3 ms·

> dependence on Putin's Russia First, it's Russia, not Putin's Russia. It's derogatory to frame discussion like that. Should we also start putting "Biden's USA

> dependence on Putin's Russia First, it's Russia, not Putin's Russia. It's derogatory to frame discussion like that. Should we also start putting "Biden's USA" and "Macron's France"? Just writing this way, and suddenly both USA and France appear like some fourth world banana republics. Second, both Russia and Soviet Union before were the most reliable energy partner. They didn't fail their obligations a single time. Reduction in Russian gas should be blamed on NATO sanctions that prevented a timely maintenance of North Stream 1 by confiscation of the gas turbine, and the refusal to start using North Stream 2 although it is ready to deliver gas tomorrow, if Germany decides so.

mcv 4y ago
Putin's power in Russia is a lot more absolute than Biden's in the US or Macron's in France. And especially with his war against Ukraine and general hatred of democracy, Putin is relevant. The EU would have had less problems buying gas from Yeltsin's Russia. In fact, that's how we got into this situation; Russia was supposed to be on the road to becoming a normal, open democracy. And then Putin changed course.
- tut-urut-utut 4y ago
  Demonizing an enemy by personalisation and reduction to one evil dictator is a known propaganda / manipulation technique. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonizing_the_enemy#Personification_and_demonization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonizing_the_enemy#Personifi... This has always been a standard operation model for the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operations_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operations_(Unit... So yes, Putin's Russia is used intentionally to introduce the same feeling as Hitler's Germany. That's the way how Biden's USA works, supported by Ursula von der Layens EU, Stoltenberg's NATO and their minions.
  - Workaccount2 4y ago
    But Putin does have dictator level control... It's Putin's Russia because Russia does what Putin wants. Biden wants a lot of things for America but both the legislature and the courts are stopping that. So in that sense it is America's America.
  - dTal 4y ago
    You might have a point if any of the other people you mention had maintained unchallenged political power for 2 decades by the expedient of murdering their political rivals.
    - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
      I am just pointing out that if you use these terms, it frames the whole country in a negative sense. Would Bush's USA, Clinton's USA, Nixon's USA, Obama's USA or POTUS X' USA work better? Because each one of the US presidents except Trump and Biden (give him some more time) is directly or indirectly responsible for more killing around the world than Putin would ever be. Hundreds of thousands (in case of some presidents even millions) people have been murdered on their direct command. Even if "Putin's Russia" is really responsible for everything that US / NATO propaganda accuses them, they still have a long way to go to reach this levels of atrocities and destruction.
      - mcv 4y ago
        It emphasises the negative effect Putin has on the country. And he does. He's plunging the country and the world into an unnecessary war just to feed his pride, and he does so in a clear break from his predecessor. Putin's Russia is significantly different from Yeltsin's Russia that it's worth pointing out the difference, especially since that difference is all him. And while you could certainly argue that for example Bush plunged his country into an unnecessary war to feed his pride, you're arguing that he's not that much of a break from his predecessors. And the American people as a whole definitely carry more of that responsibility. That's still a reason to call out Putin specifically, instead of the country as a whole.
  - mcv 4y ago
    It's done mostly out of compassion with the average Russians who have no say in the matter. I think it's important to remind people that it's specifically Putin who wants this war, and that most Russians don't. Just like we try not to blame the average German for Hitler's mad aggression. As many people have pointed out, comparisons to Hitler's conquests at the start of WW2 are not unjustified; Putin is using much of the same rhetoric that Hitler used. His state media is actively discussing the need for genocide. Those "same feelings as Hitler's Germany" are because the facts are far too similar.
    - google234123 4y ago
      > Putin who wants this war, and that most Russians don't. I don't think we have enough data to say this confidently. Putin enjoys a very broad base of support
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        People, including elites in Putin’s inner circle, perceived as insufficiently loyal to Putin have experienced a rash of widely reported “murder-suicides” of their entire families, and others who have avoided that fate have experienced, other very public, severe adverse consequences. This, along with Russia’s notoriously pervasive secret police and domestic surveillance may have something to do why even “anonymous” polling of Russia finds fairly small numbers of people willing to say they don't support the regime wholeheartedly, independent of actual sentiment.
      - mcv 4y ago
        Because he controls the media. There have also been very persistent protests against the war. Russians in a position to speak freely often criticise it. That's not true for the majority of Russians, however.
Veen 4y ago
throw_a_grenade 4y ago
> Second, both Russia and Soviet Union before were the most reliable energy partner. They didn't fail their obligations a single time. Sorry, this is bollocks. For more than 30 years Russia is using energy supplies as a weapon against pretty much all the eastern and central Europe.
- tut-urut-utut 4y ago
  Can you give one single example when it was Russia's guilt for not delivering gas? The only time when we had issue with gas it was some ten years ago when Ukraine stopped the transit hoping to blackmail both Russia and the EU to get a better deal for themselves. Ukraine was a failed state then that couldn't pay for gas they used.
  - throw_a_grenade 4y ago
    First well published incident was cutting off Estonia in 1993, right after it regained independence. Note Russia always does something to shift the blame, usually starts "dispute" over payments. It's done because media need to report ”balanced" view, so just by reading general news it's not apparent tha this is really blackmail. Stockholm tribunal regularly disproves Russian version, it just takes time, which is what Russia is after: you can't survive winter without heating, and the final verdict won't arrive in time. So until LNG terminals and pipelines to Norway sprang around the Baltic Sea, coupled with Third Package, Eastern Europeans mostly had to yield to this blackmail. > The only time when we had issue with gas ISTM you live west of Oder. No one in Eastern Europe would say this. > it was some ten years ago when Ukraine stopped the transit hoping to blackmail both Russia and the EU to get a better deal for themselves. Ukraine was a failed state then that couldn't pay for gas they used. This is false, Ukraine wasn't "failed state". What failed was an attempt to rig an election.
    - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
      It is a failed state. Or call it a puppet state. After the Maidan coup it became pretty fast s fascist autocracy. And it was corrupt since the gain of independence. How else would you call it? A pinnacle of democracy certainly not.

