NOBODY on DU is pro-Putin...nobody here ever has been.

[Ken Burch]

All that some of us have said is that most of these things aren't as simple as saying "Putin is bad and that's all that matters".

Yes, Putin is vile.

Yes, what he's done to gays is unforgiveable.

Yes, it would be better if the Russian people overthrew him(and, let's face it, nobody BUT the Russian people can ever get Putin out of power).

And it goes without saying that all of us here stand with LGBTQ people in Russia and with all victims of violent militarism in Ukraine and everywhere else.

But it serves no purpose to have this be a global confrontation...and having it be a global confrontation makes it impossible for any humane or progressive or democratic results to be possible in these situations.

And it serves no purpose simply to paint Putin as the villain and not to look at any of the other factors involved OR the role of other countries in creating the conditions that put Putin in power in the first place. It achieves nothing to shout "down with Putin" and not think or say anything else. Especially since, if we just focus on demonizing Putin without analyzing what brought him into power and led him to the choices he made, we have no way of being sure that getting Putin's troops out of Sevastopol or Putin himself out of power would actually make anything better...especially since, when we spent forty years focusing on nothing BUT bringing down the Soviet Union and "communism&quot it actually wasn't communism or anything remotely like it)the end result of that focus was...the rise of Putin.

So it's not fair to call anyone here a "dupe for Putin", and it's not fair to demonize people simply for pointing out that the problem isn't just the actions of one man.

[The Magistrate]

1. Nor Is Anyone Pro-War, Sir

Putin deserves severe criticism: he is a fascist, presides over a kleptocracy, and is currently engaged in an old-school imperialist venture the like of which literally has not been seen since the thirties of the last century.

Pointing things like this out is not 'promoting war' or 'beating the war drums' or any such lip music.

[kardonb]

18. Putin

does not give a rat's patooty what the rest of the world says , he is only intent on rebuilding the old Soviet Union . He needs the Crimea , as Russia's largest naval base is located in Sebastopol . Its his most important access to the Black Sea .

[iamthebandfanman]

20. A more corporate

soviet union..

China has served as a model of how to abandon your communist beliefs in favor of money in your pocket..

its a race now.. who will be the best corporate fascist nation in the world!

[FreeJoe]

91. China is better off

At least in China's case, their abandonment of communism has been very beneficial to their people. It is still far, far from perfect, but much improved.

[iamthebandfanman]

92. at least

to those living in cities...
still plenty of poor farmers that get shit on every day. not that the poor inside cities don't get poo'd on.. I mean, they did build a wall around the poor sections of bejing so you couldn't see them during the Olympic games after all

but yes, I suppose it is an improvement.. just as Russia today is technically an improvement over its stalin lead 'communist' counterpart.. mao, like stalin, starved people on purpose pretty regularly to get their wills to break in his favor. I suppose anything is an improvement to that, eh ?

but good luck with that 'Chinese government loves its people!' type spin .. unfortunately the Chinese governments love of profit for itself and its party leaders.

itd be nice if a nation could actually have communist ideology in their daily politics without turning it into a power grab to oppress the very people the ideology claims it wants to help... which is what happened to both china and Russia.

we'll see how china turns out... if the greed will finally seal their fate.. its definitely encouraging to at least see wage increases to average to keep up with inflation and global prices.

[FreeJoe]

94. Don't get me confused with someone that supports the Chinese government

I still think that they are terrible. I just think that their economic liberalization has made many (certainly not all) of their people much better off. Median incomes have increased dramatically during the last 25 years. They are still far lower than I'd like and their government is still far more oppressive than I'd like.

"itd be nice if a nation could actually have communist ideology in their daily politics without turning it into a power grab to oppress the very people the ideology claims it wants to help... which is what happened to both china and Russia."

I was a big fan of communism when I was younger, but empirical evidence has lead me to believe that it always leads to oppression. I wish that it weren't so.

[Democracyinkind]

68. The "rebuilding the old Soviet Union" schtick is ridiculous.

The current project - called the Eurasian Union - is a rather toned down version of the old Soviet Union, excluding the traditional domain in eastern Europe now in the hands of the West and is primarily an economic project. The communists are actually one of the few forces that bravely oppose this new Russian imperialism.

