New Reply
Name
×
Email
Subject
Message
Files Max 5 files32MB total
Tegaki
Password
[New Reply]


irredentism.jpg
[Hide] (433.1KB, 1080x1103)
What did you guys think of the interview.  Some various thoughts of mine:
1 - The MSM's response and spin is so over-the-top it's both insulting and hilarious.  It's also really interesting what they don't report on.  E.g., the BBC doesn't report about the claim that Boris stopped the peace talks.  The German DW doesn't talk about Putin saying that he thinks he's fighting the U.S. _and Germany_--he names those two countries in particular.  They also make it sound like Tucker made Putin look like a saint and was unprofessional when in fact...
2 - I think this interview made Putin look terrible.  Like on the level of "I'm surprised both Putin and the Kremlin were completely O.K. with this, what the fuck?"  I was expecting more of a propaganda spin for their Ukraine war.  Instead, it kind of makes me root for Ukraine more.
3 - Man, the first half of the interview is a real slog, picrel.  However, it makes it plainly evident that Putin really honestly believes in irredentist foreign policy.  It surprised the shit out of me since I kind of thought we left that behind in the previous century.  This was the biggest takeaway for me.
4 - He's clear that the war was for Black Sea access.
5 - He doesn't see the U.S. as the most powerful country anymore, he sees China as the most powerful country now and therefore is just seeing what he's doing as moving into their alliance block.  He talks about Chinese trade and waning U.S. influence to a surprising extent that it feels like he doesn't even consider thinking about the U.S. anymore.
6 - He doesn't have any actual proof that the U.S. did Nordstream.  (I did find the bit of Tucker saying, "I was busy that day" and Putin replying with, "Well, maybe you have an alibi" pretty funny, though)
Replies: >>466 >>512
ComputerScienceDegreeCurriculum.jpg
[Hide] (43.1KB, 460x558)
>>457 (OP) 
>I think this interview made Putin look terrible.
I think it made him look far more competent than any western leader. Can you imagine this guy debating Trump or Biden or any other current year politician. He started the interview with a 30 minute lecture on the history of Russia and Ukraine, last week Nikki Haley couldn't even answer a simple question on the American Civil War.

>He's clear that the war was for Black Sea access.
No he's clear that he doesn't want NATO nukes on his doorstep. If China funded the drug cartels to overthrow the Mexican government and then tried to bring the new puppet regime into a military alliance against the US and park nuclear capable missile launchers on the Texas boarder you doesn't think America would be doing what Russia is doing a thousand times over? It's the geopolitical Breakfast Question.

>He doesn't have any actual proof that the U.S. did Nordstream.
I still believe is was a US-UK operation but I give Tucker credit for pushing him.

>He doesn't see the U.S. as the most powerful country anymore,
My favorite part was when he was like - yeah I haven't talked to Biden in years, why would I he's fucking irrelevant, the people you vote for are not the people who actually run your country.
Replies: >>468 >>513
>>466
>I think it made him look far more competent than any western leader. Can you imagine this guy debating Trump or Biden or any other current year politician. He started the interview with a 30 minute lecture on the history of Russia and Ukraine, last week Nikki Haley couldn't even answer a simple question on the American Civil War.
I mean, yes, but this is To Quoque fallacy.  I went into this thinking that Putin wasn't an ardent irredentist belligerant warmonger, that there was some other reason for the war, and left thinking, "Oh, he's an irredentist belligerant warmonger."
I mean, you're right that other western leaders are bad too, but, that's kind of irrelevant to my point?

>No he's clear that he doesn't want NATO nukes on his doorstep.
I mean, that was arguably already the case given how close NATO bases are even without Ukraine.

