Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Part Deux

[United Marxist Nations]

The Guardian propaganda, is it?

No. But you're trying to twist facts and present them to suit your agenda.

Pls, explain how this direct quote is twisting it (I may not be online when you do, as I am playing a game with friends, so my response will be slow).

[Costa Fierro]

No. But you're trying to twist facts and present them to suit your agenda.

Pls, explain how this direct quote is twisting it (I may not be online when you do, as I am playing a game with friends, so my response will be slow).

Because you're trying to claim that the Ukrainian government is making the actions of historical neo-Nazis groups as unquestionable, when the law states (as it does in your quote) that the groups that the law applies to include those that fought the Nazis.

Ergo, you're trying to push the narrative that the Ukrainian government is a bunch of Nazi sympathizers.

[Shofercia]

No, you said that LNG will be cheap. Thus far, you've failed to prove that. I cited a source that says that LNG will almost double the gas price. You failed to counter it.

Would the EU funded it if it would not be profitable?

Also you sources said it would not be cheap if it would be according to current capacity and it does not mentio the EU will build new LNG terminals.

Yes, the EU funds projects that are idiotic from an economic perspective. The EU is pushing for austerity and open borders, these aren't great economic minds we're dealing with here. And my source said that it'll almost double, irrespective of the new construction.

Right, because Orthodox countries, like Russia, cannot grow economically, oh, wait:

Russia can thank to the oil which started to increase in 1999. If Yeltsin had such fortune than he would be remembered as hero in Russia. Russia itself has no industry besides being depended on oil and this is a clear example of Russian economy suffering of Dutch disease.

If that were the case, then Russian GDP would've fallen massively by now. That hasn't happened. Why do you continue to argue against the facts with such ferocity, Dortmundia? The whole "hurr durr Rusha Gaz Dependant" myth of idiocy was debunked by the current situation, where the oil price fell dramatically and Russia's economy didn't.

The all countries you have mentioned are Orthodox which is clear evidence that Orthodox culture has a negative implication on economy. It is producing clientelism and corruption so Orthodox societies are having hard to develop.

Once the oil prices started to decrease so did the russian "economy" withit.

You said Eastern European countries, and in Eastern Europe, in quite a few places, Orthodoxy is prevalent, but you seem to be unable to grasp the difference between correlation and causation. If Orthodoxy was such a "vile economic virus" how come did Russia thrive economically, just as Orthodox Faith increased in Russia?

This is not fear mongerin. The russian society is illiberal and autocratic, so it cannot be trusted and the Russians are fanfatical enugh to die for the Vožd despite opressing them. Look a good exampl of stalins rule.

That's classic fearmongering, especially when your so factless and desperate that you have to bring up Stalin, only to fail to comprehend that we fought against Nazi Germany, which was trying to commit actual genocide against us, and Stalin was an ally. Against Nazis, we would've allied with anyone, even Churchill. Oh wait, we did.

I'm not contributing anything, but I wanted to know if you have any figures from within the last 2 years on Russia's Per capita growth?

Last 5 that Trading Economics has:

The banking hit did more damage than the sanctions and oil price hits combined. I hope you're ok with per capita, since that's what I prefer to use.

How does the fall of oil prises has to do with sanctions?

The "hurr durr Rusha iz Dependant on oil" propaganda is getting old.

Oh, alright. Here is what a quick google image search found
(which is coincidentally the same image the other poster was using)

(Image)

Whats with the down turn?
Surely cant be the ebil western nazi sanctions on Russia's god given right to expand its borders as it pleases?

The largest downturn started as a result of the housing bubble, which also caused the housing crisis in the US. That said, Russia's banking sector was also at fault for failure to properly diversify.

I just think it is funny that you accuse other people of trying to make others' positions look dumb when that seems to be a very large portion of your posts in the Ukraine threads, which is even worse, since, as far as I can tell, none of the regular Pro-Russian posters (i.e. me, Bratislava, Shof) seem to hold the views you love to "satirize" so much.

Congratulations, you just found out that i take none of you seriously, which should have been common knowledge.

Not that i take Marxism, Russia, Russophiles and most communists seriously anyway.

If that's not the case, why the fuck are you even responding to us?

I just think it is funny that you accuse other people of trying to make others' positions look dumb when that seems to be a very large portion of your posts in the Ukraine threads, which is even worse, since, as far as I can tell, none of the regular Pro-Russian posters (i.e. me, Bratislava, Shof) seem to hold the views you love to "satirize" so much.