[delrem]

32. I think it's fair to say that the US competes vis-a-vis imperialist ventures, since the thirties.

I honestly can't understand how you can think not.

[The Magistrate]

78. Beside The Point, Sir

My comment was purely taxonomic. Putin is a fascist, he presides over a kleptocracy, and is engaged in an imperialist venture with features that have not seen much play since the thirties of the last century. Whether anyone else, any other country, engages in imperialist ventures or not does not affect the truth of that description of what Russia is doing. That Putin is a fascist, presiding over a kleptocracy, and engaged in a classic style imperialist venture certainly does present a problem to people who wish to be seen as staunch opponents of imperialism and war, since even if one were to stipulate the existence of U.S. imperialist intent in the Ukraine, they would still be just supporting one imperialist instead of another, or, in other words, they are actually not opponents of imperialism and war, just opponents of some imperialism and war, and supporters of other imperialism and war.

The form of Mr. Putin's venture is truly a classic. Basing the move on a garrison allowed by treaty in another sovereign state has not been seen in some while, but it was a regular practice of Imperial Japan in China, during the twenties and thirties, first in the occupation of Shantung, expanded from troops in the conquered German lease-hold at Tsingtao, and finally in the occupation of Manchuria, expanded from troops allowed as protectors of a railway mainline owned by Japan. Claiming to be moving to protect fellow ethnics, who are citizens of another sovereign country, is a similarly antique line, though it did enjoy a bit of air in the late Balkan Wars at the end of the twentieth century. It is, however, much more familiar from the twenties and thirties of the last century, being a mark of many of the smaller clashes trailing the Great War, and a sturdy prop of Hitler's expansion, into Czechoslovakia to 'rescue' Sudeten Germans, and into Poland to 'rescue' Germans in the Danzig Corridor and Upper Silesia ( a reader of German newspapers at the time would have had a steady diet of tales of Germans raped and castrated and killed by Poles, who had to be stopped in the name of justice and humanity ).

The claim of moving to protect brother ethnics who are citizens of another country is a claim of a different order than moving to protect one's own citizens at risk in another country. When Lyndon Johnson, for instance, sent U.S. troops to the Dominican Republic 'to protect U.S. lives and property', he was not referring to a portion of the Dominican Republic's citizenry who were of Yankee descent. Some other U.S. actions have been more straightforward: Wilson landing troops at Veracruz, for example, for the express and openly stated purpose of collecting the customs duties at the port until damages had been paid for properties of U.S. citizens harmed or lost in the ongoing revolution in Mexico. It was the U.S. war with Mexico in the 1840s which can be taken as the start of true imperialism on the part of this country, with its entry into imperialism on a global scale dating to the Spanish-American War of 1898.

Russia entered the Crimea as a imperialist power early in eighteenth century. The present make-up of its population is the result systematic killing and deportation of the earlier inhabitants, and of deliberate colonization in the old population transfer sense. While Ukraine in the seventeenth century turned to Russia for protection from Poland and Lithuania, it status quickly became colonial rather than fraternal under the Czars. After the Great War an independent Ukraine was briefly established, but never too firmly, and after much fighting, with Kiev for example changing hands four or five times in two years, the Bolsheviks came out on top, and Ukraine became part of the Soviet empire.

[delrem]

90. My comment was exactly to the point you expressed. nt

[ozone_man]

99. Two sides of the coin perhaps?

Putin may be a fascist and preside over a kleptocracy. But, we have our 1% and immunity to prosecution of the too big fail banks, control over the media, spying on citizens, and we have the means of controlling the world order via our massive military budget, CIA, NSA, that do not require boots on the ground (though we do plenty of that), all to maintain our standard of living, and especially that of the 1%. We're a second coming of imperialism, global this time. The sun never sets on the American empire. A piece on the oligarchy that we are:
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/11/27-4

We prefer now (since the CIA was established) to destabilize foreign governments and convert them from afar, Iran for example, Venezuela, and so on, maybe Ukraine is yet another example of that. I think Putin is just more direct, a style difference, this is Russia's front door after all, and maybe we have pushed too far. Besides Crimea had a vote. They chose Russia over Ukraine.

