"mass immigration of the color people from the Third world "

This is the kind of sentiment the 'opposition' appeals to.

Mass immigration to Russia from Asia and Сaucasus is an acute problem in Russia. More than 50 % of citizens of Russia support the slogan "Russia for Russian". The people wouldn't want that replaced it with newcomers-immigrants. And Putin and Medvedev to Russian people doesn't have affairs. Immigrants can pay pennies, and Russian people want normal salaries, good social level in the country. Putin wants to extort only oil, giving incomes of it only олигархма.

I'm not supportive of Putin anymore than I was supportive of Yanukovich in Ukraine. However, I'm more opposed to the putschists who try to destabilize countries for the benefit of western capital, which is exactly what the Golos/Strategy 31/Democratic Alternative/ Party of People's Freedom crowd is doing. To Ziuganov's credit, he recognizes this, and has tried to thread the needle between opposing Putin's government and opposing the liberals efforts to orchestrate a coup with NED backing.

Washington and London want a weak, divided Russia and has been encircling and threatening the country ever since the fall of the USSR. Russia is the only real obstacle to complete NATO dominance of Eurasia.

The NATO not the enemy of Russia, as well as the USA

Navalny is a traitor, I don't see why nationalists think he's one of them when he's openly accepting money from the US government. Nor do I get how they think the oligarchs won't be overjoyed if Putin is out of power, since Berezovsky, Gusinsky and the lot of them will be able to operate with impunity like the Yeltsin days.

"The NATO not the enemy of Russia, as well as the USA "

Then why do they want the missile shield in Poland & Czech? Why so eager to take Georgia's side over S. Ossetia & Abhkazia? Why do they support "Color Revolutions" all around Russia's borders in Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, etc and want them to all join NATO? Why are they funding all of these opposition groups?

"The NATO not the enemy of Russia, as well as the USA"

What he means is he's too stupid to see that NATO is an enemy of Russia, as well as the USA.

I don't know if NAT is as much an enemy as a bureaucratic hindrance and waste of money. It and the UN both.

Because it's better than *Putin*. See what I did there?

@ Putin33: "I'm not supportive of Putin"

Then why is he your username?

i see the starter of this treat is banned because of being a 'duplicat'. What does that means?

Wow. I thought those active on the forum would be less likely to be cheaters, because they seem more connected to the community. I use it as a selection criterium when I invite players to my games. I really hope Victorious' question is answered.

The OP wasn't exactly active on the forum. He has 5 posts and made his profile two weeks ago...

Good point. But still..

I was wondering the same thing. My guess is that it means tha a player has created two accounts, but not for the purpose of playing both accounts in the same game (aka a multi). Maybe to get around not having enough points to join a game (for example).

"Then why is he your username?"

I admire him as a person, not his politics. He is the Roosevelt to my Stalin.

Yeah, a guy who eliminates elections for governors, shows contempt for the rule of law, pulls this whole shady switcheroo with Medvedev (conveniently extending presidential terms from 4 to 6 years in the interim), steals land from Georgia, presides over a cartoonishly corrupt political system, rigs elections, has journalists who are critical of the state jailed or murdered, and until the last month or so has successfully smothered the development of any meaningful opposition parties (including communists who won't play ball with him) is such a worthy object of admiration.

You do admire his politics. If you just admired him as a person all you would do is say how awesome his tiger and whale hunting and judo skills were. He's a cool guy, but in a Bond villain kind of way.

"Steals land from Georgia". Evidently your bleeding heart for human rights doesn't extend to the Ossetian civilians who were flattened by Saakashvili. Nor evidently does it matter that the latter armed his country to the teeth and murdered peacekeepers in cold blood before the Russian intervention. Nor does it matter that Saakashvili's elections don't even have the veneer of legitimacy to them. All you have to do is be a puppet of NATO and you're absolved of all sins.

Yes I defend Putin from the lies and attacks from westerners who care little about human rights except to use it as a convenient excuse any time they want to remove a government that doesn't do its bidding. Westerners who never met a coup or a putsch that they didn't approve of. In short people like you. That doesn't mean I approve of Putin's tax and social policy, nor do I pretend Putin is good for the Russian working class on the whole.