Come on you gotta cut him some slack, some people get involved in these arguments because their homelands are at risk rather than rejoicing that Western Capitalism has a competitor.

Slack will be cut when they produce something other than "hurr durr said poster is such a fanboy, G8 D8 M8," and other nonsensical drivel.

The nominal has tanked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_projected_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita#IMF_estimates_between_2010_and_2019 It declined from over $12,000 to about $8,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia Russia now ranks 74th in nominal GDP per capita.

Oof. That's quite a big hit. I wonder how long it'll take to rebound from that?

Less than 2 years.

Pls, explain how this direct quote is twisting it (I may not be online when you do, as I am playing a game with friends, so my response will be slow).

Because you're trying to claim that the Ukrainian government is making the actions of historical neo-Nazis groups as unquestionable, when the law states (as it does in your quote) that the groups that the law applies to include those that fought the Nazis.

Ergo, you're trying to push the narrative that the Ukrainian government is a bunch of Nazi sympathizers.

The prime minister is. There's nothing for him to push.

That's why you don't call the entire Ukrainian government run by neo-Nazis, something Russia was fond of doing.

Yats sided with Right Sector. Isn't he like the PM or something?

http://news.yahoo.com/poroshenko-faces- ... 13671.html

The Ukrainian government's near silence on the crisis was broken Monday when Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk came out firmly on Pravy Sektor's side. Yatsenyuk has issued orders "to dismiss all Zakarpattia customs service employees," his office said in a statement.

Oh yeah. Yats doesn't just want to take on Putin, he wants a piece of Orban too. Him and his 2% approval rating. So Geilinor, when the prime minister, openly sides with Neo-Nazis, now can we call them Neo Nazis?

The politically more cautious Poroshenko appeared to prefer the middle ground by blaming both sides. The president opened Monday's security meeting by accusing "the Zakarpattia smugglers of throwing down a challenge to all of Ukraine." But he also blamed Pravy Sektor -- whom he called "true patriots" -- of allowing "banal criminal gangs" enter its ranks. A senior Ukrainian security service source said most in the government believed Pravy Sektor was far less innocent than it claimed. Pravy Sektor "itself is trying to win a piece of the contraband business," the security source said. "The problem for Ukraine is that there are a lot of armed people who view themselves as heroes and try to establish their brand of order through force," said the source. "Something like this was bound to happen -- and it did."

Ahhh yes, Zakarpatia. That's near Hungary. Can't wait to see how the Western Media will spin it to blame Putin. Here's what I think happened: while there was trouble in Kiev, (when isn't there,) the locals began running their own, efficient economy. The Right Sector went in and told them to start paying tribute. They told the Right Sector to fuck off, so being the Neo-Nazi bullies they are, Right Sector attacked and got its ass kicked, and thus ran to Kiev to threaten Poroshenko/Yats, that if more help doesn't arrive, they'll send battalions against Kiev, blah, blah, blah. Right Sector's bad ass at killing women and children, but when confronted even with local militias, they demand aid.

[Shofercia]

No, it's really not. Amazingly enough, my analogy is just limited to, *gasps*, my analogy. Although it's funny that you bring up Saakashvili, while talking about others being warmongers. That's really fucking hilarious. Saakashvili assaulted South Ossetia in 2004. Failing that, he started building up his armed forces, spending obscene amounts of money on them, only to waste them in an operation that he launched on August 7th, against South Ossetia. Even though Saakashvili engaged the Georgian armed forces on August 7th, and the Russians didn't respond until August 8th, the Western Press "heroically" claimed that Russians started the war, because they're either idiots who don't comprehend that 7 precedes 8, or were pretending to be idiots who cannot comprehend that 7 comes before 8, or perhaps there was some other reason, like Putin actually providing an alternative to the Western system of government, and they're being butthurt about it, more more on that later.

Saakashvili rightfully gets accused of corruption, because, *gasps* he was corrupt. http://www.tol.org/client/article/23965 ... tions.html

For some odd reason, the most "freest of the free" in the Western Press didn't really pick up on how Saakashvili grew the economy. Must be magic. Since most people don't want to pay to read that article, let me cite a summary:



Of course this "economic miracle" was spent on the military: http://militarybudget.org/georgia/

In 2003, Georgia's military budget was $96.3 million. In 2007, the year before Saakashvili's attack, it was $1,201 million. In 2003, that was 1.1% of the GDP. In 2007, it was 9.2% of the GDP. But you should continue to tell us all about how glorious Saakashvili is and how teh ubah ebul Putin is, after all, free speech is freedom to post no matter how uninformed you are.