[The Magistrate]

105. When One Recognizes That, Sir

It becomes impossible to take a good guys v. bad guys view of matters.

That is my principle objection to some of the commentary here on this subject.

[BlueStreak]

2. Single-issue reacting is not the same as thinking.

It is a complex world. Putin is a complex character. Few things in life are black and white.

Like you, I have been surprised at some of the arguments I have seen about Putin with regard to Crimea. That does make a lot more sense if some people are coloring all of their discussions about Putin based on his stance on gays.

[name not needed]

3. Nah, they love the guy.

It's pretty fucking obvious when certain people devote paragraphs to defending Russia's actions, yet the anti-gay law gets less than ten words, if that.

[Ken Burch]

4. No, nobody loves the guy.

It's just that it isn't a simple "good vs. evil" thing in Ukraine(there are plenty of bad actors and ugly motivations on BOTH sides...and innocent victims on both sides).

And plenty of people here have denounced Putin's treatment of gays...including plenty of those who oppose any steps towards re-millitarizing U.S. foreign policy. The hawks have no monopoly on virtue on that one.

It's simply wrong to imply that anybody here is pro-Putin...nobody is on DU.

[jeff47]

7. Those are different sets of people.

There are people who will trash Ukraine and ignore Putin's anti-gay laws.

The fact that other people denounce Putin's anti-gay laws doesn't change that.

[newthinking]

23. Um... Both the current President and Prime minister are serious homophobes

Folks here completely ignore the fact that these parties, even the fatherland collation, are heavily right wing parties. The Party of Regions was actually the more liberal of the major parties. So it is somewhat inconsistent (or uninformed) act like there is a large gap in these areas between Russia and Ukraine's current parties in power.

New Ukraine President
In August 2007, Turchynov replied to the accusation that his stance on same-sex marriage is typically conservative, "I do not agree. If a man has normal views, then you label him a conservative, but those who use drugs or promote sodomy, you label them a progressive person. All of these are perversions".http://web.archive.org/web/20080820220202/http://www.lgf.org.uk/news/research-2/overview-of-lesbian-and-gay-rights-in-eastern-europe/

Oleksandr Turchynov is an elder in a conservative Evangelical Church. We know how Evangelical Churches view gays.

Ukrainian PM
Ukraine Opposition Surprises Supporters by Denouncing Gay Marriage (Fatherland leader and now Prime Minister)
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/ukraine-opposition-surprises-supporters-by-denouncing-gay-marriage-198940821.html

Svoboda is heavily anti-gay

Member of parliament Ihor Miroshnychenko asked the head of the Kiev City State Administration Oleksandr Popov on 7 March 2013 to ban an LGBT march that was held the next day because he believed it would "contribute to promoting sexual orientation" and he further stated in his request "homosexuality provokes sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS".[98] The 8 March rally was in fact not an LGBT march but organized by feminist organizations.[99]

Need we even mention the further right parties?

[Behind the Aegis]

27. From Russia With Love

Now Russia Extends Anti-Gay Law to Cover Some Straight Couples

By Maria Stromova and Henry Austin


MOSCOW -- Russia has banned adoptions by single people and unwed couples from countries where same-sex marriage is legal, regardless of whether the applicants are gay or not.

Signed into law by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday, the move is a technical amendment to legislation passed in mid-2013 which banned same-sex couples from adoption.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/now-russia-extends-anti-gay-law-cover-some-straight-couples-n30181

Dmitry Medvedev Calls Russian Anti-Gay Oppression 'Non-Existent', Says Nobody Complains: VIDEO

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev spoke with CNNs Christiane Amanpour this week and was asked about Russia's anti-gay law and human rights abuses.

