increased,
Ian wrote: ""....Navalny was sent to that prison to die. ..."Seen well and in good spirits just two days before, stubborn non-dier as he was, they decided to help him
Why does the specific cause of Navalny's death even matter? Putin killed him by putting him in a situation he couldn't survive, as Ian has admitted. Navalny is dead because Putin wanted him and his opposition dead. Can anyone argue with that? And how can a country that allows this to happen be defended by anyone living in a free country?
One BBC reporter said: "We don't yet know what may follow for people who have come to the church and cemetery today, but mourners definitely needed some bravery to show up.There's been a significant police presence today, with dozens of security personnel in uniform. But from my eight years' experience covering events like this, there could well be a few dozen more (at least) plain clothes officers closely monitoring the situation and taking pictures of those present.
Russian courts have labelled both Navalny and his organisation extremists, so any association with them can lead to serious trouble."
As Nik said, not all are beaten down in Russia. Those who attended the funeral may not have been arrested on the spot, but it sounds like there may be retaliation later after the spotlight is turned off. I find hope in the fact that some Russian people believe in freedom and are willing to risk everything in support of it.
How do you define freedom and why do you think that was why they attended the funeral? There will be many Russians who do not want Putin, but so what? There are plenty of Americans who do not want Biden. Yes, there is not a lot the average Russian can do about Putin, but when they remember the Yeltsin years, many Russians won't want a repeat of that.
However you define freedom, it wouldn't characterize russia, would it?
Under most western definitions, no. The question then is, what do most Russians feel about it? The problem then is, we don't have a means of telling.Then there is the question of the Western family barely living from paycheck to paycheck who can't afford both good shoes or lunches for his kids, are they free? And do they care? It is the cash deficit that rules their minds. In the West, thoughts about freedom are the luxury for the upper middle class and the wealthy.
When you live from paycheck to paycheck in russia and can’t even curse the bloody ruler, might be a bigger downer. However, three poorest regions of russia demonstrate a remarkable increase of money at bank accounts - now they have a new vista - to die at the war and help the family.And when you become rich you fear everything could be taken from you if out of favor, that’s why all those fancy yachts 🛥️ were caught anchored abroad under mysterious ownerships and not, say in sochi or vladivostok
Come on, Ian, try making some sense and stop changing the subject. Define freedom? Why don't you define the freedom you have in New Zealand, while still defending Putin's regime? You're a hypocrite. People in Russia attended Navalny's funeral at their own risk because they supported his ideals. What were his ideals? Democracy and freedom. From a Washington Post article: "Mr. Navalny’s death is a reminder to the United States and its allies that, in Mr. Putin, they are up against a ruthless foe whose primary method is to use force. Mr. Navalny’s death is an enormous loss to his family and friends, and to the ideal of a free and democratic Russia. But such ideals cannot be slain. Mr. Navalny’s legacy will be a never-ending struggle to realize them." For once, Ian, be honest and don't deflect. Would you prefer to live comfortably in freedom where you are, or to give up your freedom and live in Russia, the country you endlessly defend?
A Tesla rolled into a pond carrying one very well connected woman.https://youtu.be/SwYsBonxuX8?si=OqGjg...
Scout wrote: "Come on, Ian, try making some sense and stop changing the subject. Define freedom? Why don't you define the freedom you have in New Zealand, while still defending Putin's regime? You're a hypocrite..."Deflection? You have deflected by focusing on me. Where I want to live is irrelevant.
The issue I have raised is simple: what do the Russian people want?You are focused on democracy and freedom, but who has what freedom? What happens with freedom? Yeltsin allowed that and what you got was wages not paid for six months, massive unemployment, the economy smashed so that GDP fell to about 50% of what it was before, oligarchs cleaning up and shipping their wealth out of the country to buy football clubs, a crime rate out of control, and foreign mini-oligarchs like Bill Browder making the odd billion from their heritage.
Just maybe the average Russian did not like that. My point is that while Putin is undoubtedly a cold-blooded dictator, that is far more desirable to them than the alternative they have experienced. Under Putin, provided you obey the rules you can thrive. Under the "free market" they get swamped out by the scum that always rises to the top.
Sure, the West wants Russia to adopt their "freedom" philosophy. That way they can make a huge amount of more money from the efforts of the average Russian. This bleating from the West is all about money. When they go in and find they can't make any more money they walk away. Look at the chaos of Libya, Iraq and Syria. If they really wanted freedom for the people, why not settle the war in Sudan. Oops, no money to be made.