I actually can't read that article as it requires a susbcription, but I can say it sounds like a small issue that got severely bloated, as quite a few Saakashvili detractor stories work. Even if it is true, he made the country livable, so unless you want to take back what you said earlier Saakashvili's corruption must be forgiven.

He was ousted by popular vote and months of protests. I said that corruption can be excused from a pragmatic perspective in certain cases. Broom rape in prison is probably not one of those cases. Nor is that a small issue, since by taking away the rights of private property from some individuals without proper compensation, well that tends to scare investors who are doing high quality investments, and they're going to run away from Georgia.

Speaking of Putin, do I give a shit that he murdered Litvenenko, a backstabbing traitor with Polonium? Not really. I should point out that after Litvenenko's death, there really wasn't much, (or any,) murder, although the "most fair and balanced, trusted, and oh progressive name in news" wants to pretend that Putin also wacked Berezovsky, which is funny, because Berezovsky became worthless after losing his trial to Abramovich. Oh, you mean civilians? MH-17 was an accident and murder requires intent. During the Ossetian War, one of the reasons for not taking Tbilisi was the possibility of massive civilian casualties, so no, that doesn't count. Ukraine? Not sure if casualties would've been higher if Putin didn't intervene, after all, Neo-Nazi thugs deliberately burned pro-Russian protesters in Odessa, so their rampage through the DonBass might've caused even more civilian casualties.

Nemtsov too don't forget him.
And I'm sure that the reason they didn't enter Tbilisi after burning down those villages along the way, was because they had a devotion to preserving human life.

But what if Putin never backed Yanukovych, might this whole calamity have been avoided?

And the motive to kill Nemtsov was? Oh right, there wasn't any. Nemtsov is rather easy to forget. And yes, some village were burned. That happens in warfare, tragically. It was the wrong thing to do. However, Saakashvili, who started the war, mercilessly shelled a largely defenseless city. (Tskhinval(i) didn't have defenses against Grads/Dana Howitzers.) Don't forget that. As for Putin backing Yanukovich, you seem to forget that Ukraine's economy was going to go downhill, unless either the EU or Russia aided. The Russian terms were better, so Yanukovich went with Russia and Putin backed that.

I don't have the slightest memory of saying this, but keep in mind that it's a question not a statement.

It was a question in defense of Gitmo, and whether you remember saying that or not, is irrelevant.

[Neoconstantius]

Meanwhile, in glorious democratic freedom-loving definitely-not-fascist Ukraine.

Ukraina, Ukraina über alles, amirite?

[Neoconstantius]

Pls, explain how this direct quote is twisting it (I may not be online when you do, as I am playing a game with friends, so my response will be slow).

Because you're trying to claim that the Ukrainian government is making the actions of historical neo-Nazis groups as unquestionable, when the law states (as it does in your quote) that the groups that the law applies to include those that fought the Nazis.

Ergo, you're trying to push the narrative that the Ukrainian government is a bunch of Nazi sympathizers.

So, regardless of whether these groups sympathized with Nazis or not, you think it's completely acceptable to make it illegal to question their actions? You don't think that absolutely reeks of fascist ethnonationalism, a declaration by the Ukrainian government that they did no wrong and can't be questioned?

Jeez.

[Estruia]

Meanwhile, in glorious democratic freedom-loving definitely-not-fascist Ukraine.

Ukraina, Ukraina über alles, amirite?

What does that make Russia, for blacklisting European Politicians who support Ukraine? Oh, that's right... The Glorious Motherland is infallible!

[Neoconstantius]

Meanwhile, in glorious democratic freedom-loving definitely-not-fascist Ukraine.

Ukraina, Ukraina über alles, amirite?

What does that make Russia, for blacklisting European Politicians who support Ukraine? Oh, that's right... The Glorious Motherland is infallible!

I mean, it's not like there's a huge difference between banning media for content and banning people from entering a country, right? /s

[Estruia]

What does that make Russia, for blacklisting European Politicians who support Ukraine? Oh, that's right... The Glorious Motherland is infallible!

I mean, it's not like there's a huge difference between banning media for content and banning people from entering a country, right? /s

When you're in the middle of a conflict, it isn't unheard of to NOT LET ENEMY SYMPATHIZERS INTO YOUR COUNTRY. However, go ahead and continue to play your silly Nationalist games. It's entertaining, at least.

