Russia v Ukraine

[Jordy Brouwer]

2 hours ago, SasaS said:

It's a big tactical defeat and it shows current balance of power. It's also very bad for morale since pessimism is currently prevalent. Strategically it should not be disastrous, since Avdivka was turned into a salient important for offensive towards Donetsk, for which Ukraine does not have the strength at the moment.  Also, it will depend on how orderly they withdrew and what happens next, have they prepared good defensive positions behind it or not. Some news from Avdivka about poor fortifications behind the first line do not bode well though. In the past, such defeats triggered more pull back until the lines are stabilized.

 

Good analysis that. 

[Jordy Brouwer]

2 hours ago, SasaS said:

They are saying Russia still does not have the capacity for big strategically important advances and they did use their best units for Avdivka, it took them four months and this is their first big success since Bakhmut last May. On the other hand, people tend to constantly underestimate them, they are learning and adapting and so far had enough money to finance their delusional imperial fantasies.

 

Ukraine on the other hand is extremely vulnerable to Western political idiocy because it was ill prepared for this war and everything they do outside of private initiatives and improvisation takes forever and tends to run into the same problems that hindered their overall progress unrelated to this war. Plus, they are fighting Russia.

 

To be fair that is because there was pretty much silence on the fall of Marinka a while back. 

[Red Phoenix]

1 hour ago, TheHowieLama said:

This is some desperate stuff here. Nice,

 

I know what I've seen about his past and I'm sure it's not hard to find. I really did feel weird going on about him though the same day he'd been killed.

 

Now I can't be bothered with arguing in this thread as usual but it's really not hard to find out about his past, The Guardian even had him saying he'd not really changed his views on one subject either. I'm still kind of avoiding it because there's probably some double standards in here seeing as he was against Putin too. I'm sure anyone really interested though won't find it too hard to see what I'm talking about and could even find more if they spend more time looking/find better articles.

 

Our leaders are frauds though and they only backed him in the hope he'd cause division in Russia by the looks of it. Why else do they support foreign opposition? For democracy and freedom? If they really cared Assange wouldn't be where he is and they'd have tried to save Gonzalo Lira before he ended up dead/got killed too.

[Red Phoenix]

Forget it, this will obviously drag out if I don't post anything this point. Here's a couple of links, his youtube channel is linked in the 2nd too where you can see a video of what's being described.

 

https://archive.ph/GB18C

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/03/02/nava-j01.html

[Fugitive]

He’s almost certainly been accidentally cremated.

[TheHowieLama]

Well RP, you've proven you definitely did not want to come on here and post immediately after Navalny's death, that's for sure.

[Section_31]

Carlson has been to the blag McDonalds in Moss-cow and discovered that they do indeed have burgers in stock. This changes everything.

[SasaS]

7 hours ago, Jordy Brouwer said:

 

To be fair that is because there was pretty much silence on the fall of Marinka a while back. 

 

True, but they had a third of Marinka from day one I think, and Russians have announced that they captured it several times. And is much smaller than Bakhmut and Avdivka, mostly raised to the ground completely.

[littletedwest]

can't criticise his taste in tv

[Red Phoenix]

7 hours ago, TheHowieLama said:

Well RP, you've proven you definitely did not want to come on here and post immediately after Navalny's death, that's for sure.

 

I really didn't, seeing him being almost collectively worshipped though by western media/govs wound me up when I saw the stuff from his past and how that was conveniently left out.

 

Biden as well had said in 2021 that there'd be "devastating consequences" if anything happened to Navalny. Maybe Putin can start backing Galloway and threaten the same over here if anything happens to him? I'm sure that'd go down well.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Galloway should be given a polonium enema for wearing a fedora indoors, the fucking weirdo.

[ZonkoVille77]

37 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

I really didn't, seeing him being almost collectively worshipped though by western media/govs wound me up when I saw the stuff from his past and how that was conveniently left out.

 

He was a bit of a racist and Islamaphobe. So what? Sure there's many of those types about the place. Some are members of this forum. 

[Red Phoenix]

23 minutes ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

He was a bit of a racist and Islamaphobe. So what? Sure there's many of those types about the place. Some are members of this forum. 

 

It's the bit where he was backed by most Western govs and media as a potential future leader that bothered me. At least that's not happening with forum members!

[Ne Moe Imya]

I take it you favour a different Russian opposition member, RP? One that has acceptable views on every issue, yet is simultaneously popular within the country of Russia itself?

 

I don't think anyone has said that he was perfect in every way or never made a mistake. But in the ways that really mattered, he was one of the very few people willing to stand up to the corrupt regime, call it what it is, and then have the balls to back it up with his life. 

 

On the whole, he was an incredible person and anyone familiar with him can't help but admire his courage.

[Red Phoenix]

8 hours ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

I don't think anyone has said that he was perfect in every way or never made a mistake.

 

I'm sure I've read that about Biden over the years and looked how that turned out for the people of Gaza. If someone had serious issues on what would be one of the most central issues for any leader, pointing out that nobody said he/she was perfect seems like it's avoiding the problem a bit. Like with Biden I don't doubt that nobody has said he was perfect. If Navalny was a genuinely good person with good intentions for the people of Russia though I find it really hard to believe the US gov would have had anything to do with backing him like they did.

 

Not surprised if this is accurate either :

 

Quote

Basically, his politics adapt to whatever seems opportune, but that also doesn’t seem to help his cause. He is not Nazi enough for the ultra-right, too right-wing for leftists, spooks some liberals with his pro-gun stance and uncertain position on Crimea, which are both serious issues for them. He seems to only find full support in those who want to switch from Putin’s government by any means necessary and don’t really care about views or policies.

