Corrupt GLP-1 addicted motherfuckers!

I used to always defend the US (even before 2014) on pragmatic grounds and due to the history of the 20th century. Americans tend to be slow, but they eventually do the right thing. They’ve done a lot of bad, but unlike russia and China they’ve also had genuine successes in their foreign policy such as promoting long-term democracy and freedom in Germany, Japan, Poland, the Baltic nations.

After they recognize russia’s annextion of Crimea, Lugansk and Donetsk oblasts, they are de facto on par with Nicaragua, Cuba or North Korea as far as I am concerned.

And this is not merely a matter of far right Americans, the American centre-right (both party elites and the vast majority of their supporters, albeit not all) is very much responsible too. Vast majority of centre-right Americans (I’ve lived there for several, and I have close centre-right friends) are too well off to support true anti-corruption measures, the type that would take down many of the oligarchs that are the nexus of chauvinistic propaganda and corruption that enabled Trump. One example from my time in the US was Obama deciding to completely avoid any anti-crime measures in the financial industry in 2008 (a unique, historical opportunity).

Mr Prescott, who until June 2025 was an independent adviser to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board, also highlights serious problems with BBC Arabic’s reporting on Gaza, in which it apparently gives extensive space to the views of Hamas.

I was curious what this meant, so I read the relevant section and while some of the arguments seem suspect, there were definitely massive red flags with the policies of BBC Arabic.

Haven’t read the US election part yet, but the points raised in the intro don’t sound coherent.

EDIT: The US election part is a lot less convincing. They should have explicitly stated that they are combining two separate sections from the speech, but the argument seems more like a technicality. Some other minor points were fair, but there were a lot of incoherent arguments. One example.

The BBC sometimes fell into using, without attribution, contested language such as “reproductive rights”. This signals to many BBC viewers, particularly those in America, a biased mindset.

Reproductive rights isn’t a contested term.

This is what russian “liberals” don’t understand. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

While Navalniy’s team nominally rejected support for the annexation of Crimea after the full-scale invasion, they continue to broadly support imperialism, albeit they tend to watch what they say when not speaking to other russians.

That being said, this doesn’t always work.

Navalnaya at an EU conference in 2024:

Finally, there are those who advocate for the urgent “decolonization” of Russia, arguing to split our vast country into several smaller, safer states. However, these “decolonizers” can’t explain why people with shared backgrounds and culture should be artificially divided. Nor do they say how this process should even take place.

And a “shared background and culture” is why you killed 5% of the civilian population of Chechnya, including a ballistic missile strike on a busy market?

That’s the best kind of satire.

And that’s why they are sending thousands of their citizens to help the russia’s genocidal invasion of Ukraine.

A true vanguard against imperialism!

Terrible headline.

This was a helpful and concise blogpost.

Americans oligarchs are comical in their approach to corruption.

Kurashov himself never testified. According to court reporters, his lawyer Anna Karpenko said her client “sincerely repented” and that he believed he had simply been following orders from above not to take any prisoners.

What a russian thing to say.

That’s fair.

enough material for russian propaganda to legitimate further acts of war.

You should watch some russian propaganda. They already show “news” pieces about how their nukes can reach London and other European cities. That ship has sailed.

I don’t disagree (look at Schroeder, he is still walking free), but my point stands, the number is a tiny percentage of EU GDP.

Even the costs saving of using russian gas were something along the lines of 0.2% of EU GDP (and thats ignoring the cost of the caustic effect that the russians have had on democracy and governance in EU).

I used to live in russia (this was before they invaded Georgia). I have former friends who I know are supporters of russian genocidal imperialism (that’s why they became former friends), you can most probably still find the evidence for this on their social media.

That being said, based on chatting with another friend who uses FB, they are bit more careful these days and tend to go with more implicit public statements of support “I hope there will be peace soon and I can visit Moscow via a direct flight from London”.

And appeasing them has not led to war?

If they make small incursions into the Baltic nations, would you also support appeasement and enabling such actions?

The reason I ask is that I have close friends living in the central EU and they’ve definitely mentioned the presence of an attitude of cowardice among certain people “let them have the Baltics, they probably won’t get to us”.

What are those economic interests? What is the number? What is it as a percentage of annual EU GDP?

Of course there is support by EU of Ukrainian strikes against Russia.

But EU is not directly targeting russia even though russia is directly targeting the EU (including drone attacks and airspace violations).

The EU can’t even arrest Timchenko who is a citizen of Finland.

Not to mention basic counter-intelligencence programs such as a review of all russian citizen and permanent residents (e.g. benefiting form the putin regime, but also evidence of support for genocidal imperialism on social media) in Europe.

