Kadyrov Warns Russia's Enemies: Do Not Make Hitler's Mistake

Good question ... The EU is funding Putins new cold war arms race by virtue of it's collective addiction to Russian oil, and natural gas. I'm also constantly reminded that Trump is Putins puppet.

 

I am neither American, nor anti-American.
I think.

 

If you're trying to discredit "pro-Russian" views, this is a bad way to do it.
Whether Jeannette is a clever Russian PhD student earning extra money in that troll farm in Leningrad, or a true-blue Amurcun, makes no difference at all. Her arguments have to be taken on their merit, and answered.

This technique -- "you're being paid to say these things so I don't have to answer or think about what you say " -- is mainly used against dissidents in authoritarian countries (like Russia). The quickest way to discredit someone who criticizes the Cuban regime, or the Iranian Mullahs, or Putin, is to accuse them of getting money from the West. And sometimes they do get money from the West, and so what? The world is one, and someone, or a group of people, in one country, can have sympathy for people struggle for an ideal in another country, and help them. American Communists were on a regular subsidy from the USSR, and people fighting for women's rights in Islamic countries are going to be supported by their feminist sisters in other countries.

Jeannette makes the best case possible for Mr Putin, far more persuasive than your typical Russian nationalist could make. She needs to be refuted, whoever pays her bills. Making a big (unprovable) deal about the latter implies inability to answer her arguments. It's a bad method and should be shunned.

 

Her posts have no merit and should attacked for what they are, pro-Putin Russian propaganda.

 

Well, then they should be very very easy to answer.

The reality is, when people believe something very strongly, but are unable to answer an opponent's argument, they resort to physical violence when they have the power to, or simple slander when they don't. Thus witness the behavior of the Left on undomfortable (for them) facts about Black crime or Muslim immigration. Raise these issues, in the mildest way you want, and you'll get a mountain of dead dogs heaped on you, and very little rational argument. (There are exceptions to the rule, but not many.) It's sad to see people on the Right behaving like this.

 

I think to treat her like a serious poster would be to lend her undeserved credibility.

 

Well, she's "credible" as an articulate and informed spokesperson [that word, ugh!] for Putin's Russia. Whether she is paid for it or not is besides the point. She puts the Putinite argument well ... and it needs to be responded to.

For example, there is now a deep divide on the Right about Russia, among people who can by no stretch of the imagination be called 'Russian stooges'. (This is also true on the Left, but since most of them find it a useful stick with which to beat President Trump, this debate is muffled. It's also muffled because even without Trump, the Left is divided among (1) the Clintonite Cold Warriors, (2) the hate-America Left, and -- probably the great majority -- (3) ordinary liberals who don't know much about the world and just wish everyone could get along. We must not expect any clarity from this quarter.)

Taking on people like Jeannette -- whoever pays her bills -- is one way to get some clarity on the issue among people -- mainly on the Right -- who want to think things out instead of just emoting and going with our reflexes.

There's another issue as well. I haven't followed her postings closely, but she seems to be completely uncritical of Putin's Russia ... thus your branding her a Leningrad-basement-troll. [Perhaps I'm wrong about her, and if so, will be corrected.]

Well, maybe ... but the Russians are pretty smart people, and I think they know that if your propaganda is going to be really effective, the last thing you want to appear as, is a paid synchophant. Thus if you follow the Russian TV outlet RT, you find things critical of Russia ... which makes the other things they say more believable. (The BBC worked this out long ago, which is why they're listened to around the world.) So if Jeannette really is just following orders, they're doing it wrong. They're still in the laughable Radio Moscow everything-is-wonderful-here-in-the-workers-paradise groove, rather than the modern 'pretend-to-be-independent' one.

 

If you were following her more closely you would see the occasional innocuous point that is mildly critical of some aspect of Russian life but carefully not so critical as to expose the utter rot that Russia is built upon.

Oh, I get your points about replying to her crud with actual content. I used to do this on other boards but found it a lot like casting pearls before swine. Since you couch your argument in terms of increasing clarity on the right I'll honestly look at the issue again.