I know Invictus can't get his head around the concept of international solidarity, his idea of solidarity is carpet bombing millions into submission and then waxing poetic about "human rights" without batting an eye. No, no, to Invictus it is all or nothing. I cannot defend countries rights to independence and sovereignty without marching lockstep with their every political act.

Where did I say anything about human rights?

"defend countries rights to independence and sovereignty without marching lockstep with their every political act."

Ever think that's what I'm doing with Georgia? Saakashvili is a shady character. If John McCain loves him you know the guy knows how to tell people exactly what they want to hear. The fact is, however, that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are a part of Georgia and what Russia did was wrong. It's been a part of international law since at least the 1930s that territory can only change hands through a treaty. By invading Georgia and recognizing these nano-states as independent Russia acted in a roguish fashion. The thing to do was set up a peace conference after the fighting ended. Georgia has offered sweeping autonomy for these regions, and the Adjara precedent shows how it can work remarkably successfully. But Russia wanted to amputate these regions off of Georgia (which is by no means sinless in this conflict) to increase its strategic position in the Caucuses.

Your die-hard support of Putin's Russia reveals something about you, Putin33. You're not really a communist, at least not in the sincere way a Jamietuk is. You're just pro-anti-American. In any form. Why else should you have the slavish devotion to a man who has just kept the resurgent communist party in Russia out of the government? Why else defend the wicked regime in North Korea, which, in addition to its outlandishly oppressive rule, has just installed its third HEREDITARY leader? You just support anything which is ~America.

You're obviously not an idiot. It's a shame you're wasting yourself by holding such pigheaded ideas.

I've grown tired of you telling me what I believe and lecturing me about what a real communist is, when you'd rather see leftists with a bullet in the head and at the bottom of a lake.

If I was just anti-American, why would I support Israel's right to defend itself? Why would I support the destruction of Al Qaeda and criticize US foreign policy for appeasing Al Qaeda? Why do I defend America from the anti-Americanism in this forum? You don't have anything productive to contribute, as usual, and you're just going to heap abuse on me. You're compensating for your own knee-jerk pro-American foreign policy line by claiming all I do is hate on America.

NATO had no problem amputating Kosovo from Serbia and recognizing Kosovo "independence" without any consent from the government there. Kosovo has been an integral part of Serbia for a hell of a lot longer than the 1930s, being the home of thousands of ancient Serbian churches and the center of Serbian statehood for centuries. But naturally NATO hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Autonomy? Don't be ridiculous. The Ajara principle? Saakashvili annulled Ajara's autonomy, abolished the post of chief executive in Ajara, and centralized authority over the region by giving Saakashvili veto power over local appointments - something you decry only when Russia does it.

Georgia's first acts when becoming independent was to annual any and all autonomy these territories had prior to 1990. Georgia bragged about its control of the Ossetian capital, which it hadn't controlled for two decades. How would that be possible if they were supposedly acting in response to Russia - who had a small contigent of 1500 peace keepers? How were they acting to 'preserve Georgia' autonomy by amassing huge military forces and tanks in S. Ossetia after supposedly declaring a ceasefire? And you expect us to believe this Saakashvili bullshit in which he says he "loves Ossetians"?

The problem for you is your lies have been exposed by NATO countries themselves. Georgia had been amassing weapons from their western paymasters for years and preparing to "take back" these territories.

http://www.ceiig.ch/Report.html

But like I said, any act of aggression by western puppets is absolved, and Russia will be blamed even if NATO countries themselves acknowledge that Georgia engaged in a blatant act of aggression.

"Why do I defend America from the anti-Americanism in this forum?"

I just wanted to isolate that so the sheer absurdity of it sinks in.

Yes, instead of adressing Putin's checkmate post, you decide to simply take a leaf out of Tettleton's book and attack a single sentence that you think might not be true because you don't want to believe it. Good work.

Oh, and in order to make this a checkmate, it isn't absurd, I've seen Putin defending many forum attacks on USA's population and country as a whole. Please remember to know what you're talking about. (And if you say he's anti-American because he is a communist, you're a fuckwit and I give up)

Some thoughts.

