• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Politics Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

Riverman said:
I don't get why people don't accept that simple truth: These people want to belong to Russia, Russia wants to have them, why are they not allowed to departure from an anti-Russian Ukrainian state which they don't like?
Click to expand...

I think the people are allowed to departure - just not the land, because it is an industrial region of strategic importance for Ukraine.

Ukraine would let the pro-Russian people emigrate to Russia. But they want to keep the heavy industry which they had built there.
 
Riverman,

Do you think Germany would let Sachsen go (just like Ukraine should let Donbas go in your opinion)?

Separatist tendencies there have been quite strong recently, if we believe politician Martin Kohlmann:

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik...-mehr-gemein-als-mit-den-wessis-15764146.html

"(...) Im Stadion des Chemnitzer FC soll das ?B?rgergespr?ch? eigentlich zu gemeinsamen L?sungen f?hren. Doch vor dem Stadion wirbt Martin Kohlmann f?r mehr Zwiespalt: Mit ?Wessis? habe man nichts gemein. Daf?r aber sehr viel mit anderen Staaten. Der Gr?nder der rechtsgerichteten Organisation ?Pro Chemnitz?, Martin Kohlmann, hat w?hrend einer Demonstration am Donnerstagabend mehr Autonomie f?r Sachsen und eine Ann?herung an die Visegr?d-Staaten Polen, Ungarn und Tschechische Republik verlangt. Diese Staaten weigern sich, trotz anders lautender Beschl?sse der EU Fl?chtlinge aus Nahost und Afrika aufzunehmen. Polen und Ungarn werden von nationalkonservativen Regierungen gef?hrt.


Vor etwa 900 Demonstranten, die in Chemnitz gegen einen Besuch des s?chsischen Ministerpr?sidenten Michael Kretschmer (CDU) protestierten, rief Kohlmann die Frage ins Mikrophon, ob ?wir? mit Polen, Ungarn und Tschechen nicht mehr gemein h?tten, als ?mit diesen Wessis?. Es sei f?r ihn beispielsweise ?ein Unterschied wie Tag und Nacht?, ob er mit russischen, polnischen und tschechischen Journalisten rede, oder mit westdeutschen.


Der F.A.Z. sagte Kohlmann wenig sp?ter, Sachsen habe mit den Visegr?d-Staaten ?mehr gemein, als mit der westlichen Bundesrepublik?. Deshalb solle man heute ?zumindest ?ber Autonomie? f?r einzelne Bundesl?nder reden. Man m?sse ?hier mehr Dinge selbst entscheiden? k?nnen. ?Wenn ein ungarischer Ministerpr?sident sagt ?wir wollen das nicht?, dann sollte das ein s?chsischer Ministerpr?sident auch sagen k?nnen?. (...)"

^^^
Sachsen happens to be the most Slavic-admixed of German regions, maybe Kohlmann was reading "Wendischer Bote": :kidding:

https://www.worldcat.org/title/wendischer-bote/oclc/269208308

2C4K8GD.png
 
Tomenable said:
Riverman,

Do you think Germany would let Sachsen go (just like Ukraine should let Donbas go in your opinion)?

Separatist tendencies there have been quite strong recently, if we believe politician Martin Kohlmann:

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik...-mehr-gemein-als-mit-den-wessis-15764146.html

"(...) Im Stadion des Chemnitzer FC soll das �B�rgergespr�ch� eigentlich zu gemeinsamen L�sungen f�hren. Doch vor dem Stadion wirbt Martin Kohlmann f�r mehr Zwiespalt: Mit �Wessis� habe man nichts gemein. Daf�r aber sehr viel mit anderen Staaten. Der Gr�nder der rechtsgerichteten Organisation �Pro Chemnitz�, Martin Kohlmann, hat w�hrend einer Demonstration am Donnerstagabend mehr Autonomie f�r Sachsen und eine Ann�herung an die Visegr�d-Staaten Polen, Ungarn und Tschechische Republik verlangt. Diese Staaten weigern sich, trotz anders lautender Beschl�sse der EU Fl�chtlinge aus Nahost und Afrika aufzunehmen. Polen und Ungarn werden von nationalkonservativen Regierungen gef�hrt.