 

Lol .... every US / Western BS Fake News Media tells more truth and facts as those of Jeannette's here...

 

Apart from the fact that Kadyrov is as much a shining example of democracy and the rule of law as Assad and Kim in North Korea ...
Yeah I know, of course, all and everything is only an evil western lie and fake news etc. ... Yawn, boring to read such BS reactions ...

I find it generally interesting in this thread is not blasted and spamed by the well-known American forum members with their usual BS reaction of such Pro Russian stuff with their "USA and their Super Dooper weapons are all unbeatable and certainly not beatable by the Russian scrap" so far!

Interesting and praiseworthy!

 

Perhaps the "mine is bigger than yours" crowd are in a state of depression after world soccer results?

 

True. US bombs were used to destroy Syrian infrastructure and kill civilians. That amounts to military aggression.

 

Assad had dropped 13,000 barrel bombs by 2014.

 

The only question worth discussing re. Syria is this one: if the opposition had won, would Syria have become some sort of stable democratic country -- not talking perfection here, just basically democratic, non-sectarian, no civil war -- or would it have become another Libya?

The jihadis of various flavors seem to have a large presence among the non-Kurdish opposition, and the latter does not seem to have been able to draw together as a unified body. Both of these factors point to the likelihood of a Libyan outcome. In which case, Assad may be the lesser evil.

But it's not clear. The far Left have been debating this intensely for years -- they're divided among those who support, with one degree of criticism or another, Dr Assad, and those who support the opposition (with some of the supporters of the opposition having the usual Leftist fantasy about proto-Soviets springing up. Those on the Left who have a long memory and are not utterly soaked in Hate-Amerika juice, will remember how wildly enthusiastic almost the entire far Left was when the Mullahs overthrew the Shah. Golly, the Russian Revolution run again! They couldn't understand that there is no equation, 'mass mobilization' = 'mass mobilization for progressive ends'. ... although the Nazis should have shown them the truth of this.)

What 'the West' or 'the Americans' want out of it all is a mystery to me. I haven't really understood the rationale behind US foreign policy since they helped tear apart Yugoslavia. Why? What did they have to gain? The same with Libya ... Gaddafi had been tamed, had given up on his nuclear weapons program, was happy to stop migration to Europe ... why did they overthrow him?

 

An ISIS victory in Syria is unthinkable. The Free Syrian Army doesn't seem to be strong enough and NOTHING changes if Assad stays in power.

I don't have much hope for either Libya or Syria.

 

'Hope' depends on your time frame.

In the short run, things can look pretty bad.

But in the longer run ... the human race is becoming wealthier, more educated, more enlightened. These things take many years to happen.

Most of the bad regimes in the world actually have a mass base among very conservative (culturally, not in the American political sense) people, mainly older rural people.

But just as Marx predicted, modern capitalism is forcibly dragging them forward: the children get basic education, their children get secondary education, some of their children go to college ...
the internet and television open the world to people, and it's hard for the dictators to keep it out.

But all of this is slow, undramatic, below the radar, not worthy of the attention of most journalists.

The thing is to avoid a big war: encourage trade, encourage economic growth, encourage education, encourage international contacts. Let the Old Mole of history grub away.

Stay armed to the teeth, but don't appear to be trying to be the midwife of history in premature birth situations.

 

So you and the western media say....

Personally, I'm most skeptical of nearly ANYTHING the western media says, because 95% of it is propaganda.

 

Not just the 'Western' media. As a good general rule, assume that governments and other powerful institutions, lie when they feel it is in their own interests to do so. Sometimes this lying is done in a more sophisticated way than at other times: the most sophisticated way to lie is to tell the truth, but only part of the truth.

The antidote to this is to read all sides, skeptically: read the 'Western' press, but listen to/watch RT and Al Jazeera also.

 

Okay, just finished the briefing in the war room at the Trump underground Maralago bunker, and good news: No plans for Russia other than encouraging the continued Russian help to secure the European western civilization from being completely overrun by Muslims.