>If China funded the drug cartels to overthrow the Mexican government and then tried to bring the new puppet regime into a military alliance against the US and park nuclear capable missile launchers on the Texas boarder you doesn't think America would be doing what Russia is doing a thousand times over?
China is already funding the fentanyl crisis in the U.S. and there are a number of Chinese migrants flooding across the Mexican border into the U.S. as we speak and the U.S. government appears to be aiding and abetting it, so...no I don't think the U.S. would do what Russia is doing.
But that's more because I think the U.S. government is absolutely incompetent.
Not only is it tu quoque again, it's a tu quoque that...doesn't even match with our current clown world.
>I still believe is was a US-UK operation but I give Tucker credit for pushing him.
Sort of aside from the point, but if you're interested, here's my take:  I think the primary country involved was Norway.  I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. CIA was also involved, but I think Norway was the primary country involved.  Facts:
- Seymour Hersh's article heavily implicates Norwegian assets (The Alta minesweeper, helicopter close to the radius where you could activate the buoy, etc).  I know there were a lot of details that were wrong in the Hersh report (e.g., the Alta-class minesweeper wasn't part of BALTOPS), but damn if it doesn't match means, motive, and opportunity very well.
- The Norwegian-Polish pipeline opened up the DAY AFTER the explosion (this is the biggest tipoff to me, talk about Quo Bono).
>My favorite part was when he was like - yeah I haven't talked to Biden in years, why would I he's fucking irrelevant, the people you vote for are not the people who actually run your country.
Wasn't it a Russian czar who said, "I don't run Russia, 10000 clerks do."?
But yeah, I'm surprised this is surprising to people.
Replies: >>469
>>468
>I mean, you're right that other western leaders are bad too, but, that's kind of irrelevant to my point?
There is a difference between the US fighting wars 10,000 miles away from new york just for the lulz and russia fighting a war 500 miles from moscow. This is life and death from their perspective.

>I mean, that was arguably already the case given how close NATO bases are even without Ukraine.
This has been a long time coming though. The CIA already provoked two fake revolutions in 2004 and 2014 and then funded a civil war against the russian side of ukraine for 8 years after that. Part of the problem is that western media only started covering ukraine in 2021 so normies are just like "wtf why is putin being an asshole all of a sudden" but for people paying attention it's a surprise he waited this long to do something.

>China is already funding the fentanyl crisis in the U.S. and there are a number of Chinese migrants flooding across the Mexican border
That's true but the US used literal neo-nazis to overthrew the democratically elected president on ukraine in 2014 and turned it into a western puppet state and then funded more neo-nazis and transferred isis fighters from syria to terrorize the russian people on east ukraine for 8 years. If china tried that shit in mexico the US would have nuked beijing by now.

>I think the primary country involved was Norway...
That's interesting.
Replies: >>500 >>512 >>513
WHO_IS_PUPPETEERING_VLADIMIR_PUTIN'S_INTERVIEW_WITH_TUCKER_CARLSON.mp4
[Hide] (16.3MB, 640x360, 05:48)
It's just a scripted psyop, just like the war. Learn Gematria and see the patterns.
>>469
>There is a difference between the US fighting wars 10,000 miles away from new york just for the lulz and russia fighting a war 500 miles from moscow. This is life and death from their perspective.
It isn't for the lulz. We over here at Eastern Europe joined NATO exactly because we knew that the Russians invaded and held this part of the continent hostage for half a century and they will do it again. Ukraine isn't even a first, Russia was harassing Georgia since the 90s, no wonder Ukraine would lean closer to the West and the values of freedom and capitalism than the decadent remain of the Soviet Union.
The whole
>but they are invading my sphere of influence
Is just an official excuse they feed to the masses. No State, be it a superpower or not, gets to have a personalized "neutral buffer zone" where other countries aren't permitted to install weapons of any type (including nuclear weapons). And even if it was, who is to decide what is influence and what isn't. Furthermore, ICBMs are already intercontinental and can be launched from submarines literally off the shores of Russia, where active silos or troops are installed is irrelevant in modern warfare. The US was capable of sending bombers directly from America, have them carry out operations in the Middle East, and return home without touching the ground in the 90s. We are in the 2020s. Range isn't a practical concern, the real concern is Article 5, not the nukes. It's the alliances that prevent Russia from blatantly like before.
But even saying that the expansion of NATO was what "pressured" Russia into invading Ukraine or any of its neighbors is mixing up the cause and effect hard. NATO expansion only happened because Russia was such a risk to be next to, and invading Ukraine only goes to prove this. And would you look at that, Finland just joined NATO and Sweden is considering it as well. Action -> Consequence. Invading several of your neighbors, and the neighbors of those neighbors from the end of WW2 to '89 to institute socialism deporting any and all opposition preventing decades of progress -> your immediate neighbors will choose to enter into NATO to receive Western protection against you.
So what has Russia achieved? Push its neighbors into further hating it. I find the mere suggestion that the American (and German, and the wider EU) support of the Ukrainian war is "just because of the lulz" disgusting. If any country libertarian though, it's Russia. The place has been infested with generational communism, there is only violence as the means to their ends.
Replies: >>505
>>500
>It isn't for the lulz.
All US wars in the middle east are irrelevant to USA's survival.