Vor etwa 900 Demonstranten, die in Chemnitz gegen einen Besuch des s�chsischen Ministerpr�sidenten Michael Kretschmer (CDU) protestierten, rief Kohlmann die Frage ins Mikrophon, ob �wir� mit Polen, Ungarn und Tschechen nicht mehr gemein h�tten, als �mit diesen Wessis�. Es sei f�r ihn beispielsweise �ein Unterschied wie Tag und Nacht�, ob er mit russischen, polnischen und tschechischen Journalisten rede, oder mit westdeutschen.


Der F.A.Z. sagte Kohlmann wenig sp�ter, Sachsen habe mit den Visegr�d-Staaten �mehr gemein, als mit der westlichen Bundesrepublik�. Deshalb solle man heute �zumindest �ber Autonomie� f�r einzelne Bundesl�nder reden. Man m�sse �hier mehr Dinge selbst entscheiden� k�nnen. �Wenn ein ungarischer Ministerpr�sident sagt �wir wollen das nicht�, dann sollte das ein s�chsischer Ministerpr�sident auch sagen k�nnen�. (...)"

^^^
Sachsen happens to be the most Slavic-admixed of German regions, maybe Kohlmann was reading "Wendischer Bote": :kidding:

https://www.worldcat.org/title/wendischer-bote/oclc/269208308

2C4K8GD.png
Click to expand...

You fall into the 'Putin trap' Tomenable......
 
Riverman said:
In the end it doesn't matter how they shoot things into rubble, but they have no other choice, because house to house fights are out of question in an intact building environment.

.....

Selenski and Biden started that war, Putin just made the first move on the ground.
Click to expand...

It's a choice Riverman to use the most ugly and damaging bombs or not....in the end they came as liberators that freed the people from 'nazis' and 'genocide'. I can't cope liberation of people with vacuum bombs etc. because that kind of stuff does make the most casualties among the population.

And the next thing? Bombing the inner city of Kyiv, 'the cradle of Rus', to ash like the NAZIS did with Rotterdam in 1940? Or even brutal towards the people surround the city and starve them out?

So fare the 'liberation of Ukraine'.

You are not only a Putin Versteher (understander), also a Putin Verzeiher (forgiver). Talking about a big bias.....
 
He's a pathetic Putin fanboy.

Can you imagine any other serious world leader other than Putin in any public photo or film stripped to the waist like a muscle man manque'
 
Vallicanus said:
He's a pathetic Putin fanboy.

Can you imagine any other serious world leader other than Putin in any public photo or film stripped to the waist like a muscle man manque'
Click to expand...

So many Valicanus! But I must admit they all belong to the same corner.....of right wing populist.

An example of Rivermans homeland is Jörg Haider, long time leader of the FPÖ, one of the earliest right wing populist party's.

Of course not pro gay rights for example in the meantime he was most likely an in the closet gay himself.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna27363925

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jörg_Haider#Posthumous_controversies
 
Northener said:
So many Valicanus! But I must admit they all belong to the same corner.....of right wing populist.
An example of Rivermans homeland is Jörg Haider, long time leader of the FPÖ, one of the earliest right wing populist party's.
Of course anti-gay rights for example in the meantime he was most likely an in the closet gay himself.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna27363925
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jörg_Haider#Posthumous_controversies
Click to expand...
I don't know anything about this person, but based on the link you provided, that just looks like a wild and unsubstantiated allegation.


I recall there was a man named Larry Sinclair that accused Obama of having a homosexual affair with him, and smoking crack with him in his limo, back in 1999. He even offered to take a lie detector test. However, he had died a few years ago.


Just because someone makes a claim doesn't mean it is true.
 