[New Werpland]

What does that make Russia, for blacklisting European Politicians who support Ukraine? Oh, that's right... The Glorious Motherland is infallible!

I mean, it's not like there's a huge difference between banning media for content and banning people from entering a country, right? /s

The UK bans people from entering as well, Cameron is Fascist as well amiright?

Of course it doesn't make any sense, but who liked Kobzon anyway?

[Neoconstantius]

I mean, it's not like there's a huge difference between banning media for content and banning people from entering a country, right? /s

When you're in the middle of a conflict, it isn't unheard of to NOT LET ENEMY SYMPATHIZERS INTO YOUR COUNTRY. However, go ahead and continue to play your silly Nationalist games. It's entertaining, at least.

Well, you just made your point for me. It's not about LETTING ENEMY SYMPATHIZERS INTO YOUR COUNTRY, it's about BANNING MEDIA FOR ITS IDEOLOGICAL OR SOCIAL CONTENT ALONE. That doesn't concern you?

It's always entertaining to see how far people will back into the authoritarian corner to defend Ukraine simply to preserve the ebul Russia narrative.

[Geilinor]

When you're in the middle of a conflict, it isn't unheard of to NOT LET ENEMY SYMPATHIZERS INTO YOUR COUNTRY. However, go ahead and continue to play your silly Nationalist games. It's entertaining, at least.

Well, you just made your point for me. It's not about LETTING ENEMY SYMPATHIZERS INTO YOUR COUNTRY, it's about BANNING MEDIA FOR ITS IDEOLOGICAL OR SOCIAL CONTENT ALONE. That doesn't concern you?

It's always entertaining to see how far people will back into the authoritarian corner to defend Ukraine simply to preserve the ebul Russia narrative.

You're trying to use criticism of Ukraine to justify Russia.

[Neoconstantius]

Well, you just made your point for me. It's not about LETTING ENEMY SYMPATHIZERS INTO YOUR COUNTRY, it's about BANNING MEDIA FOR ITS IDEOLOGICAL OR SOCIAL CONTENT ALONE. That doesn't concern you?

It's always entertaining to see how far people will back into the authoritarian corner to defend Ukraine simply to preserve the ebul Russia narrative.

You're trying to use criticism of Ukraine to justify Russia.

Nah, I'm trying to show that blind, instinctive defense of Ukraine because it stands on "our side" of the spat with Russia is ludicrous.

[Shofercia]

I mean, it's not like there's a huge difference between banning media for content and banning people from entering a country, right? /s

The UK bans people from entering as well, Cameron is Fascist as well amiright?

Of course it doesn't make any sense, but who liked Kobzon anyway?

I do. He's an amazing musician! Not a fan of his politics though, but how do you not like his music? I guess everyone has different tastes and there are people who don't like Sinatra either.

Well, you just made your point for me. It's not about LETTING ENEMY SYMPATHIZERS INTO YOUR COUNTRY, it's about BANNING MEDIA FOR ITS IDEOLOGICAL OR SOCIAL CONTENT ALONE. That doesn't concern you?

It's always entertaining to see how far people will back into the authoritarian corner to defend Ukraine simply to preserve the ebul Russia narrative.

You're trying to use criticism of Ukraine to justify Russia.

No, he's saying that just because the economically numbfucked Poroshenko Administration opposes Putin, doesn't mean that people should defend them at the first opportunity.

[New Werpland]

I actually can't read that article as it requires a susbcription, but I can say it sounds like a small issue that got severely bloated, as quite a few Saakashvili detractor stories work. Even if it is true, he made the country livable, so unless you want to take back what you said earlier Saakashvili's corruption must be forgiven.

He was ousted by popular vote and months of protests. I said that corruption can be excused from a pragmatic perspective in certain cases. Broom rape in prison is probably not one of those cases. Nor is that a small issue, since by taking away the rights of private property from some individuals without proper compensation, well that tends to scare investors who are doing high quality investments, and they're going to run away from Georgia.

Saakashvili nearly eliminated corruption entirely from public services, he doesn't automatically become corrupt because some prisoners were getting sodomized by staff. I'll look into this thing you mention if you give me a way to read the article, but it appears to have had little effect on foreign investment.

Nemtsov too don't forget him.
And I'm sure that the reason they didn't enter Tbilisi after burning down those villages along the way, was because they had a devotion to preserving human life.