>Eastern Europe joined NATO exactly because we knew that the Russians invaded and held this part of the continent hostage for half a century and they will do it again
You can't just throw away the context. The USSR looted trillions and trillions of dollars worth of resources and equipment at the end of the WW2 when they marched through half of europe and half of asia with zero resistance. And commies being commies they didn't spend a cent of it on their own people. That's why they could sustain such a large empire for 50 years. But as soon as the money ran out the empire collapsed too. Even if NATO didn't exist russia has no where near enough resources to invade europe again, that can't even take kiev.

>No State, be it a superpower or not, gets to have a personalized "neutral buffer zone" where other countries aren't permitted to install weapons of any type (including nuclear weapons).
The most liberal president in the US almost triggered WW3 over russian nukes in cuba.

>Furthermore, ICBMs are already intercontinental and can be launched from submarines literally off the shores of Russia,
We're not talking about ICBMs. ICBMs shoot up into the stratosphere, propel themselves over the chosen target and then fall with gravity. It takes about 20 minutes to hit any target, the time doesn't go down if you are closer. What we're talking about in ukraine are cruise missiles. They are basically nuclear bombs strapped to a jet engine. And from east ukraine they can hit moscow in under 5 minutes.

That means moscow only have minutes to react if they think they are about to be annihilated. In the old days 20 minutes was enough time to get on the red telephone and check and double check what's going on. If NATO reduces that time down to 5 minutes we are pushing the world closer to nuclear armageddon than ever before. And for what? What are you actually getting out of this?

>So what has Russia achieved?
Then can now build a DMZ through ukraine without ethnic russians in donbas and crimea being struck on the wrong side of it. That's the most likely outcome once the american paymasters instruct ukraine to make peace with russia.
commie.png
[Hide] (57.5KB, 1500x500)
>>457 (OP) 
>plainly evident that Putin really honestly believes in irredentist foreign policy.
Always has been. Make USSR great again.

>>469
>literal neo-nazis
Like Canadian Freedom Convoy or Trumpists.

>to overthrew the democratically elected president
Like the Capitol riot.

Commies always screaming about nazis.

>western puppet state
Viktor Yanukovych was Kremlin puppet.
Replies: >>730 >>756
>>466
>If China funded the drug cartels to overthrow the Mexican government and then tried to bring the new puppet regime into a military alliance against the US 
This is literally what Putin doing in Donetsk and Luhansk since 2014.

>>469
>russia fighting a war 500 miles from moscow. This is life and death from their perspective.
Not Russia. Putin's regime.

>a civil war against the russian side of ukraine for 8 years after that.
This war started by Putin's gangs.