Medvedev says the complaints about it come from overseas and nobody complains in Russia, so really, the problem doesn't exist:

http://www.towleroad.com/2014/01/medvedev.html

Former Russian president and current Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on Friday criticized the country’s lawmakers and recent passage of an anti-gay law, saying the Duma, Russia’s federal Parliament, has switched its focus from political bans to private life.

--snip---

Last month, Russia’s highest court ruled that the controversial law banning “gay propaganda” is not in breach of that nation’s Constitution, and that the state is obliged to protect motherhood, childhood and family.

In addition to his duties as Prime Minster, Medvedev is a chairman of the ruling majority “United Russia” party, which voted in favor of the gay propaganda ban law.

Recent polling in Russia finds that the anti-gay law has significant support among Russian citizens. About three-quarters (77 percent) of Russians said homosexuality should not be accepted by society, 16 percent said it should be accepted, and 7 percent were neutral or had no opinion.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/12/russian-prime-minister-criticizes-duma-gay-propaganda-law/

I guess he gets "kudos" for "being against the law before voting for it."

Do I really need to mine for quotes from Putin?

Oh, nobody tell either of them about the Moscow gay club shutting down because of repeated attacks...that's all "foreign" complaints.

[newthinking]

42. I am simply saying it is dishonest to act like Russia's attitudes towards Gay rights are different

than the current leaders. They are all homophobes. Are you willing to admit that?

Or is it OK to soften the image of people's anti-gay stances because they happen to be a faction you otherwise support?

[Behind the Aegis]

44. What I am saying is I am tired of people using my rights as a chess piece.

Otherwise, your strawman is irrelevant.

[newthinking]

47. Sorry, your position is actually doing what you are accusing others of

Nobody is saying that Russia or Putin are good toward Gay rights. But a lot of people are implying that somehow the current administration is, which we know to be untrue. That is *using* gay rights as a political football. Sorry if that is hard to hear. Leaders of *both* governments are homophobic.


New Ukraine President
In August 2007, Turchynov replied to the accusation that his stance on same-sex marriage is typically conservative, "I do not agree. If a man has normal views, then you label him a conservative, but those who use drugs or promote sodomy, you label them a progressive person. All of these are perversions".http://web.archive.org/web/20080820220202/http://www.lgf.org.uk/news/research-2/overview-of-lesbian-and-gay-rights-in-eastern-europe/

Oleksandr Turchynov is an elder in a conservative Evangelical Church and a leader in the fatherland party. We know how Evangelical Churches view gays.

Ukrainian PM
Ukraine Opposition Surprises Supporters by Denouncing Gay Marriage (Fatherland leader and now Prime Minister)
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/ukraine-opposition-surprises-supporters-by-denouncing-gay-marriage-198940821.html

Svoboda is heavily anti-gay

Member of parliament Ihor Miroshnychenko asked the head of the Kiev City State Administration Oleksandr Popov on 7 March 2013 to ban an LGBT march that was held the next day because he believed it would "contribute to promoting sexual orientation" and he further stated in his request "homosexuality provokes sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS". The 8 March rally was in fact not an LGBT march but organized by feminist organizations.

[Behind the Aegis]

49. Actually, yours is.

[Democracyinkind]

61. He is actually making a vaild point. Supporters of LGTB rights should be criritcal of

homophobia whether the homophobes serve our strategic interests or not. I know you don't disagree with this, as I don't disagree with the observation that LGTB rights are not treated seriously by some.

[Behind the Aegis]

69. His point is shrouded.

"I don't disagree with the observation that LGTB rights are not treated seriously by some."

And my comment, see his first post in tis thread, was exactly that...some here are simply using LGBT issues as a chess piece. I don't believe all of them are homophobes. Some just don't really care one way or the other and to be told over and over everyone here is "supportive" of GLBT rights is a fucking joke.

[Democracyinkind]

71. Well, I agree with the last part.

It's just that I hold the new Ukrainian government in as much contempt as I hold Putin's regime, the treatment of LGBT rights in those places being one of my main reasons for that stance.

[Behind the Aegis]

74. I agree with you!

It's just that I hold the new Ukrainian government in as much contempt as I hold Putin's regime

No argument from me!