But what if Putin never backed Yanukovych, might this whole calamity have been avoided?

And the motive to kill Nemtsov was? Oh right, there wasn't any. Nemtsov is rather easy to forget. And yes, some village were burned. That happens in warfare, tragically. It was the wrong thing to do. However, Saakashvili, who started the war, mercilessly shelled a largely defenseless city. (Tskhinval(i) didn't have defenses against Grads/Dana Howitzers.) Don't forget that. As for Putin backing Yanukovich, you seem to forget that Ukraine's economy was going to go downhill, unless either the EU or Russia aided. The Russian terms were better, so Yanukovich went with Russia and Putin backed that.

If Putin didn't do it, then who did?

Ordinary people were warned and allowed to escape before Georgian Troops entered Tskhinvali, it wasn't mercilessly shelled.

[United Marxist Nations]

Pls, explain how this direct quote is twisting it (I may not be online when you do, as I am playing a game with friends, so my response will be slow).

Because you're trying to claim that the Ukrainian government is making the actions of historical neo-Nazis groups as unquestionable, when the law states (as it does in your quote) that the groups that the law applies to include those that fought the Nazis.

Ergo, you're trying to push the narrative that the Ukrainian government is a bunch of Nazi sympathizers.

I am claiming that the law includes Banderite groups in the unquestionable category by painting in such a broad stroke.

[Estruia]

When you're in the middle of a conflict, it isn't unheard of to NOT LET ENEMY SYMPATHIZERS INTO YOUR COUNTRY. However, go ahead and continue to play your silly Nationalist games. It's entertaining, at least.

Well, you just made your point for me. It's not about LETTING ENEMY SYMPATHIZERS INTO YOUR COUNTRY, it's about BANNING MEDIA FOR ITS IDEOLOGICAL OR SOCIAL CONTENT ALONE. That doesn't concern you?

It's always entertaining to see how far people will back into the authoritarian corner to defend Ukraine simply to preserve the ebul Russia narrative.

They're banning the Artist for his sympathies. Once again, it isn't uncommon to ban enemy sympathizers from your country during a conflict. Russia bans people and content all of the time, yet that doesn't seem to bother you. Whatever fits your Nationalist Narrative, I guess.

[Byzantium Imperial]

Well, you just made your point for me. It's not about LETTING ENEMY SYMPATHIZERS INTO YOUR COUNTRY, it's about BANNING MEDIA FOR ITS IDEOLOGICAL OR SOCIAL CONTENT ALONE. That doesn't concern you?

It's always entertaining to see how far people will back into the authoritarian corner to defend Ukraine simply to preserve the ebul Russia narrative.

They're banning the Artist for his sympathies. Once again, it isn't uncommon to ban enemy sympathizers from your country during a conflict. Russia bans people and content all of the time, yet that doesn't seem to bother you. Whatever fits your Nationalist Narrative, I guess.

It probably isn't a great sign for the state of your democracy when you have to point to Russia to justify your policies.

[Shofercia]

And the motive to kill Nemtsov was? Oh right, there wasn't any. Nemtsov is rather easy to forget. And yes, some village were burned. That happens in warfare, tragically. It was the wrong thing to do. However, Saakashvili, who started the war, mercilessly shelled a largely defenseless city. (Tskhinval(i) didn't have defenses against Grads/Dana Howitzers.) Don't forget that. As for Putin backing Yanukovich, you seem to forget that Ukraine's economy was going to go downhill, unless either the EU or Russia aided. The Russian terms were better, so Yanukovich went with Russia and Putin backed that.

If Putin didn't do it, then who did?

Ordinary people were warned and allowed to escape before Georgian Troops entered Tskhinvali, it wasn't mercilessly shelled.

Some to whom Nemtsov owned money to, someone who hated his guts, someone whom he fucked over in the past, I mean it's Nemtsov. He's been accumulating enemies ever since his move to Moscow. And ordinary people were given the warning on 6th of August; such warnings were extremely common in South Ossetia, to the point where few Ossetians took it seriously. And yes, it was mercilessly shelled once the shelling started. There's actually an account of the shelling, written in Russian: http://artofwar.ru/d/dzukaewa_n_w/text_0010.shtml

Ближе к вечеру стороны договорились о прекращении огня, вскоре последовало неожиданно миролюбивое выступление Михаила Саакашвили по грузинскому телевидению. Многие решили, что произошедшее было очередной грузинской провокацией, которая только что закончилась. В хорошее так легко верится... Ближе к полуночи, когда город отходил ко сну, раздался первый оглушительный взрыв. За ним последовал второй... После третьего сомнений не осталось - надо спускаться вниз.