Jovialis said:
I don't know anything about this person, but based on the link you provided, that just looks like a wild and unsubstantiated allegation.
I recall there was a man that accuses Obama of having a homosexual affair with him, and smoking Crack with him in his limo, before he became president. He even offered to take a lie detector test. However, he had died a few years ago.
Just because someone makes a claim doesn't mean it is true.
Click to expand...


The speculations are not wild. He came from a gay club when he had a crash. There are photo's that attest that.

On the same night he has had deep argue with his political protege, Stefan Petzner. Petzner called Haider "the man of my life" in a tearful tribute after the crash. A week later he state that he and Haider had "a relationship that went far beyond friendship".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Petzner

Of course all private matters but in the case of right wing populist this leads more often to a double moral (publicly not concerned or even anti gay-although Haider himself was careful in this matters- but private acting gay).
 
Tomenable said:
I think the people are allowed to departure - just not the land, because it is an industrial region of strategic importance for Ukraine.

Ukraine would let the pro-Russian people emigrate to Russia. But they want to keep the heavy industry which they had built there.
Click to expand...


We're not talking about a couple of people with specific political views, we're talking about a fairly large region in which the overwhelming majority of the local Russian population does want its country to be part of Russia and definitely being part of an anti-Russian Selenski-Ukraine. You can't compare that with Saxony, because do you really think that in Saxony a plebiscit would have ever voted for Poland instead of Germany in the recent centuries? Saxony might at some point have preferred Austria, as they did in the Prussian-Austrian wars sometimes ally up with Austria, but leaving Germany for Poland? You won't have gotten that vote ever.
Ask the people of Donbas and Crimea, and they would vote for Russia. Any reconquest by force, any blackmailing and starving out of Russia to give this territories back would mean just the suppression of millions, of the clear majority of the people in this region, to belong to a state they despise, the Selenski regime Ukraine.

Russia has no right to conquer and turn Kiev, Kiev has no right to conquer and turn Donbas and Crimea, that's my basic opinion. I'm all for plebiscits under international control, but Selenski and the Ukrainian nationalists never accept that. Its like the Yugoslav leadership which didn't want Slovenia and Croatia go, the only difference is that this freedom for the people of Donbas and Crimea would be in the interest of Russia, which is why all Western states oppose it so strongly. Nobody thinks about the people there, which have their own rights too.
If Kiev would have offered such a deal, with plebiscits for the Eastern regions and Crimea, and Russia would have bully them still, afterwards, I would think very differently about the regime. But I hate regimes which don't want to let people go which objectively don't belong to them. There must be a very good reason for doing so, like its better for mankind or necessary for the survival of the state, then probably, one could talk about it. But they didn't even wanted to allow them to become autonomous anyway, they wanted to expel the Russians which don't agree with the Selenski regime.
They even banned Russian language in some areas, for some time, its just anti-Russian, like the phased propaganda of this state, after they cleansed the media. For years the Ukrainians just get anti-Russian propaganda. I'm more ok with that for the West Ukraine, but the East, especially Donbas, that's not their territory.
 
Northener said:
The speculations are not wild. He came from a gay club when he had a crash. There are photo's that attest that.

On the same night he has had a deep argue with his political protege, Stefan Petzner. Petzner called Haider "the man of my life" in a tearful tribute after the crash. A week later he state that he and Haider had "a relationship that went far beyond friendship".

Of course all private matters but in the case of right wing populist this leads more often to a double moral (publicly not concerned or even anti gay-although Haider himself was careful in this matters- but private acting gay).
Click to expand...

Idk, supposedly they have photos of Marco Rubio dancing at a gay club too. I don't know if that's true. It is easy to misrepresent even photographic "evidence".
 
Jovialis said:
Idk, supposedly they have photos of Marco Rubio dancing at a gay club too. I don't know if that's true. It is easy to misrepresent even photographic "evidence".
Click to expand...