I have seen threads about Russia's anti-gay laws and people make it about Snowden. That is using our rights in a less than honorable way! I have seen threads about the Russian actions in Crimea and people claiming it is "good" for the GLBT because Ukraine is so homophobic. That is using our rights in a less than honorable way!

[Democracyinkind]

75. I couldn't agree more. nt

[Ken Burch]

50. That isn't what is happening here.

Nobody's using the rights of Russian LGBTQ people as a chess piece...in fact, what some of us are actually questioning is the use of a supposed concern for Russian LGBTQ rights as a pretext by U.S. right-wingers in order to drag us all back into the Cold War...an era when LGBTQ people made almost no meaningful gains in their rights anywhere, btw.

btw...the Jackson/Vanik Amendment was an example of using a people's rights as a chess piece. Nobody in the Ford Administration or and hardly any of those who backed Jackson/Vanik actually cared about Soviet Jews at all...they were simply using supposed concern for their rights(rights the U.S. right wing hadn't given a damn about when it passed the "Jewish Exclusion" immigration quotas of 1923 that barred almost all further Jewish immigration to the U.S. and, thus, guaranteed the near-success of Hitler's project of genocide), they just wanted to keep us in a confrontation with "those Commie bastards" at a time when the USSR was already in long-term decline and when there was no real reason anymore for continued massive U.S. nuclear stockpiles or interventionist policies in African and Latin American countries. Yes, it ended up, by chance, getting some Soviet Jews out of the USSR...but that was never out of actual concern about them on the part of any right-wing "Christian" U.S. politicians.

[Behind the Aegis]

52. Why do you insist on telling others what the "truth" is?

Yes, people here have in fact used GLBT rights as a chess piece. It has been happening since I have been a member here.

"what some of us are actually questioning is the use of a supposed concern for Russian LGBTQ rights as a pretext by U.S. right-wingers in order to drag us all back into the Cold War"

And some of us have been seeing the exact opposite! Both are fucking offensive.

[Ken Burch]

33. Is it "trashing Ukraine" to point out that Crimea WAS historically part of Russia?

You can point out that fact WITHOUT defending Putin's tactics, y'know.

The fact is, it's never been likely that Ukraine would get to keep Crimea, and Ukraine doesn't really need it for any particular reason.

Putin's wrong to do what he's done, but it's silly to act like there's no argument for a Russian claim to Crimea.

[The Magistrate]

88. Depends On How Far You Go In History, Sir

Russia entered the Crimea as a imperialist power early in eighteenth century. The present make-up of its population is the result systematic killing and deportation of the earlier inhabitants, and of deliberate colonization in the old population transfer sense. While Ukraine in the seventeenth century turned to Russia for protection from Poland and Lithuania, it status quickly became colonial rather than fraternal under the Czars. After the Great War an independent Ukraine was briefly established, but never too firmly, and after much fighting, with Kiev for example changing hands four or five times in two years, the Bolsheviks came out on top, and Ukraine became part of the Soviet empire.

[Ken Burch]

95. I appreciate the information. Thank you. n/t.

[cui bono]

6. Are there really people defending Russia's actions on here?

I haven't followed the DU discussion of this too much but that would surprise me. Can't believe anyone would defend a land grab like that.

As to the mentioning of the anti-gay laws, I don't think it's fair to think that everyone must mention that whenever they talk about Russia. We all know about it and we all abhor it, that is a given unless expressly stated otherwise. If the discussion is about their actions in the Ukraine I don't see why we have to bring up the anti-gay laws if it's not organic to the conversation. Discrimination against women isn't always mentioned when discussing the Middle East countries and that doesn't make me feel that people love the leaders of those countries that have discriminatory laws against women.

[jaysunb]

8. +1 n/t

[renegade000]

30. i don't see any cheerleading, but

you'll have to forgive a lot of posters here for inferring that people are trying to mount a defense of Putin and Russia's actions, given that criticism of said actions seems to be met with lots of tu quoque deflection (i.e. "well, the US has done WORSE things!&quot

[Ken Burch]

31. There's no contradiction between saying that the U.S. has done worse things

and saying that Putin's actions in Ukraine are excessively aggressive.