mcv 4y ago

Putin's power in Russia is a lot more absolute than Biden's in the US or Macron's in France. And especially with his war against Ukraine and general hatred of democracy, Putin is relevant. The EU would have had less problems buying gas from Yeltsin's Russia. In fact, that's how we got into this situation; Russia was supposed to be on the road to becoming a normal, open democracy. And then Putin changed course.

tut-urut-utut 4y ago
Demonizing an enemy by personalisation and reduction to one evil dictator is a known propaganda / manipulation technique. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonizing_the_enemy#Personification_and_demonization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonizing_the_enemy#Personifi... This has always been a standard operation model for the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operations_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operations_(Unit... So yes, Putin's Russia is used intentionally to introduce the same feeling as Hitler's Germany. That's the way how Biden's USA works, supported by Ursula von der Layens EU, Stoltenberg's NATO and their minions.
- Workaccount2 4y ago
  But Putin does have dictator level control... It's Putin's Russia because Russia does what Putin wants. Biden wants a lot of things for America but both the legislature and the courts are stopping that. So in that sense it is America's America.
- dTal 4y ago
  You might have a point if any of the other people you mention had maintained unchallenged political power for 2 decades by the expedient of murdering their political rivals.
  - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
    I am just pointing out that if you use these terms, it frames the whole country in a negative sense. Would Bush's USA, Clinton's USA, Nixon's USA, Obama's USA or POTUS X' USA work better? Because each one of the US presidents except Trump and Biden (give him some more time) is directly or indirectly responsible for more killing around the world than Putin would ever be. Hundreds of thousands (in case of some presidents even millions) people have been murdered on their direct command. Even if "Putin's Russia" is really responsible for everything that US / NATO propaganda accuses them, they still have a long way to go to reach this levels of atrocities and destruction.
    - mcv 4y ago
      It emphasises the negative effect Putin has on the country. And he does. He's plunging the country and the world into an unnecessary war just to feed his pride, and he does so in a clear break from his predecessor. Putin's Russia is significantly different from Yeltsin's Russia that it's worth pointing out the difference, especially since that difference is all him. And while you could certainly argue that for example Bush plunged his country into an unnecessary war to feed his pride, you're arguing that he's not that much of a break from his predecessors. And the American people as a whole definitely carry more of that responsibility. That's still a reason to call out Putin specifically, instead of the country as a whole.
- mcv 4y ago
  It's done mostly out of compassion with the average Russians who have no say in the matter. I think it's important to remind people that it's specifically Putin who wants this war, and that most Russians don't. Just like we try not to blame the average German for Hitler's mad aggression. As many people have pointed out, comparisons to Hitler's conquests at the start of WW2 are not unjustified; Putin is using much of the same rhetoric that Hitler used. His state media is actively discussing the need for genocide. Those "same feelings as Hitler's Germany" are because the facts are far too similar.
  - google234123 4y ago
    > Putin who wants this war, and that most Russians don't. I don't think we have enough data to say this confidently. Putin enjoys a very broad base of support
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      People, including elites in Putin’s inner circle, perceived as insufficiently loyal to Putin have experienced a rash of widely reported “murder-suicides” of their entire families, and others who have avoided that fate have experienced, other very public, severe adverse consequences. This, along with Russia’s notoriously pervasive secret police and domestic surveillance may have something to do why even “anonymous” polling of Russia finds fairly small numbers of people willing to say they don't support the regime wholeheartedly, independent of actual sentiment.
    - mcv 4y ago
      Because he controls the media. There have also been very persistent protests against the war. Russians in a position to speak freely often criticise it. That's not true for the majority of Russians, however.

Veen 4y ago

throw_a_grenade 4y ago

> Second, both Russia and Soviet Union before were the most reliable energy partner. They didn't fail their obligations a single time. Sorry, this is bollocks. For more than 30 years Russia is using energy supplies as a weapon against pretty much all the eastern and central Europe.

tut-urut-utut 4y ago
Can you give one single example when it was Russia's guilt for not delivering gas? The only time when we had issue with gas it was some ten years ago when Ukraine stopped the transit hoping to blackmail both Russia and the EU to get a better deal for themselves. Ukraine was a failed state then that couldn't pay for gas they used.
- throw_a_grenade 4y ago
  First well published incident was cutting off Estonia in 1993, right after it regained independence. Note Russia always does something to shift the blame, usually starts "dispute" over payments. It's done because media need to report ”balanced" view, so just by reading general news it's not apparent tha this is really blackmail. Stockholm tribunal regularly disproves Russian version, it just takes time, which is what Russia is after: you can't survive winter without heating, and the final verdict won't arrive in time. So until LNG terminals and pipelines to Norway sprang around the Baltic Sea, coupled with Third Package, Eastern Europeans mostly had to yield to this blackmail. > The only time when we had issue with gas ISTM you live west of Oder. No one in Eastern Europe would say this. > it was some ten years ago when Ukraine stopped the transit hoping to blackmail both Russia and the EU to get a better deal for themselves. Ukraine was a failed state then that couldn't pay for gas they used. This is false, Ukraine wasn't "failed state". What failed was an attempt to rig an election.
  - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
    It is a failed state. Or call it a puppet state. After the Maidan coup it became pretty fast s fascist autocracy. And it was corrupt since the gain of independence. How else would you call it? A pinnacle of democracy certainly not.