>to terrorize the russian people on east ukraine for 8 years
People was terrorized by Putin's gangs only in Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, controlled by Putin sponsored gangs, but not in Odesa, Kharkiv, Mariupol and other Russian-speaking majority regions of Ukraine.
>Always has been. Make USSR great again.
Yeah, but, I was expecting the usual doublespeak.  Not for him to so blatantly say it and go into a two-hour EUIV monologue about it.
Replies: >>520 >>522
>>515
>Not for him to so blatantly say it
This is russian domestic narrative.
>>515
>Yeah, but, I was expecting the usual doublespeak.  Not for him to so blatantly say it and go into a two-hour EUIV monologue about it.
That's because you've been propagandized into thinking that a politician who cares about his own people and his own country is weird or unacceptable somehow.
Replies: >>525
>>522
No, it is pretty unacceptable.  The reason why is because irredentist foreign policy doesn't have a stellar track record, as it is littered with warmongerers.
>>525
>No, it is pretty unacceptable.  The reason why is because irredentist foreign policy doesn't have a stellar track record, as it is littered with warmongerers.
Lets see USA's track record just from just 1990-2020
<20 year war in afganistan
<3 wars in iraq
<drone assassinations in pakistan, yemen, afganistan, somalia
<funded al qaeda to overthrow assad (failed)
<funded al qaeda to overthrow gaddafi (successful)
<funded the houthis to overthrow the government in yemen
<switched sides and funded saudi arabia and al qaeda to get rid of the houthis (ongoing)
<tried to overthrow the democratically elected government of ukraine in 2004 (failed)
<tried to overthrow the democratically elected government of ukraine in 2014 (successful)
The whole premise of democratic governance rests on having an informed electorate. And you my friend are not informed. At all.
>>560
Could you please give an argument that does not rely on Tu Quoque fallacy?  Thanks.  You've done it REPEATEDLY the entire thread.
Replies: >>565 >>571
>>562
He's not wrong.
Replies: >>568
>>565
Yes, but it's beside the point.  I'm not even American.
Since you still haven't addressed all the "tu quoque" callouts, maybe you don't understand what that means, and maybe you guys understand this as "whataboutism" instead.
Replies: >>571
>>562
>Could you please give an argument that does not rely on Tu Quoque fallacy?  Thanks.
It is not whataboutism because you are you one who setup this dichotomy in >>525. Your argument is that leaders who put their own country first are bad because doing so leads to war. Since you use MAGA as an insult you agree that most american presidents do not put america first. And yet america has had significantly more wars than putin. So given the facts your statement in >>525 is objectively false.

I would actually argue the opposite is true. War is a way for politicians to siphon money from the working class to the shareholders of defense corporations. A politician who put the wellbeing of his own country first would avoid war as much as possible.

>>569
>lah-di-dah let me condescendingly explain to you the fancy words I googled 5 seconds ago
I can see that being "the smart guy" is important to your identity. Just to be clear I'm not calling your stupid I am just calling you uninformed. If you get all of your news from reddit and other corporate media platforms then it is perfectly reasonable that you will not be aware of the things >>560 is referencing. If you actually knew how much of your taxmoney your government has used to fund unnecessary military interventions you would be very upset.
Replies: >>576
>>571
>It is not whataboutism because you are you one who setup this dichotomy in >>525. Your argument is that leaders who put their own country first are bad because doing so leads to war. Since you use MAGA as an insult you agree that most american presidents do not put america first. And yet america has had significantly more wars than putin. So given the facts your statement in >>525 is objectively false.
This isn't even strawmanning, because strawmanning involves at least approximating what the other person said.  This is just completely making up what the other person said.
Replies: >>582
>>560
>tried to overthrow the democratically elected government of ukraine in 2004 (failed)
Not failed. In 2004 Ukrainians successfully did «Stop the Steal». 

>overthrow the democratically elected government
Being democratically elected don't allow the president to be an asshole. Anyway, you hate democracy, so why you are complaining?

The Revolution of Dignity https://vatniksoup.com/en/soups/123/ 
The Euromaidan protest, that would eventually become the Revolution of Dignity, began on 21 Nov, 2013 as a peaceful demonstration of 1500 people, summoned by a Afghan-Ukrainian journalist Mustafa Nayyem.

Only a week later Yanukovych ordered the state riot police, Berkut, to violently disperse the protest. But a few days later the rioters came back, which resulted in more violence and ultimately to a new anti-protest laws that would make future protests much more difficult.

But this law only agitated the people, and the protests weren't happening only in Kyiv - large anti-Yanukovych and pro-EU protests were also seen in other cities around Ukraine, including Lviv, Kharkiv, Ternopil, Sumy, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Mariupol and Luhansk.
Replies: >>582
>>576
>This is just completely making up what the other person said.
If you think there is a mistake then feel free to clarify.