 

Who is Alexei Navalny? Behind the myth of the West’s favorite Russian opposition figure

 

I'm not denying that he had courage to do what he did though and again I'm not happy that he's been killed if that's what happened. I don't support governments ending people's lives no matter who they are or what they've done.

[TheSire]

9 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

I really didn't, seeing him being almost collectively worshipped though by western media/govs wound me up when I saw the stuff from his past and how that was conveniently left out.

 

Biden as well had said in 2021 that there'd be "devastating consequences" if anything happened to Navalny. Maybe Putin can start backing Galloway and threaten the same over here if anything happens to him? I'm sure that'd go down well.

Always a conspiracy or 'West are bad' angle.

[bossy]

30 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

I'm sure I've read that about Biden over the years and looked how that turned out for the people of Gaza. If someone had serious issues on what would be one of the most central issues for any leader, pointing out that nobody said he/she was perfect seems like it's avoiding the problem a bit. Like with Biden I don't doubt that nobody has said he was perfect. If Navalny was a genuinely good person with good intentions for the people of Russia though I find it really hard to believe the US gov would have had anything to do with backing him like they did.

 

Not surprised if this is accurate either :

 

 

Who is Alexei Navalny? Behind the myth of the West’s favorite Russian opposition figure

 

I'm not denying that he had courage to do what he did though and again I'm not happy that he's been killed if that's what happened. I don't support governments ending people's lives no matter who they are or what they've done.

But instead of whole heartedly condemning Putin as a fascist scumbag, you go looking on websites for stuff about The ‘west’s favourite Russian opposition figure’. Wahey!

[TheSire]

Just now, bossy said:

But instead of whole heartedly condemning Putin as a fascist scumbag, you go looking on websites for stuff about The ‘west’s favourite Russian opposition figure’. Wahey!

I'm sure he's a 16 year old stoner who just stumbled across alt media.

[Red Phoenix]

45 minutes ago, bossy said:

But instead of whole heartedly condemning Putin as a fascist scumbag, you go looking on websites for stuff about The ‘west’s favourite Russian opposition figure’. Wahey!

 

Condemn Putin, condemn Trump, condemn this and that. When shite is usually served up as the alternative it's maybe good to switch focus from time to time.

 

44 minutes ago, TheSire said:

I'm sure he's a 16 year old stoner who just stumbled across alt media.

 

I must have got lucky then finding Max Blumenthal's Grayzone so quickly. There's a whole lot worse out there.

[DJLJ]

I’m not saying, but…

 

I’m not doubting, but..

 

yes, yes you are!

[Red Phoenix]

Remember this link? It's not alt media, it's the Washington Post.

 

20 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

https://archive.ph/GB18C

 

The writer is from the fucking Atlantic Council, one of the most anti-Russia groups you could find. Even he found the time to write an article pointing out how serious of an issue Navalny had. I don't think this was wrong either :

 

Quote

Many of Navalny’s supporters fear that acknowledging some of the nasty things that he has said over the years will overshadow his efforts to publicize the human rights abuses of the Russian state. They want to avoid the subject altogether. But that just isn’t an option. If Navalny is serious about challenging the current regime, Russians — and the outside world — have a right to know precisely whom we’re dealing with.

 

And now that he's gone it's probably best to have a clearer view of who he was instead of just accepting whatever our govs and media are currently saying, unless some are actually adding some type of balance. And if we pick someone else to back in future it'll probably be good to have a clearer view of who they are too.

 

I'm not interested in fixating on this part of him or continually going on about it, the idea that it's wrong to even bring it up makes no sense to me though. One of the entire points about opposing people like Trump and Farage is supposed to be because of their racism, I don't see why we should ignore it from those who we've backed in other countries just because there's a leader we don't like. Things like that can turn out bad for minorities eventually if not looked at properly.

[SasaS]

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

I'm sure I've read that about Biden over the years and looked how that turned out for the people of Gaza. If someone had serious issues on what would be one of the most central issues for any leader, pointing out that nobody said he/she was perfect seems like it's avoiding the problem a bit. Like with Biden I don't doubt that nobody has said he was perfect. If Navalny was a genuinely good person with good intentions for the people of Russia though I find it really hard to believe the US gov would have had anything to do with backing him like they did.

 

Not surprised if this is accurate either :

 

 

Who is Alexei Navalny? Behind the myth of the West’s favorite Russian opposition figure

 

I'm not denying that he had courage to do what he did though and again I'm not happy that he's been killed if that's what happened. I don't support governments ending people's lives no matter who they are or what they've done.

 

That's actually a pretty interesting interview, although mostly about prewar Russia. Would be interesting to read her opinions now.

 

I was never interested too much in Navalny, since I always suspected figures like him have more traction in Western media than at home, but let me say that the moment the news came he was dead, pro-Russia or anti-West social media machine went into overdrive.

[SasaS]

Just now, SasaS said:

 

That's actually a pretty interesting interview, although mostly about prewar Russia. Would be interesting to read her opinions now.

 

I was never interested too much in Navalny, since I always suspected figures like him have more traction in Western media than at home, but let me say that the moment the news came he was dead, pro-Russia or anti-West social media machine went into overdrive.

 

EDIT: word interesting seems to do a lot of heavy lifting today with me. How very Freudian. 

[Red Phoenix]

From The Observer's editorial on Navalny, fair and balanced :

 

"He spoke for the common man and woman – and he spoke with a smile."

[SasaS]

RP, some of the point you might be missing here, the opposition figures and dissenters in autocratic regimes are always portrayed as foreign agents, traitors and murky figures, and Navalny, who published a lot about Putin's wealth and corruption, died in a prison camp. As soon as you are a danger to Russia's regime or Putin, you either have to leave, or you go to prison, or you die.