Firstly, it is entirely possible that both of the following statements are true:

NATO is threatened by Russian expansionism, and thus seeks to expand it's political and economic influence in eastern Europe through the empowerment of disagreeable proxies such as Saakashvili, Komorowski, etc.

Russia is threatened by NATO expansionism, and thus seeks to expand it's economic and political influence in eastern Europe through the use of disagreeable proxies such as Yanukovich, Lukashenko, etc.


Secondly, it is entirely possible to believe that Russia is simultaneously threatened by inappropriate NATO actions (as I do) while still an opponent of Putin's government and his flagrant destruction of human rights (which I am).


Thirdly, while I agree that the Georgian government had every intention of undermining any limited autonomy it had been persuaded to give to Abkhazia and and South Ossetia, it is also foolish to suggest that Russian intervention had anything to do with it's desire to maintain sovereignty of minority groups, much less Ossetians. Russia's aim, as was Georgia's, was to expand it's territorial influence at the expense of a smaller group of people.

The necessity of invading Georgia proper, which would be absolutely unnecessary if Russia's aim was merely one of humanitarian intervention in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, becomes incredibly clear if the aim was instead the maintainence of Russia's border security and an attempt to undermine Georgian sovereignty overall.

After all, let's face it; Neither the Russian government nor the Russian people have forgotten the heydays of the Soviet Union, and still chafe at the independence of the Caucasus, whether American-backed regimes or not.


Finally, whether one is a social democrat, a liberal, a communist, or even an anarchist, I hope we can all come together in a agreement that for anyone but a Russian nationalist who has no economic concerns, Putin is a poor leader, a poor populist, and his replacement by any of the main opposition leaders would benefit Russia's people and enhance their well-being.

That being said, Putin is an absolute BOSS. (The person, not the internet handle). :D

"The necessity of invading Georgia proper, which would be absolutely unnecessary if Russia's aim was merely one of humanitarian intervention in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, becomes incredibly clear if the aim was instead the maintainence of Russia's border security and an attempt to undermine Georgian sovereignty overall."

And how did you expect the Georgia military to leave South Ossetia? By asking nicely? Look at the youtube videos. They were firing indiscriminately at anything that moved. This is akin to you people saying that Iraq would have left Kuwait without any kind of military prodding. Of course you wouldn't make that argument in that case, but Ossetia is different because Russia is not America.

"Finally, whether one is a social democrat, a liberal, a communist, or even an anarchist, I hope we can all come together in a agreement that for anyone but a Russian nationalist who has no economic concerns, Putin is a poor leader, a poor populist, and his replacement by any of the main opposition leaders would benefit Russia's people and enhance their well-being. "

No, I don't agree with that Yeltsin's CIA funded cronies would be better than Putin, ever. But continue on your merry way supporting insurrections and coups while pretending like you're doing so out of the Russian people's best interest.

Also, to call Russian concern about its own neighbors equivalent to NATO expansionism is really rich, considering America's long tradition of the Monroe Doctrine. Why is it that only western countries have the right to be concerned about hostile regimes located on their border?

I don't understand you Putin... you possess laudable criticism for western actions, yet fail to put the same lense on non-western actors. My only critique of you is inconsistency. :/

Firstly:

"And how did you expect the Georgia military to leave South Ossetia? By asking nicely? Look at the youtube videos. They were firing indiscriminately at anything that moved. This is akin to you people saying that Iraq would have left Kuwait without any kind of military prodding. Of course you wouldn't make that argument in that case, but Ossetia is different because Russia is not America"

This, I am afraid, is a poor example. Note that I said 'Georgia proper'. By this I meant territory that is unformly respected as Georgian (except perhaps by Russia), outside of the territories of South Ossetia.
In the case of Kuwait, the United States did not invade Iraq proper, as the goal was not to destabilize or change the regime.
In the case of the recent war, Russian tanks were on the outskirts of the capital, Georgian shipping was shut down, and the entire country was rightly concerned that it's sovereignty was up. Russia's aim here was clearly more than humanitarian; the lesson was that Russia is going to exert power beyond its borders, and NATO is too overextended to commit to the region.

"No, I don't agree with that Yeltsin's CIA funded cronies would be better than Putin, ever. But continue on your merry way supporting insurrections and coups while pretending like you're doing so out of the Russian people's best interest."