>>580
>Being democratically elected don't allow the president to be an asshole. 
He wasn't an asshole he just wasn't pro-NATO enough.
>If you think there is a mistake, then feel free to clarify.
What is there left to clarify when you've gotten everything wrong?
Replies: >>682
>>674
>your wrong about everything but I can't explain why
Just take the L. You are running on emotions and propaganda not facts and logic that's why you can't argue back.
Replies: >>683
>>682
What loss?  There was no competent argument made.
Replies: >>686
>>683
>plainly evident that Putin really honestly believes in irredentist foreign policy.
>Always has been. Make USSR great again.
Your argument is that leaders who put their own country first are bad because doing so leads to war. Since you use MAGA as an insult you agree that most american presidents do not put america first. And yet america has had significantly more wars than putin. So given the facts your statement in >>525 is objectively false.
Replies: >>723
>>686
>Since you use MAGA as an insult 
>you agree that most american presidents do not put america first
Where did this happen?
Dude, I think you're having an argument with an imaginary person.  That or you're legitimately schizophrenic.
Also, you still aren't replying to his arguments.  But that kind of makes sense given how you're having make-believe arguments.
Replies: >>730
>>723
>Where did this happen?
In >>512. You can't have it both ways if Trump is the nationalist then the politicians who hate Trump and hate America First and have been conducting America's wars for the past 30 years are not nationalists. Your argument that nationalism = war is completely debunked. If anything the fact that they have nothing but contempt for the American working class probably makes it easier for them to steal the people's wealth and turn it into craters in the desert.

>you still aren't replying to his arguments
What arguments? You're digging up a 6 month old thread here. If you want to move forward in good faith then why don't you restate these arguments you think are so good.
Replies: >>756
>>730
>In >>512.
That's not me, dude.
>If you want to move forward in good faith then why don't you restate these arguments you think are so good.
Why?  You never had good faith.
Replies: >>779
>>560
Yanukovych wasn't elected in a free and fair election.  The Russian FSB stuffed the ballot boxes, and when people complained, he ordered the army and the police to shoot them.  He must never have been in ROTC, because one of the first things they teach you about leadership is:  never give an order unless you're sure it's going to be obeyed.  The military and the cops joined with the people and Yanukovych had to flee back to his sugar daddy Vladdie back in Moscow, and ten years later he's still there, begging Pooty Poot to give him cummies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence) <-- Read this article, and realize that it doesn't just happen to the CIA.  Pooty Poot's goon squad very clumsily rigged an election in a country that has ample historical reason to fear and hate Russians.  They did a poor job of it and everyone noticed.  There were consequences.
>> 765
>Yanukovych wasn't elected in a free and fair election.  The Russian FSB stuffed the ballot boxes,
I don't see any evidence of that. We already went through this with Trump and the Russia Gate hoax. Just because the "wrong" person won an election doesn't mean <USA_ENEMY> was involved.

>when people complained
Ukraine is a big country. Most of his support was in the east and rural areas. The people who "complained" were westernized metropolitan liberals in Kiev. That's like saying any Republican victory must be illegitimate because Democrat voters protested in New York.
https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/02/23/coup-in-kiev/
https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2015/03/23/why-ron-paul-is-right-about-ukraine/

>Yanukovych wasn't elected in a free and fair election
Zanelski was the one who was not voted by the people. He was installed as a western puppet. US officials literally picked out his cabinet for him on a phone call. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIvRljAaNgg

>ten years later he's still there, begging Pooty Poot to give him cummies.
This is strangely emotional language to use. His only crime was refusing to let Ukraine join NATO. What he wanted was to remain neutral and not let his country get raped in a proxy war between two superpowers. Unfortunately for Ukraine he failed. And the death toll speaks for itself, an entire generation of Ukrainian men wiped out just so NATO countries can sell some weapons and place their nuclear missiles a few miles closer to moscow. Keep in mind Putin was ready to negotiate at any time, it was Boris Johnson who torpedoed the first peace negotiations and various NATO representatives after that, just to keep the war going.

>Pooty Poot's goon squad very clumsily rigged an election in a country that has ample historical reason to fear and hate Russians
History didn't start in 2014. The CIA attempted another Ukraine coup in 2004 under Bush. It's the USA that has been meddling this whole time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution

>There were consequences.
You are also missing another huge junk of history in your narrative. What happened from 2014-2022? The eastern region of Donbas held a referendum and voted to join the Russian Federation. "Pooty Poot" as you call him refused to let them join. After that they tried to declare themselves independent of Ukraine. Zalenski refused to let them go. The following 8 years became a civil war with the US moving ISIS fighters from Syria to help on the side of the Ukrainian regime. You've been propagandized into thinking it is big bad Russia oppressing poor little Ukraine but in reality it was big bad Ukraine oppressing their own people in the east of the country first.

The sad thing is if Obama and Biden had just let Donbas declare independence in 2015 then russia would have had zero justification to invade in 2022. But you know better than that, NATO is the one who wanted this war, they are the ones making a killing off the weapons sales while at the same time grinding down a military rival without losing any of their own troops. If you really think NATO are the good guys here then you need to take a much closer look.

>>756
>That's not me, dude.
You are the one defending him. You said
>you still aren't replying to his arguments
And I'm asking you to repeat these "arguments" that you find so compelling. All you have to do is copy and paste, it shouldn't be so hard if you're telling the truth.

>You never had good faith.
I have been nothing but sincere and polite in this thread. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're acting in bad faith. If you really think that though then copy and paste is still your friend. Why don't you show me an actual example of my "bad faith"?
Replies: >>841
>>779
>source:  just trust me, bro
Replies: >>874
>>841
>source:  just trust me, bro
There are four sources in the post you're responding to. Do you actually have a counter argument or is "ukraine good, russia bad" the limit of your NPC programming?
Russia's CBDC is GOOD because it state owned! 
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/russias-cbdc-exploring-the-truth 

...

Russia’s central bank system doesn’t function in this way. In fact, the Russian central bank is not comprised of any member ‘branches’ and has no type of private or corporate ownership in the way of the U.S. Fed. It simply has offices of the main central headquarters in different parts of Russia, but these are just administrative offices and nothing more. Further, because of this much simplified structure, the bank is administered primarily by a far more transparent board of directors which are appointed by the Russian president and State Duma. And most importantly, those directors are not involved in the same conflicts of interest as are possible and rampant in the U.S.—i.e. sitting on boards of other major globalist conglomerates and private commercial banks.

In fact, in Russia the banking situation can almost be said to be backwards to that of the U.S. in the following way. In the U.S., the largest private banks control the government and its monetary policy by way of their direct control over the Federal Reserve itself. In Russia, the largest banks in the country, like Sberbank, VTB, etc., are actually majority-state owned. Which means the Russian government has the controlling share and say in them. 

...

In fact, what’s startling for people used to the cronyism of the West, is that if you click through each member of the Bank of Russia’s board of directors, you’ll note that all, save one, are career state bankers, economists, or some type of career state employees. Meaning they’ve worked in various positions in the Bank of Russia or other state institutions for the majority of their careers rather than in private hedgefunds, investment firms, corporations, and the like, as is so common in the U.S. Federal Reserve system.

...

But recall what I just explained—the Russian central bank is not connected to Western financial institutions and the giant presumably-Rothschild banking system of the globe. Private capital and corporate banking institutions don’t own the Russian central bank, they have no stake or share in it whatsoever, unlike in the Western institutions. Hence, any CBDC created by Russia’s central bank in fact serves only the Russian state. 

...

The above Forbes article from earlier this year underscores some of my points, stating: “Today Russian banks are mostly state-run. The biggest commercial lenders are all state-controlled.”

In fact, the article bemoans how Bank of Russia head Elvira Nabiullina yanked the licenses of a bunch of zombie commercial banks or bought them up under state control, consolidating Russia’s state power over the banking industry. 


Then there’s this shocker:
>In 2014, there were 923 commercial lenders in Russia. Last year, some 370 remained in business. RCB data shows over 600 private banks have lost their licenses under Nabiullina’s tenure.

Read this very carefully:
>“Nabiullina has completely destroyed the private banking system of the Russian Federation. Due to her activities, it collapsed into one big state banking system, controlled by Nabiullina herself and her people. She has been performing her activities since 2013, consistently closing private banks”, 
a financial sector source said in Moscow.

Interesting, wouldn’t you say? And given the fact that Nabiullina is Putin’s chosen, who served as his previous personal economic advisor, we can only surmise that this was a Putin operation through and through, to destroy the Western banking cartel influence over Russia and centralize Russian banking under the state, as it should be. The article even mentions how Putin “personally approved” of one of the big stated bank sales, lending credence to this angle, and also support to the idea that Putin was supervising Nabiullina’s hatchet job on the Western-owned-and-invested financial industry.

Note how Russia peaked in its number of ‘credit institutions’, i.e. private banks, during the lawless post-Soviet collapse where Western finance completely took over and gutted the country. Western banking institutions flooded through Russia like a Wild West free-for-all. Then after Putin took over, the number of these institutions has gradually been dropping. In fact, the chart above goes only to 2015, and shows 600+ institutions at that point. Currently, Russia has dropped to a mere mid-300s. Do you see what’s happening?
Replies: >>1062
>>1060
> to destroy the Western banking cartel influence over Russia and centralize Russian banking under the state, as it should be. 
Who gives a fuck if russian banking is monopolized by western elites or russian elites, the russian people lose either way. Stop worshiping your oppressors.
Replies: >>1063
>>1062
>Stop worshiping your oppressors.
Kremlintarianism is the support of Kremlin policies (Kremlinism, in particular the russian invasion of Ukraine) by self-professed libertarians. Kremlin policies, of course, are the complete opposite of the libertarian philosophy of non-aggression and individual rights.

Kremlintarians are therefore anti-libertarian vatniks (followers and spreaders of Kremlin propaganda) and tankies (supporters of authoritarian regimes) pretending to be libertarians. 
https://en.liberpedia.org/Kremlintarianism
Replies: >>1064 >>1065
>>1063
Fuck Ukraine. Fuck Globohomo.
>>1063
>https://en.liberpedia.org/%E2%80%9CMises%E2%80%9D_Caucus
>The “Mises” Caucus is a PAC of the “Libertarian” Party which it took over in May 2022 [2]. It is not a caucus but a PAC, and it is neither libertarian nor related to Ludwig von Mises in any way. It is more accurately described as the “Hoppe Caucus” or the “Misnamed Caucus”. It is anti-libertarian, not libertarian. 
Fuck off and take your gay wiki with you.
fellow_libertarians.jpg
[Hide] (239.4KB, 1000x663)
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un hailed Vladimir Putin as his "dearest friend" in a New Year's letter to the Russian leader praising close bilateral ties, state media said on Tuesday.

The two countries have deepened political, military and cultural ties since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, with Putin and Kim repeatedly professing their personal closeness.

Moscow and Pyongyang signed a landmark defense pact during Putin's visit to the isolated North in June. The pact obligates them to provide immediate military assistance if the other is invaded and came into effect this month.

Kim's latest message described Putin as his "dearest friend and comrade," the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said.

The North's leader sent "warm greetings of best wishes to the fraternal Russian people and all the service personnel of the brave Russian army on behalf of himself, the Korean people and all the service personnel of the armed forces of the DPRK," it said, using an acronym of the North's formal name.

Kim also expressed "his willingness to design and push ahead with new projects" after their "meaningful journey in 2024."

In a possible reference to the war in Ukraine, Kim also hoped that 2025 would be the year "when the Russian army and people defeat neo-Nazism and achieve a great victory."
How tf have the meme responses not been posted yet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taTXqTdYYUY
Big centralized unrestricted state. The state is sacred.
Private is bad, state owned is good.
Self-ownership is bad. Everyone belongs to the state.
Free market is bad. Everything must be regulated by the state.
[New Reply]
40 replies | 5 files | 33 UIDs
Connecting...
Show Post Actions

Actions:

Captcha:

Select the solid/filled icons
- news - rules - faq -
jschan 1.4.1