We don't have to pretend he's the worst guy in history to make the point that he's doing bad things.

[renegade000]

56. it's not a contradiction, it's a red herring

a rhetorical tactic used to try to focus attention away from party A's misdeeds onto party B's (and perhaps simultaneously normalize said misdeeds). and sure, just because it's a standard apologetics ploy (and funnily enough, one especially favored by the Russian government), it doesn't necessarily make one a supporter/defender of party A. but, again, you kind of see how people reach said conclusion?

[Ken Burch]

62. It's not a red herring just to point out that the U.S. has no moral authority in world affairs

and never will have it again.

It's simply an observation of reality.

The worst choices our country has made in the world have come from the false assumption that we are entitled to judge other countries on their actions. After the deeds of our leaders in the Twentieth Century, in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, the United States government will never be entitled to morally lecture any other country on any other issue again.

You can only morally lecture others if your country itself is beyond reproach. Ours never will be.

Do you disagree with that?

Ordinary people can condemn other countries...but not our leaders. Not ever.

[renegade000]

76. oh boy...

(1) It seems to be ordinary people condemning Russia on DU that has other DUers in a tizzy.

(2) Yes I disagree with your frankly bizarre, and morally nihilistic, notion. So you're saying that if someone like Dennis Kucinich somehow becomes president, because some our past leaders have been terrible, he has no moral authority to condemn blatant wrongdoings by other countries? How long does this sins of the predecessor thing last? What's the time window? I'd say the sins of the US government in the 19th century were about as bad or worse than those of the 20th century, so I guess that means it was a good thing FDR didn't do more to speak out against the Holocaust, as that would have been totally inappropriate given our history with slavery and Native American genocide.

And let's not even begin with the lack of moral authority of Russia would be under this scheme to lecture anyone else.

More criticism by everyone, even when hypocritical, is how things get better, not by casting a blind eye to moral offenses.

[Ken Burch]

97. If Dennis was president, he'd make the necessary moral changes in U.S. policy and rhetoric FIRST

Dennis would admit all the bad things our country had done in the past(such as the coups in Latin America)and commit us, at least as long as he was president, to not doing those things again.

But we have no moral authority before our leaders totally repent and apologize for all the crimes of the past, and offer real compensation for them.

Without that, we end up in absurd situations like our policy towards Nicaragua in the 1980's, where we were(among other things)condemning the democratically-elected Sandinista government for (briefly)mistreating the indigenous Miskitos(something they acknowledged and stopped after only four or five years)-as if the U.S., especially when governed by a former movie cowboy, EVER had any moral right to criticize any OTHER nation for its treatment of indigenous peoples.

[newthinking]

46. Not really. People are trying to shut down discussion around the events that they don't like

They attempt to club people that point out cause/effect and that there are really no "good guys" in this situation with "Putin lover".

Progressives have a tendency to try and understand the deeper "how" and "why" and investigate the point of view. Or folks see this more as a humanitarian crisis and understand both points of views of the people in Ukraine. But there are those here who simply don't want to empathize and have to see things more black and white.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

86. There have been a few.

Not a lot, but a few have actually justified Putin's land grab.

[Cha]

9. +1!

[William769]

21. +1.

I say anymore, I'll get into trouble.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. But everyone loves gay rights!

Well, when it suits them!

[Ken Burch]

34. You don't have to support a confrontational policy towards Russia from outside to be pro-LGBTQ

It doesn't help Russian LGBTQ people to use rhetoric about this that sounds like stuff Reagan would have said in the Cold War...and historically, U.S. government attacks on Russia over human rights never actually helped the people who were repressed there.

Nothing can ever be worth lowering ourselves to sounding like warmongers like Scoop Jackson.

The key is negotiations...and, for the moment, the pressure should probably be on Russia to allow LGBTQ people to immigrate, since its impossible to change their conditions for the better inside Russia at this stage.

[Behind the Aegis]

39. I didn't say anything remotely close to your strawman.

I was very clear in what I said; and I meant it.