And if Marc Rubio has a protegé that called him 'the man of my life' etc etc. I guess only a caught in the act photo would made it more clear....:kidding:

Nevertheless as said it's a private matter. Nevertheless when it leads to a double moral I guess in the case of politicians or other public figures I have no problem with revealing these kind of things.

For the rest life and let life.
 
Jovialis said:
Idk, supposedly they have photos of Marco Rubio dancing at a gay club too. I don't know if that's true. It is easy to misrepresent even photographic "evidence".
Click to expand...

And even if he was gay, who cares? I don't care about people being gay or trans, as long as they don't interfere with heterosexual norms and families interests, want to indoctrinate my children, force upon the general public images and ideas which are harmful and crap like that. I have nothing against homosexuals, I have colleagues and acquaintances which are gay and trans people, and am ok with that. Its their life, they can decide for themselves and if they would be rather suicidal if they can't live like they do, let them live like they want, they can still be great people. I also don't get what it matters whether someone is homosexual but doesn't agree with woke politics. Even if he is a hidden bisexual person, who cares, me not. That's their thing, as long as they make no steps in the wrong direction politically, whether they are left or right, doesn't matter for me. It doesn't matter for me if they are seen as left or right, as gay or straight, as long as they do the right things.
About Haider: I was never a big fan of this guy, but like explained, whether he would have been bisexual or not wouldn't change that much for me.

Or do I like a straight politician more which wants my children to be educated to be "little woke people and self-haters"? There is just a huge, a very big difference between personal sexual preferences and political agency. I don't care for the ethnic, sexual or whatever background of a person in politics, as long as its character and goals are ok. I care for its political agency first and foremost. I never got that talk in the USA about the presidents wife and neighbourhood or whether he likes cats and what not. If he does the wrong things in state politics, domestic and abroad, he is the wrong guy, no matter how good he can smile and how nice he is to his beautiful wife and all that nonsense. That's part of the American problem, to care too much for all these small things, than the aspects which really matter for the future of the own children and country.
 
Riverman said:
And even if he was gay, who cares? I don't care about people being gay or trans, as long as they don't interfere with heterosexual norms and families interests, want to indoctrinate my children, force upon the general public images and ideas which are harmful and crap like that. I have nothing against homosexuals, I have colleagues and acquaintances which are gay and trans people, and am ok with that. Its their life, they can decide for themselves and if they would be rather suicidal if they can't live like they do, let them live like they want, they can still be great people. I also don't get what it matters whether someone is homosexual but doesn't agree with woke politics. Even if he is a hidden bisexual person, who cares, me not. That's their thing, as long as they make no steps in the wrong direction politically, whether they are left or right, doesn't matter for me. It doesn't matter for me if they are seen as left or right, as gay or straight, as long as they do the right things.
About Haider: I was never a big fan of this guy, but like explained, whether he would have been bisexual or not wouldn't change that much for me.

Or do I like a straight politician more which wants my children to be educated to be "little woke people and self-haters"? There is just a huge, a very big difference between personal sexual preferences and political agency. I don't care for the ethnic, sexual or whatever background of a person in politics, as long as its character and goasl are ok. I care for its political agency first and foremost. I never got that talk in the USA about the presidents wife and neighbourhood or whether he likes cats and what not. If he does the wrong things in state politics, domestic and abroad, he is the wrong guy, no matter how good he can smile and how nice he is to his beautiful wife and all that nonsense. That's part of the American problem, to care too much for all these small things, than the aspects which really matter for the future of the own children and country.
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't matter, are you suggesting that I implied that it does?

My point was that anyone can be accused of anything when they are a public figure.
 
Jovialis said:
Of course it doesn't matter, are you suggesting that I implied that it does?
Click to expand...

