And their misusage of that label is what gives the left a bad name in America, where real leftists stan Norway and Denmark. There’s a “any enemy of America is a friend of ours” element among American radicals, but that is not the left.
5 Likes
The sucky part of all this is Putin is only turning 70 this year, so the world still has a couple of decades or so of being stuck with him and his bullshit. 
8 Likes
I see your point, but I see the performance in the other direction, that he’s putting on a facade of calmness. Last night, he was seething, and a lot of the stiffness comes from the way he’s keeping his own emotions in check. Using rehearsed scripts with his toadies to make it seem like he’s the only calm one.
He is pissed, partly at himself for the lose-lose situation he is now in. None of the pageantry and stage acting can hide it now.
8 Likes
6 Likes
Sounds a bit underwhelming
10 Likes
Life expectancy in Russia is in the low 70s
8 Likes
But he’s an oligarch…
10 Likes
Are those long tables because he’s afraid of COVID or because he’s afraid of assassins 
6 Likes
4 Likes
It is interesting to compare the speech Putin made in 2014 for the annexation of Crimea, and the one from yesterday for the recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk “republics” (the official English translation of the latter is as yet incomplete, but there’s enough to get the idea). There are some obvious similarities - both make claims about “historic Russian territories”, both complain about supposed injustices suffered by Russia - during the Soviet times and afterwards, both imply broader geopolitical ambitions.
But the Crimean speech had a bit of a “mission accomplished” vibe - “we were wronged, but now it has been righted”. It is a celebration of quick victory, a final flourish. Yesterday’s speech is a litany of big, open-ended grievances, without any suggestion that the recognition of the “republics” alleviates them in any meaningful way. It is an outpouring of anger, made to make the audience angry, and prepare them for something big to come.
The Crimean speech was actually centered around Crimea - Putin returns to the specific subject throughout the text. In contrast, yesterday’s speech only mentioned Donetsk and Luhansk by name at the very end - the current translation, about 4000 words in, hasn’t got to that part yet. He mentions the broader term “Donbas” a couple times almost in passing, but the main thesis of the speech is that Ukraine does not have the right to exist as a country, and that its existence is an injury to Russia. And the broader swipes also imply that the independence of all countries that were formerly part of either the Russian Empire or the USSR is a mistake that needs to be fixed.
I find it quite incredible how after this speech some pundits are back to wondering whether Putin, having got Donetsk and Luhansk, will now be satisfied. It’s like after Hitler spelled out his ambitions in Mein Kampf some people still managed to think that he would just stop after he got Sudetenland.
7 Likes
That really needs to be repeated more often.
This won’t stop with Donbas, or at Kyiv, or with Ukraine and Zelenskyy led in chains through Moscow before being strangled on the steps of the Kremlin. Putin wants the Russian Empire back, all of it, even when it was called Soviet. If it ever belonged to Russia, he wants it back. (Looking at you, East Germany.) And if he gets it, why would he want to stop there.
6 Likes
Not East Germany or other communist satellites, but countries that were officially part of the Russian Empire or the USSR.
2 Likes
11 Likes
6 Likes
I’m not that happy about it but nice ironic use of that guy.
9 Likes
11 Likes
AKA…
That’s almost a “no true Scotsman” argument. In fact, we’ve seen a number of commenters on this BBS over the years who spent a lot of time supporting reasonable progressive ideals but who’d also regularly make excuses for Putin’s chicanery in the West.
Members of he “Dirtbag Left” also sometimes praise Putin in their usual “joking/not joking” way. I don’t agree with brocialists but I’m not going to claim they’re not on the political left. The ideology in Russia may have changed but tankies remain tankies.
They’re quite open about their aspirations. They all follow this book’s programme and Putin was almost quoting it yesterday.
13 Likes
The United Kingdom, merely described as an “extraterritorial floating base of the U.S.”, should be cut off from Europe.
Job done.
3 Likes
Here’s the summary of Dugin’s views on Ukraine. Sound familiar?
Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because “Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics”. Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.
11 Likes
Anyway, as a palate cleanser after Putin’s rambling nonsense, please enjoy this clear and concise speech from the Kenyan ambassador to the UN at the latest Security Council meeting where he supports Ukrainian sovereignty from a background of post-colonialism:
11 Likes