Yes, clearly Udaltsov and Zyuganov are paid by the CIA to destabilize Russia... wait what!? That is clearly crazy. Even if it was true that the opposition (which happens to consist of many leftists, by the way) were just CIA puppets, how do you account for the surging of popular support, their insitutional origins as opponents of Yeltsin, etc. etc.

Sigh...

Why don't those damn protesters know what's good for them, eh? Good old Putin oilgarchy leading the light of the freeish world.

Finally,

"Also, to call Russian concern about its own neighbors equivalent to NATO expansionism is really rich, considering America's long tradition of the Monroe Doctrine. Why is it that only western countries have the right to be concerned about hostile regimes located on their border? "

Why do only communist proxies have the right to maintain soverignty and have that respected?

Or do you not regard Estonians, Poles, Ukrainians, Georgians, etc. worthy or being independent in their own right because of their proximity to Russia? Because the Russian government seems to think they do not.

It is important to remember that NATO expansionism, while perhaps regrettable, has not itself been responsible for regime change. Rather, in most cases, nationalist sentiment (read, anti-Russia sentiment) supports some form of NATO protection.

Simultaneously:

It is also facile to suggest that Russia is in any way superior in its treatment of self-determination within its own borders, particularly in the post-Soviet years. The Georgian lack of respect for minorities in its midst is but a smaller reflection of Russia's lack of respect for it's much more sizable minorities. Ask any inhabitant of Grozny. (If any still remain alive).

Or are you seriously so blind to think that Russian insurgent minorities and dissidents are CIA agents and evil hacks while insurgent minorities and dissident communists of Capitalist countries are virtuousos?

I doth protest the double standard!

"Yet fail to put the same lense on non-western actors. "
My only critique of you is inconsistency. :/"

Hardly, you clearly take the NATO line and ignore what I have already provided by the close connection between large chunks of the Russian opposition and the NED. If you'd bother to read you'd realize I excluded the KPRF from these connections, although they themselves have proposed a broad united front alliance with groups like the "People's Party for Freedom", etc. [I do enjoy how people gloss over the problems with the KPRF because the better story is to paint Putin as a mobster/dictator].

You in engage in false equivalency narratives in order to place yourself above any kind of moral culpability for your position. You act as though countries who have had their economy devastated by counterrevolution and privatization, and are trying to put themselves back on their feet before the West slices it up, such as Russia, are a bigger violator of international norms and pose a greater threat to the territorial integrity of neighboring states than the NATO imperialists. You pretend as though an asymmetrical condition of power is symmetrical. Which is rather typical of the petty bourgeois liberal mentality. As always, those who resist bullying are equated with the bullies. Saboteurs, wreckers, and splitters are lauded as heroes while those who dare try to maintain their independence are condemned as bandits, terrorists, despots, or worse.

"Note that I said 'Georgia proper'. By this I meant territory that is unformly respected as Georgian (except perhaps by Russia), outside of the territories of South Ossetia.
In the case of Kuwait, the United States did not invade Iraq proper, as the goal was not to destabilize or change the regime."

Your history is a bit fuzzy. The US certainly did invade Iraqi territory in 1991, marching within 150 miles of Baghdad and slaughtering surrendering Iraqi forces along the way.
The Russians set up buffer zones to prevent Georgia from lining up their military hardware along the S. Ossetia border. They wanted to prevent this from happening again.

"Russia's aim here was clearly more than humanitarian; the lesson was that Russia is going to exert power beyond its borders, and NATO is too overextended to commit to the region."

Says you. Russia withdrew from the buffer zones after the war was over. Georgia's rapid militarization had to be stopped else Saakashvili would just do it again. The boundary of S. Ossetia is not far from Tblisi at all. And as we saw, as soon as Russian troops vacated these buffer zones, Georgia began attacking and arresting Ossetians again.

"Why don't those damn protesters know what's good for them, eh? Good old Putin oilgarchy leading the light of the freeish world."

Right, how much documentation do you need to demonstrate that this is the same methodology which was used in all the Color Revolutions, and the same methodology which was used in the Arab "uprisings", and that that financial connections and ties to the US government are as transparent as they are omnipresent?