No, but Northerner did use the typical tactics some people use: Usually they say it doesn't matter whether someone is gay or has sort of an ethnic admixture or does this and that. But if its someone from the right, out of a sudden, he must be a pure Germanic back to the Medieval Age and being 100 percent straight and never doing this and that blabla.
These are just the typical double standards for conservative and right wing people. As if someone can't deviate a bit, isn't allowed to deviate a bit, if he or she is somewhere on the right. So they mention these kind of things, "he might have been a closet gay person" or whatever, to discredit the legitimacy of its political agenda, instead of arguing about facts and ideas, which they don't want, because then they could lose. Calling names and discredit people is just way easier to get rid of opposing views than having to grapple with arguments and potentially expose the own weaknesses, in the own argumentation.

In TV stations like CNN and elsewhere, there is absolutely no objective and open debate about the conflict in Syria or Ukraine, there is just this kind of approach as well. Because if they would talk more about facts, about the history and background of conflicts, people are not that easy to manipulate and emotionalise, than by just showing victims of war and giving the blame always to just one side.

Same here: Just calling names, disscredit ones person reputation and so on. The same things which being celebrated for a Democratic candidate in the USA being used as slurs against conservatives, to expose "their dishonesty", even if sexual orientation and political views, or how they treat their wife and their country, are two different things. This goes through all issues and topics in politics, its the kind of one sided framing we got since the Trump election in particular.
 
Riverman said:
We're not talking about a couple of people with specific political views, we're talking about a fairly large region in which the overwhelming majority of the local Russian population does want its country to be part of Russia
Click to expand...

Except for those millions of Pro-Ukrainian inhabitants of Donbas who fled from the region back in 2014... It is obvious that now, in 2022, the overwhelming majority is Pro-Russian. But that's only because most of Pro-Ukrainian inhabitants fled from rebel-held territories.
 
Riverman said:
No, but Northerner did use the typical tactics some people use: Usually they say it doesn't matter whether someone is gay or has sort of an ethnic admixture or does this and that. But if its someone from the right, out of a sudden, he must be a pure Germanic back to the Medieval Age and being 100 percent straight and never doing this and that blabla.
These are just the typical double standards for conservative and right wing people. As if someone can't deviate a bit, isn't allowed to deviate a bit, if he or she is somewhere on the right. So they mention these kind of things, "he might have been a closet gay person" or whatever, to discredit the legitimacy of its political agenda, instead of arguing about facts and ideas, which they don't want, because then they could lose. Calling names and discredit people is just way easier to get rid of opposing views than having to grapple with arguments and potentially expose the own weaknesses, in the own argumentation.

In TV stations like CNN and elsewhere, there is absolutely no objective and open debate about the conflict in Syria or Ukraine, there is just this kind of approach as well. Because if they would talk more about facts, about the history and background of conflicts, people are not that easy to manipulate and emotionalise, than by just showing victims of war and giving the blame always to just one side.

Same here: Just calling names, disscredit ones person reputation and so on. The same things which being celebrated for a Democratic candidate in the USA being used as slurs against conservatives, to expose "their dishonesty", even if sexual orientation and political views, or how they treat their wife and their country, are two different things. This goes through all issues and topics in politics, its the kind of one sided framing we got since the Trump election in particular.
Click to expand...


I can't stand when some politicians or other public figures are publicly anti-guy but in private are gay. It's at the same level of being from the left and having a private jet for example. All on the same level. That's double moral, and may imo be 'revealed'.
 
Riverman said:
Kiev has no right to conquer and turn Donbas and Crimea, that's my basic opinion. I'm all for plebiscits under international control
Click to expand...

If a plebiscite takes place, these should be the conditions:

1) Everyone who lived in the region before 2014 should be allowed to vote, no matter where they live now

2) Everyone who settled in the rebel-held territory between 2014 and 2022 should not be allowed to vote

Do you agree with these points ???
 
Jovialis said:
Of course it doesn't matter, are you suggesting that I implied that it does?

My point was that anyone can be accused of anything when they are a public figure.
Click to expand...

When someone chooses a public position, he knows that he lives in a glass house. Of course no license for a witch hunt .... but exposing a double standard (public and private acting opposite) is very healthy I think!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top