[Ken Burch]

45. YOU said that everyone supports gay rights "when it suits them".

Nobody here is refusing to support gay rights in Russia at all...and you know it. Nobody gives Putin a pass on this and you know it.

We've all denounced Putin for that at various times, most of us repeatedly.

Do we have to put Putin's treatment of LGBTQ people before the mistreatment of LGBTQ people in any OTHER country?

Is what he's doing more important than what Uganda's doing?

if so, why? Do African LGBTQ people not matter as much?

Why should we spend MORE time on Putin on this issue than on any other bad country on this issue?

Why should be put the treatment of Russian LGBTQ people first, when that helps bring back the Cold War and anything that leads to the return of the Cold War can only have right-wing consequences? Any aggressive foreign policy by any country always ends up making life worse for the majority of people. Only the rich benefit from international confrontation.

Oppression of LGBTQ people is equally important no matter WHICH country it happens in. It's not worse just because it's Russia doing the mistreating.

[Behind the Aegis]

48. And I meant it....again!

Nobody here is refusing to support gay rights in Russia at all...and you know it.

Did I say that? Why no, I didn't. I said they support it when it suits them.

I am not answering any of your absurd "questions."

It's not worse just because it's Russia doing the mistreating.

Disturbing predictable strawman.

[Ken Burch]

53. by "when it suits them" you meant "they DON'T support RUSSIAN LGBTQ people".

We're discussing Russia and Putin here. That's the only thing you COULD have meant.

And it's a lie.

All of us here support LGBTQ people and their worldwide struggle just as passionately as you do.

We all support them in Russia. We all support them in Palestine. All of us on DU support them equally EVERYWHERE.

And you know it.

We don't have to speak out MORE on the Russian situation than others to prove that.

[Behind the Aegis]

59. Don't call me a liar and don't tell me "what I mean!"

Yes, "when it suits them." What it means is when it is convenient to them is the only time we see them making comments about GLBT issues. Stop telling me, as a gay man, what I have and haven't encountered on this board!

Stop speaking for everyone, you don't have that right.

We don't have to speak out MORE on the Russian situation than others to prove that.

Surprise, another strawman.

[Ken Burch]

67. Not a strawman...the logical surmise from your post.

And I didn't call you a "liar", I said that the assertion that some here are conditional in their support of LGBTQ rights is a lie...and a collective smear.

You have no call to imply that any significant number of posters on DU are throwing LGBTQ people under the bus.

The claim that some are(and I'm not putting this on you, for the record)goes back to the claim by Hillary Clinton supporters(when she was generally running sharply to the right of all other Democratic candidates in the 2008 primaries, and when she herself was throwing African-Americans under the bus in states like West Virginia by running as the candidate of bitter white people who still hate the civil rights movement)that LGBTQ supporters should back her(even though she'd never defended gays when Bill was president and never tried to get him to veto DOMA)because of the guy Obama had offering prayers at a few rallies(as if a candidate who wanted to launch a missile strike against Iran could ever do anything pro-LGBTQ or otherwise progressive as president).

It was bogus then...it's bogus now.

It's only Republicans and DLC Dems who aren't backing LGBTQ rights.

[Behind the Aegis]

70. You did call me a liar; now twice.

And I didn't call you a "liar", I said that the assertion that some here are conditional in their support of LGBTQ rights is a lie...and a collective smear.

You, again, call me a liar! Stop! And stop telling me "what I mean" and what, as a gay man at DU, what I have experienced.

It's only Republicans and DLC Dems who aren't backing LGBTQ rights.

Bullshit! Some only "back it" when it is useful to their cause, when it isn't, they turn on us.

[uriel1972]

73. The second is a "No True Scotsman"

Obviously if they don't support LGBTQ rights they must be a closet republican or DLC Dem. Sloppy logic.

[uriel1972]

72. BTA is right though...

You don't, can't speak for everyone on this board. Plus I don't believe you could have read every post on this board either. Soooo in my mind that makes you a little arrogant and to be treated/read with caution.