Even if it was true that the opposition (which happens to consist of many leftists, by the way) were just CIA puppets, how do you account for the surging of popular support, their insitutional origins as opponents of Yeltsin, etc. etc."

It's clear you deliberately ignored my multiple posts on this subject. Navalny/Nemtsov/Ryzhkov are NED funded Yeltsin cronies. Nemtsov was the hard-core liberal/friend of Thatcher who ran Nizhny Novgorod into the ground. He was part of Yeltsin's economic team that led to the financial fiasco of 1998. Vladimir Ryzhkov has an address in Washington, DC and is actually a member of the CIA owned and operated National Endowment for Democracy.
http://www.wmd.org/about/steering-committee/vladimir-ryzhkov
http://www.wmd.org/about/history

All these puppets come out of the window to cry rigged elections and suddenly are popular thanks to a massive injection of foreign money and training, a la "Arab Spring". The pattern repeats itself over and over again. Every/any election in which the opposition doesn't automatically win is deemed "rigged", even if the election results are embarassing for the ruling party. The rioters refuse to accept any outcome other than their forceful takeover of the government, to the thunderous applause of NATO and western liberals like you. And then you'll hail these new "democrats" as heroes until we realize, four years hence, that this was all a sham and that the new democrats were more authoritarian than the government they ousted, like we did with the fraudulent Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution. Like we we have with the Al Qaeda mercenaries who took over Libya. Like we have with the Iranian puppets who took over Tunisia.

"Or do you not regard Estonians, Poles, Ukrainians, Georgians, etc. worthy or being independent in their own right because of their proximity to Russia? Because the Russian government seems to think they do not. "

Russia hasn't touched any of these countries, so I don't know what you're talking about. Since independence the Baltic countries have done nothing but terrorize their Russian minority and deprive them of any sense of rights, and Russia hasn't said boo about it. Eastern Europe has joined NATO with gusto, and Russia did nothing about it. You seem to think eastern European "sovereignty" means the right to slaughter Russian citizens with impunity, or steal gas (as Ukraine admitted to doing). No sovereign country would put up with that. But Russia has to live with different rules than the West.

"It is important to remember that NATO expansionism, while perhaps regrettable, has not itself been responsible for regime change."

Keep believing that delusion. It's a two-step process. Actively move to overthrow the independent government that isn't sufficiently pro-western and then handsomely reward the new puppet for their loyalty by offering them NATO membership. The only reason Ukraine & Georgia weren't admitted into the imperialist alliance was because a couple of larger European states don't actually want to destroy Russia - namely Germany & Italy. Nonetheless western oriented regimes along the border are useful.

And by "nationalist" you're being kind. The Orange Revolution was comprised of out and out fascists (such as the OUN), who provided security detail at Ukrainian polling stations. Ah, gotta love those anti-Russian "democrats".

"It is also facile to suggest that Russia is in any way superior in its treatment of self-determination within its own borders, particularly in the post-Soviet years."

Are you expressing sympathy for the Chechen imperialists who invaded Dagestan? Should Russia have respected that "self-determination"?

Few countries have such a preponderance of ethnic minorities all along their border regions, and few countries bestow the kind of economic and political autonomy and linguistic rights that Russia has bestowed to their minority regions. The first thing countries like Georgia and Latvia did when becoming independent was *annul* ethnic minority autonomy. The first thing Yeltsin did was sign special treaties granting them more and more rights.

"I doth protest the double standard!"

You think it's unthinkable that Russia would engage in a humanitarian intervention, when that's the excuse for every single western intervention since 1990. But it's not unthinkable that the CIA and British intelligence would support separatists in resource rich regions of Russia along the Caspian basin in order to split the country up so as to better exploit it? Just like it's mindboggling that the CIA might fund and train the Afghan mujahadeen via the ISI? Ever heard of Amir Muawia? This was a camp set up by the CIA in Afghanistan. It was used to train at least several of the Chechen leaders who you supposedly believe are repressed.

Chechen authorities have said that the CIA is actively helping the Chechen rebels.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/24/us-russia-chechnya-cia-idUSTRE58N5S120090924

But pay no attention to any of this.

window = woodwork