As you wouldn’t want to choose between paycheck and freedom, as you’d want both, don’t assume others should settle for less. Yeltsin maybe wasn’t great, putler is much worse, but some russians still believe it’s not something they should put up with.
Ian, you are free to post on this site. See any Russians here? You have freedom you take for granted, while those in Russia don't have that. People in Ukraine are fighting to keep the freedoms you have, yet you support Putin. If you lived in Ukraine, what would you do? Surrender to your buddy Putin and give up your freedom? You don't think this is relevant to you as an individual; you treat it as some kind of intellectual exercise. For the people in Ukraine, it's no intellectual exercise: It's individuals who are willing to die for the freedom to make their own choices. If Putin knocked on New Zealand's door, would you fight for your freedom or give it up? Will you ignore this question, or deflect, or will you give an honest answer?
Would I fight? Probably not. I am 81 years old and am fighting cancer. I would be of little value to resistance.As for an intellectual exercise, yes it is. There is no point in fighting unless you have some chance of success. Otherwise, all that happens is a whole lot of your friends and relations die. By all means fight if you think there is a chance of winning, but as far as NZ is concerned, if we were successfully invaded by someone who controlled the sea, fighting would be somewhat futile because we could not get arms.
As far as Ukraine is concerned, the question is, given Kyiv spent about 8 years bombing and shooting at the rebels in the Donbas, that had they honoured the Minsk agreements they would have kept the Donbas (and no doubt Nik will protest that Putin did not honour the Minsk agreements, but Merkel has admitted France and Germany deliberately did not so as to build up Ukraine's army).
In my opinion, Ukraine would be better off to negotiate a peace agreement in which the Donbas left Kyiv's domain. Recall the Donbas was very much pro Yanukovich and don't tell me he left through a popular vote. He left because pro-western snipers shot people in Maidan and blamed Yanukovich. That is freedom and democracy you are so keen to support?
That's a gross misinterpretation of real events to show as if putler had any justification for invasion. He hadn't.Similarly, it's misinterpretation of Merkel's words too. In 2014 Ukraine neither had an army to speak of nor thought it needed one, so a ceasefire saved Ukraine from being wiped out, once russian army entered the battlefield, not to help Ukraine, as one would expect, of course, but to sever it.
Many people voted Yanukovich, who was snatched by russians and still is in russia, but never supported joining russia or ceding Ukraine.
We are talking of the same freedom and democracy that you enjoy and deny for Ukraine and claim russians don't need either.
Nik, as for Merkel, see https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/20221.... Now, if you can find the interview in "Die Zeit" then maybe you can show where this is wrong. Note that the Minsk agreement left the Donbas as Ukrainian territory, but the Russians there were to be given certain privileges.
As for my comment on Yanukovich and Maidan, explain why Kyiv has made essentially no effort whatsoever to identify the snipers and bring them to justice. There is really only one plausible explanation - they were part of the revolt. The fact they shot some of Yanukovich's official police is in accord with that.
Come on, man, from russian propaganda you now bring Chinese one? :) Same, same. I remember well Merkel's interview - it's a regular European approach - to put a patch rather than solve anything. They sure hoped russia won't return to its imperial ambitions and now confess how wrong they all were.Donbas was and is Ukrainian territory and the russia instigated riots would've been curtailed were not it not for russian army. Any reason not to curtail insurrection? What biz has russia got in Ukrainian affairs? None. I don't remember Ukraine or anyone helping Chechen rebels.
As of snipers, since the entire security and law enforcement bloc of yanukovitch defected to russia, making sure to destroy all the evidence before, it's kinda hard to establish who ordered what, but one day we'll know more and Ukrainian criminal investigations are still open..
Ian wrote: "There is no point in fighting unless you have some chance of success. Otherwise, all that happens is a whole lot of your friends and relations die...."There are plenty of reasons to fight, especially when it comes to home. As far as Donbas is concerned, I wonder if Australia, China, or even the U.S. took over a part of your country because one of the indigenous groups or those that had ancestors emigrate from there, would you be OK with it. I also noticed and maybe you did too, Those in Donbas that are ethnic Russian are fighting along side of ethnic Ukrainians and from what I understand, quite well.