[NuclearDem]

5. Could've fooled me.

Given the effort to deflect blame and criticism from the asshole and defend his state-run propaganda outfit.

[Cha]

10. Exactly.. and saying it isn't so doesn't change what's been going on.

[Ken Burch]

58. What HAS been going on, as you see it?

And why should the ONLY acceptable position be "Putin is not only wrong, there was no reason for his emergence in power and no history that led to his horrible choices...he's just personally evil and that's all that matters"?

What is so terrible about pointing out that, up until 1954, the Crimea was, in fact, part of Russia? You do realize that a person can make that observation without actually DEFENDING anything Putin has done.

We're all anti-Putin. It's just that some of us don't feel we have to say stuff that sounds like Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech in order to prove that.

And there ARE major forces in American politics that are, in fact, trying to push us into war over this(as many of the same forces are still trying to push us into a war with Iran, even though a war with Iran would have to also become a war with Russia since Russia would have to jump in on Iran's side). That prospect should terrify everyone.

[Cha]

63. No "We" aren't all anti-Putin.. you're wrong. here's a thread just last night with Putin Propaganda

.. The link is my reply to it.. unfortunately, the OP was "removed".. very possibly for pushing the Putin Propaganda all over DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4682918

[Anansi1171]

83. Is Russia entitled to Eastern Ukraine? -nt

[flamingdem]

11. Good points

Why are we reliving the cold war? This is NOT about us. This is about their history, their racial groups and loyalties. Putin needs to be our ally, not a cold war enemy.

[itsrobert]

12. I think Snowden and Greenwald

probably post under aliases.

[BainsBane]

13. These "no body" says (fill in the blank) posts are ridiculous

Firstly, no one has read every post on DU. You can't claim to know what everyone says.

There most certainly are a few members dedicated to justifying Russian military takeover of the Ukraine and reciting Russian propaganda. Putin controls foreign policy, so I see zero difference between that and being pro-Putin.
You'll have to ask those members why they are so keen on Russian military invasions.

The rest of your post is nonsensical. No one who knows anything about the situation or the administration believes the US is going to intervene militarily in the Ukraine. If your goal is to justify Russian military intervention by stirring up fears about a new Cold War, that strikes me as cynical. I don't know why some on this site are so invested in ginning up war hysteria, but I am sick to death of it.

[The Magistrate]

14. Well Said, Ma'am

[Number23]

16. I actually find the "NO ONE HERE SUPPORTS PUTIN!1" posts almost as hilarious as the actual

pro-Putin posts.

[Ken Burch]

37. There are no Pro-Putin posts and you know it.

We're all united in condemning what he's done to gays. We ALL think he's been excessive on Ukraine.

It's just that some of us remember that nothing can ever again be worse than war.

There can't be a military confrontation with Russia that could ever make life better for anyone...and a return to Cold War rhetoric can't do that either.

Confrontational foreign policy is always right-wing, and always solely for the benefit of the rich. The United States can never liberate anyone again(we haven't since 1945).

[Number23]

38. So if there are no pro-Putin posts, why do we keep seeing posts denying their existence?

[Ken Burch]

41. Because false accusations must be denied.

The accusation that ANYONE here supports Putin is this year's McCarthyism...and it's just as much a lie as the original McCarthyism.

[newthinking]

51. This subthread is seriously orwellian

You must be a communist because all you do is defend yourself and say you are not a communist!

Folks here need to learn history.

[Number23]

64. Accusations of "falseness" must be denied over and over and over again

Each one of us apparently expected to deny our lying eyes that have seen countless posts from people here (most of whom are endlessly ardent criticizers of THIS government, which of course again we are not supposed to notice) minimizing, 'splaining, or flat out denying Russia's actions because omg! the U.S. has done bad stuff too.

Apparently the temperature falling in Russia is the United States or the ubiquitous West's fault but there is no Putin support here and no one is minimizing Putin's absolutely abysmal role in the state of his country's affairs. Right.

[Bonobo]

57. THAT post must indeed win the Orwell Award! Bravo! nt

[Cha]

55. