Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Destabilizing as in bribing Yanukovich with loans to he and his family to put Ukraine on a path to Russian control. Destabilizing as in pumping in loads of lies about Ukraine in Russian language media in Ukraine. Destabilizing as in calling people to arms against "Kiev fascists". Destabilizing as in sending units to seize Ukrainian government buildings. Destabilizing as in launching an attack from inside of Russia killing 1000's of Ukrainians in order to seize control of Donbas. Destabilizing as in sending in Wagner to shoot down Ukrainian aircraft inside of Ukraine. Destabilizing as in shooting down civilian airliners and using propaganda to blame it on Ukraine. Destabilizing as in telling Ukrainians their government is not legitimately elected because Russians controlled some border territory and did not allow elections to occur there. Destabilizing as in launching cyber attacks such as NotPetya. Destabilizing as in using state "media" telling Russian speaking Ukrainians to hate their own country and how horrible the EU is. Destabilizing as in literally attacking the country because it wants to transform its government to be more European instead of being run as a mafia type of state like Russia.
I can go on
Please do. Your delusions are worthy of prime time.
Putin made Ukraine important to our geopolitical goals. I give him a lot of credit for pushing our two countries closer. As long as they continue reforms, the closeness will continue. There is always the risk that they will backslide though.
You do no the US ousted the democratically elected leader of Ukraine in favor of our own puppet, right?
You do no the US ousted the democratically elected leader of Ukraine in favor of our own puppet, right?
Yanukovich was ousted by Ukrainians angry at not joining Europe and for killing many of them protesting his movement towards Russia. I know, blame it on the USA. Funny how Ukrainians blame Russia instead of the USA for what's going on in Ukraine? Maybe you aren't trying hard enough...
Yanukovich was ousted by Ukrainians angry at not joining Europe and for killing many of them protesting his movement towards Russia. I know, blame it on the USA. Funny how Ukrainians blame Russia instead of the USA for what's going on in Ukraine? Maybe you aren't trying hard enough...
That same user also claimed that Kim Jong's sister was a good person because she was beautiful.
I think we might be talking about different bands here. I'm thinking more along the lines of Behemoth, Belphegor Cannibal Corpse, ... These aren't Russian bands to begin with and in the case of the first two they were attacked by members of the Russian Orthodox community. Cannibal Corpse was outright banned from the start.
To me they are harmless, but their lyrics focus on Slavic Pagan culture, which pre dates the arrival of Christianity. I can see that being a problem with the religious groups over there.
No, it's harder. I'm not sure I can correctly write this in English.
This is not a religious group and not a real Slavic Pagan culture. Slavic pagan culture was fully integrated by Christianity. There were practically no sources of data about it (lack of written language at that time). Archaeologist Boris Rybakov wrote the book "Paganism of Ancient Rus" in the 80s. This book had an ideological coloring (Soviet influence on science). Rybakov cited evidence of the Slav origin of the word Rus and put forward a very bold hypothesis about the pantheon of the Slavic gods.
Modern science does not support the hypothesis of the Slavic origin of the word Rus and is skeptical about this pantheon. Very little evidence. Modern neopaganism was formed on the basis of this Soviet ideological hypothesis, discontent with the modern church and distrust of the official sciences. This is not a religion, it's just a hobby of people. This phenomenon has a negative aspects (weak scientific base) and positive aspects (interest in history and culture, interesting music, outdoor activities).
Why do you think he is weak on international front (Sanders)? Many who didn't like Hillary, switched over to Trump when he lost the primaries, but that's another topic altogether.
Ha-ha, my son being one of them - he was so mad when Sanders was not nominated, ( and I think quite a few of his friends did that too...) but that doesn't change the point that Sanders comes across as not all too knowledgeable on international front. He IS very knowledgeable on domestic front, I have a lot of respect for him, but that's how he comes across. By the way that "left" guy who runs for presidency now ( P. Grudinin that is,) in Russia, comes across in the same way - good on domestic front, but not too impressive on international front. It is what it is.
Quote:
They want to emulate what Western European countries ate doing, which involves improving welfare amongst other things.
Sanders camp - yes, they are pretty straightforward about everything, however Clinton's camp is something else.
I call them "corporate democrats." Sneaky ppl, if not to put it in more blatant terms.
Quote:
It most definitely isn't a Russian thing. Russian's borrowed the concept of socialism from Marx then turned it upside down. If you read any of Marx's works you will see that the SU bears little resemble to it.
Russians being original "left" has little to do with Marx. In fact Marx didn't even think that Russia fitted into his theories at all - he was relating it more to India and China in terms of its socio-economic development, so when all these Russian left wing intellectuals were knocking on his door, he was trying to reason with them, but to no good.
Marx was right in his own way, but since Russian intellectuals ( and upper class overall) lived in their own bubble separated from the rest of society, they did what THEY found suitable after all, not what Marx thought.
The point here is however that Russia is the ORIGINAL LEFT European country, irrespectively from Marx. I already mentioned the word "Mir" ( Russian peasant community) before. And their life style perfectly fits into the definition that you gave yourself - "In fact Left ideology tends to value society over the individual."
And that's what 80% agrarian, pre-revolutionary Russia was all about, Marx or not.
And that's why Russia is ORIGINAL left-wing country. While America is originally RIGHT wing country, with Europe being in the middle.
Quote:
In fact, while the Soviet Union had some Left Wing trappings, for all intents and purposes it was a very Right Wing regime. Why did the state hold so much power, when Marx advocated for limited government?
I have no idea where all this "right wing regime" of the Soviet Union is coming from. No, Soviet Union was ULTRA-left wing of politics, so I guess just because it was FAR left and dictatorial, some mistakenly think that it was somehow "right wing regime." This can't be further away from truth, particularly that Marx ( and his theories) didn't fit all that well with Russia.
Quote:
That's one reason, but I still believe the main one is due to how the government runs things over there. Many on the left are vocal about these issues and dislike country's that place restrictions on people.
That's also my main beef with Russia, far more so than either Ukraine or the election meddling and I'm saying that as someone who disagrees with many aspects of the Left.
As Soviet Russia was "ultra-left" wing country, Putin's Russia is the "ultra-right" wing country. Courtesy of the corporate democrats Clintons.
For this particular reason, as much as the "left" in America doesn't like Putin's Russia, I don't like sneaky Clinton's camp. Those "corporate democrats," you know. With the ideas of "American exceptionalism" in their heads.
Quote:
Russians were never truly left. See my above response.
They were the one and only "original left" country in Europe. See my response above.
Quote:
I'll be honest, I strongly dislike the Left/Right label as I find it to be outdated. No single person is going to be entirely on one side of the fence. Left is considered progressive, while right is regressive.
The label is still here. No matter what policies one pursues, at the end they are still "right" or "left" as the bottom line.
Quote:
The US is not entirely Right either.
Of course not.
Even the ultra-left Russian peasantry commune has been ruled by the ultra-right Russian monarchy.
The US (ORIGINALLY moderate right-wing country) started acquiring its "left" ideas as late as during the great depression as far as I remember.
I know that a number of Russians on metal websites have complained about the issue.
No, it's harder. I'm not sure I can correctly write this in English.
Quote:
This is not a religious group and not a real Slavic Pagan culture. Slavic pagan culture was fully integrated by Christianity. There were practically no sources of data about it (lack of written language at that time). Archaeologist Boris Rybakov wrote the book "Paganism of Ancient Rus" in the 80s. This book had an ideological coloring (Soviet influence on science). Rybakov cited evidence of the Slav origin of the word Rus and put forward a very bold hypothesis about the pantheon of the Slavic gods.
Modern science does not support the hypothesis of the Slavic origin of the word Rus and is skeptical about this pantheon. Very little evidence. Modern neopaganism was formed on the basis of this Soviet ideological hypothesis, discontent with the modern church and distrust of the official sciences. This is not a religion, it's just a hobby of people. This phenomenon has a negative aspects (weak scientific base) and positive aspects (interest in history and culture, interesting music, outdoor activities).
But this is not a real religion.
Modern science doesn't support any religion. In fact many aspects of religion go against scientific logic. Consider the age of the universe for example, monotheistic religion places it at around 6000 years old, while science gives us 13.8 billion years. Quite a big difference if you ask me. The same applies to dinosaurs as they were only discovered in the 19th century and do not feature in any major religion.
P.S. I understood very well what you meant in the first paragraph. Don't worry about your English, it's solid.
Ha-ha, my son being one of them - he was so mad when Sanders was not nominated, ( and I think quite a few of his friends did that too...) but that doesn't change the point that Sanders comes across as not all too knowledgeable on international front. He IS very knowledgeable on domestic front, I have a lot of respect for him, but that's how he comes across. By the way that "left" guy who runs for presidency now ( P. Grudinin that is,) in Russia, comes across in the same way - good on domestic front, but not too impressive on international front. It is what it is.
The domestic front is the most important one in my opinion. Citizens care about their livelihood and improving those should be the priority of every government.
If both Sanders and Grudinin are weak on the international front, then they may hold the key to reconciling the differences between the US and Russia.
Quote:
Sanders camp - yes, they are pretty straightforward about everything, however Clinton's camp is something else.
I call them "corporate democrats." Sneaky ppl, if not to put it in more blatant terms.
To a certain extent, though someone compared their positions on a number of issues and found out that Clinton's is quite similar to Sanders (90-95%). Sanders ended up backing Hillary in the finals.
Quote:
Russians being original "left" has little to do with Marx. In fact Marx didn't even think that Russia fitted into his theories at all - he was relating it more to India and China in terms of its socio-economic development, so when all these Russian left wing intellectuals were knocking on his door, he was trying to reason with them, but to no good.
Marx was right in his own way, but since Russian intellectuals ( and upper class overall) lived in their own bubble separated from the rest of society, they did what THEY found suitable after all, not what Marx thought.
The point here is however that Russia is the ORIGINAL LEFT European country, irrespectively from Marx. I already mentioned the word "Mir" ( Russian peasant community) before. And their life style perfectly fits into the definition that you gave yourself - "In fact Left ideology tends to value society over the individual."
And that's what 80% agrarian, pre-revolutionary Russia was all about, Marx or not.
And that's why Russia is ORIGINAL left-wing country. While America is originally RIGHT wing country, with Europe being in the middle.
I think Greece is the original left leaning country to be frank. Many of the civic concepts we take for granted can be traced to them. They were the first to coin the term "democracy" even if their brand differs from what we see today. I would add France to the list as well, since they came up with the notion of "Liberte, Fraternite, Egalite" which equates to Freedom, Brotherhood, Equality in English.
Quote:
I have no idea where all this "right wing regime" of the Soviet Union is coming from. No, Soviet Union was ULTRA-left wing of politics, so I guess just because it was FAR left and dictatorial, some mistakenly think that it was somehow "right wing regime." This can't be further away from truth, particularly that Marx ( and his theories) didn't fit all that well with Russia.
That could be it, because many equate dictatorships with the right, despite the fact that historically the most brutal regimes on the planet were left leaning.
Quote:
As Soviet Russia was "ultra-left" wing country, Putin's Russia is the "ultra-right" wing country. Courtesy of the corporate democrats Clintons.
For this particular reason, as much as the "left" in America doesn't like Putin's Russia, I don't like sneaky Clinton's camp. Those "corporate democrats," you know. With the ideas of "American exceptionalism" in their heads.
I don't think Putin's Russia is entirely right wing either, it still has a lot of elements of the left.
American exceptionalism has been around since at least the end of WW2 and possibly even before, so it's hardly a new thing. To be fair, I can kind of see where it's coming from with the level of obsession with the US found around the world and many countries are still playing catch up with the States.
I mean, I'm defending the US on this forum all the time as I get very irritated when I see people bashing it. I'm fine with criticism and I've got my fair share of them, but if I see people taking cheap shots, it makes my blood boil.
Quote:
The label is still here. No matter what policies one pursues, at the end they are still "right" or "left" as the bottom line.
Indeed, but it's hard to truly fit into one category. I support most social policies that one would typically associate with the left, yet I draw the line with militant feminism and excessive PC culture. I support feminism in it's original form where the goal was to get women to be socially equal to men, but not the concept of man-hating that is becoming prevalent. I like certain aspects of PC culture that revolve around raising awareness about different issues, but I get annoyed at it when it becomes too extreme.
Quote:
Of course not.
Even the ultra-left Russian peasantry commune has been ruled by the ultra-right Russian monarchy.
The US (ORIGINALLY moderate right-wing country) started acquiring its "left" ideas as late as during the great depression as far as I remember.
More or less. The US started acquiring more left leaning tendencies following the Great Depression as the government was forced to regulate the economy.
Modern science doesn't support any religion. In fact many aspects of religion go against scientific logic. Consider the age of the universe for example, monotheistic religion places it at around 6000 years old, while science gives us 13.8 billion years. Quite a big difference if you ask me. The same applies to dinosaurs as they were only discovered in the 19th century and do not feature in any major religion.
P.S. I understood very well what you meant in the first paragraph. Don't worry about your English, it's solid.
You're arguing against a point he did not make. He said that science does not support the idea that the neo paganism practiced by some Russians today is what was practiced prior to the Christianization of Rus.
As for your religious commentary, it doesn't make sense. I know of no serious religion claiming the universe is 6,000 years old (some adherents probably do but people disagree on everything). In the context of Russia, its Orthodox Church makes no such claim. So you kind of knocked down 2 strawmen there with a false dichotomy thrown in for good mix.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
( and I think quite a few of his friends did that too...) 
but that doesn't change the point that Sanders comes across as not all too knowledgeable on international front. He IS very knowledgeable on domestic front, I have a lot of respect for him, but that's how he comes across. By the way that "left" guy who runs for presidency now ( P. Grudinin that is,) in Russia, comes across in the same way - good on domestic front, but not too impressive on international front. It is what it is. 