Thank god Merkel wasn’t the Chancellor when the russians launched the full scale invasion. For Ukraine, she would have been far worse than Trump. She would have sold us out for extermination by the russians (don’t forget Bucha and the massive kill list and internment program that was planned by the russians following “victory in three days”).

Even in retirement she is working for the russians:

Ex-German chancellor Merkel blames Poland and Baltic States for war in Ukraine (Oct 2025)

I hope she ends up in a russian interment camp. But that is unfortunately unlikely to happen. I will settle for her getting Alzheimer’s (I don’t say that lightly, close family member had it, it’s a nightmare).

And yet the Europeans are too cowardly to launch sabotage programs against the russians without US backing.

That being said, respect to Poland and the Baltic nations for taking a sober understanding of what the russians are like.

Merkel and Schroeder are some of the biggest enabler of russian genocidal imperialism in recent years.

“First, they went after the anti-war voices. Now there are none left, and the repressive machine cannot be stopped,” said the Russian political scientist Ekaterina Schulmann.

…

Schulmann describes the divide as a struggle between two rival camps – the veteran propagandists tightly bound to the defence ministry and the Kremlin, known as the “loyalists”, and the sprawling grassroots movement of ultranationalist war supporters known as the “militarists” or Z-bloggers, after the letter that has become a symbol of the invasion.

I wouldn’t trust Schulmann, like most russian “liberals” they always have excuses for the behaviour of their society:

I continue to think that they started the war by mistake, based on incorrect information. This happens with autocracies: an information bubble forms, they live in it, they encourage loyalty over competence, good news is brought to the boss and he thinks that now is the right time to do Crimea 2.0, only even bigger and better, with a mighty strike on foreign territory [Donbas and Crimea is not foreign territory?] .

This was from 2024, 10 years after the russian annexation of Crimea, the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Schulmann, being the russian that she is, doesn’t even consider the annexation of Crimea and invasion of Donbas as war.

And who the fuck is “they”? 85% of russians (with adjustments for preference falsification!) supported the annexation of Crimea and 65% of russians (at minimum, as per researchers, the real number is higher, even with preference falsification adjustments) supported the full scale invasion of Ukraine.

1.5 million Ukrainians having to leave the russian occupied parts of Donbas (including my family) and Crimea is no big deal for the russian “liberal” Ekaterina Schulmann.

This is what many Westerners don’t understand; if this is the attitude of an allegedly opposition minded russian, can you imagine what goes through the head of the median russian?

China and russia should foot the bill.

An assumption based on undeniable facts:

• Certain professions are still subject to exist control in Cuba
• The average Cuban salary does not allow a citizen to get a passport, let alone pay for the ticket

I will note that you where very cavalier without you “Trump pressure”, I merely pointed out that you are not aware of factors that would lead to Ukraine to vote with the US beyond “Trump pressure”.

India, a russian ally, has been very public about their opposition to recruitment by the russians and India does not have exit restrictions for specific professions.

Think whatever you want. It honestly sounds like you are unwilling to consider that you might not be seeing the full picture.

It doesn’t need government cooperation, and I haven’t seen anything that indicates it except social media accounts that can’t think of an alternative

Are you sure about this? Note that I didn’t mention anything about the process.

I said that there is no way this is happening without the authorization (if not direct, committed support) of the Cuban government. This is a country that still has exit restrictions on certain types of professions.

They see a military age male, suddenly getting a large amount of money that their salary clearly can’t support (they know this because they would have to validate their profession to give them a passport to leave the country), getting a passport and flying to russia and they can’t connect the dots?

But yes, Russia is recruiting from poverty stricken areas, and often the people signing up aren’t told they’re going to war or even joining a military till they get to Russia.

I am well aware of that. But do you see the difference between Uzbekistan and Cuba? Specifically how getting from Cuba to russia without the authorization and support of the Cuban government is very unlikely compared to say Uzbekistan.

So why shouldn’t Ukraine (which is where I live btw) not treat Cuba like an enemy state? What’s your logic here?

The Cuban government has sent thousands of Cubans to fight for the russians.

https://kyivindependent.com/exclusive-1-076-cubans-identified-fighting-for-russia-ukraine-says-96-dead-or-disappeared/

The Cuban foreign ministry didn’t deny their presence, they claim they have nothing to do with this (which is clearly bullshit, Cuba is an island and average salaries are way too low to get an international passport).

Considering the above, why shouldn’t Ukraine treat Cuba as an enemy state (like North Korea)?

That’s why I said your original point is misleading, there are legitimate reasons for Ukraine to support sanctions against an enemy state.