"In the late afternoon, [on August 7th] both sides agreed to a ceasefire. After that, there was a television program by Saakashvili calling for peace. Most people decided that what happened was just a usual Georgian provocation that ended. It's easy to believe when you want to believe... After 10/11 PM, when the city was going to sleep, we heard rocket launchers. [Modified BM-21 Grads] Then a second... After the third one we had no doubts left, it was time to go underground."

Обстрел продолжался всю ночь, без пауз. Дважды слышался рев двигателей низко пролетавших самолетов, и сразу за ним резкий, оглушающий звук разрывающихся реактивных снарядов... В висках стучала единственная мысль: "Господи! Если ты все это видишь - спаси нас, Господи!!!".

"The shelling continued throughout the night, without a break. Twice I heard bombs falling from a plane. The only thing I thought was "God! If you see what's going on - save us, God!!!"

Я же во время обстрела "Градом", сидя на корточках и закрыв голову руками, громко выла, словно пытаясь заглушить царивший вокруг грохот.

"During the rocket launcher shelling I was squatting, I closed my head with my arms, and I howled loudly, as if I was trying to stop the shelling, or at least it's noise."

It's a riveting account. Would you like me to continue? Because that was just 2 hours of shelling. The siege lasted for 3 days.

[Estruia]

They're banning the Artist for his sympathies. Once again, it isn't uncommon to ban enemy sympathizers from your country during a conflict. Russia bans people and content all of the time, yet that doesn't seem to bother you. Whatever fits your Nationalist Narrative, I guess.

It probably isn't a great sign for the state of your democracy when you have to point to Russia to justify your policies.

I don't think anyone has accused Ukraine of actually being Democratic. I certainly haven't.

[Byzantium Imperial]

It probably isn't a great sign for the state of your democracy when you have to point to Russia to justify your policies.

I don't think anyone has accused Ukraine of actually being Democratic. I certainly haven't.

Fair enough

[Shofercia]

Just realized something: the voices pushing for arming Ukraine are those that pushed for the War in Iraq and the War in Syria. (All steps were resisted by Obama.) Does Senator McCain secretly worship Khorne?

This might sound a tad crazy, but is Russia being punished by the War Hawks for not torpedoing the Iran talks? It would certainly explain the split between John "oopps I'm biking" Kerry and Victoria "fuck the EU" Nuland. Obama admitted that it was surprising that Putin didn't want to engage US in a Cold War in the Middle East, but would escalation serve anyone, except for Khrone admirers Breedlove, Nuland and McCain?

The "Russia, Other Points of View" blog came out in favor of Obama, showing him as taking a centrist approach to Putin, rather than adhering to the War Lobby, and Obama ain't exactly popular on RuNet, so it's a bold stance to take.

http://www.russiaotherpointsofview.com/ ... lenge.html

[Neoconstantius]

Well, you just made your point for me. It's not about LETTING ENEMY SYMPATHIZERS INTO YOUR COUNTRY, it's about BANNING MEDIA FOR ITS IDEOLOGICAL OR SOCIAL CONTENT ALONE. That doesn't concern you?

It's always entertaining to see how far people will back into the authoritarian corner to defend Ukraine simply to preserve the ebul Russia narrative.

They're banning the Artist for his sympathies. Once again, it isn't uncommon to ban enemy sympathizers from your country during a conflict. Russia bans people and content all of the time, yet that doesn't seem to bother you. Whatever fits your Nationalist Narrative, I guess.

My nationalist narrative. That's rich.

[Shofercia]

They're banning the Artist for his sympathies. Once again, it isn't uncommon to ban enemy sympathizers from your country during a conflict. Russia bans people and content all of the time, yet that doesn't seem to bother you. Whatever fits your Nationalist Narrative, I guess.

My nationalist narrative. That's rich.

You're a Putin lovin-hatin, nationalist-internationalist. It's a new trend that your starting there, Neo

[Dortmundia]

Rushka will not be attacked millitarly. There is a lot of decent people that are waiting to start a democratic revolution, like the one in Georgia and Kyrgistan. The only issue is who will replace Putin. Whether that be Ksenia Sobchak or Navalny, there are to many candidates.