As far as watching lots of friends and family die in battle, there are worse fates than those that do not fight and die. I was once asked if there things I thought that were worth dying for and my response was not many, but there are lots of things worth killing for. Friends and family are worth dying for. The longer this goes on, the worse it is for Russia.
As far as the mental exercise, i am good with it. I disagree with you being useless in a war. You have an interesting background and that could be put to use in building weapons out of interesting things. Nobody has to be in the trench to win a war. Just ask Oppenheimer.
Papaphilly wrote: "Ian wrote: "There is no point in fighting unless you have some chance of success. Otherwise, all that happens is a whole lot of your friends and relations die...."There are plenty of reasons to f..."
There are certainly SOME ethnic Russians fighting alongside Ukraine, in fact I gather the new army chief is of Russian origin. But I was under the impression that many in the Donbas are also fighting quite well for the Russians.
However, nobody seems to be responding to my argument that the Minsk agreement GAVE the Donbas to Ukraine, with conditions to protect the Russian citizens. The argument that Russia did not obey it is empty. Kyiv could have simply raised a fuss and asked publicly for Germany and France to send the peace-keeping troops they had promised to send, but refrained from even sending one. The point is that Kyiv had the chance to have the Donbas. The problem was, they were not prepared to give the Russians the benefit of the terms of the agreement.
I disagree that the longer this goes on the worse it is for Russia. The longer it goes on, most definitely it is worse for Ukraine. Think of the battle for Avdeevka - why did it take so long? Because Russia simply crawled around and used its artillery to pound the Ukrainians. Everyone in the West seems to believe the claims for massive losses by Russia, but there is no real evidence for it. The Russian tactics are those of an army attempting to minimie its losses. Sure they have them, but the way the war is being fought, the Ukrainians sho9uld be losing a lot more.
As for my fighting, Scout asked would I fight. The assumption was a supeerior army would quickly occupy NZ and the fight would hgqave to be guerilla. Our navy and air force would be totally inadequate to prevent a major power invasion. Such fighting would require one to be out living in the bush. At my age and physical condition the weather would give me pneumonia in hardly any time.
Nik wrote: "Come on, man, from russian propaganda you now bring Chinese one? :) Same, same. I remember well Merkel's interview - it's a regular European approach - to put a patch rather than solve anything. Th..."Those who defected to Russia could not have destroyed evidence of the snipers because they never had time to find out who they were. If snipers were Russian, Kyiv wouold have made a gret fuss abo9ut them, and would have accused them of being Russian if they did not know. The reason they have said nothing is they know.
I have no idea what you mean by Chinese propaganda. As cor Merkel's interview, if you know what was in it, feel free to share, especially if you have a link. However, "They sure hoped russia won't return to its imperial ambitions and now confess how wrong they all were." makes no sense because if Russia wanted Ukraine, that was the time to take it. The intervention would be simply to return the democratically elected government.
Of course, they knew who they were. How imagine the entire yanukovitch apparatus - police chief, internal security chief, army, augmented by the entire russian security bloc wouldn’t know what’s happening in the heart of Kyiv? They knew, they commanded them. I remember hearing they weren’t russian by Ukrainian on yanukovitch people’s orders in sync with russian instructions. Moreover, were it not russians mishandling Maidan with the only tool they know - brutal oppression, it would’ve died down. The link you posted looks like Chinese outlet.
You definitely miss putler’s growth from petty mafia kingpin to an “emperor”. 10 years ago he was timid - he could’ve captured Ukraine then, but he wasn’t ready to take the risk of international reaction. So timid, that troops had no insignia and he cared to deny presence of russian troops in Ukraine for over a year. 10 years later he came overconfident. I hope this would be the last adventure of the shitty “emperor”
"How imagine the entire yanukovitch apparatus - police chief, internal security chief, army, augmented by the entire russian security bloc wouldn’t know what’s happening in the heart of Kyiv?"If so, why did they shoot their own men? And why do the replacements not have any idea after ten years? They know but they don't want to admit it.
"Moreover, were it not russians mishandling Maidan with the only tool they know - brutal oppression, it would’ve died down."
Of course it would have died down. That was why the snipers were there - to ensure the revolution proceeded.
As for the link, I simply did a google search and picked the second relevant link - the top one looked more open to allegations of bias, but it said more or less the same thing. And in the odd event it was Chinese, so what? The question is, did Merkel say what it is alleged she said?
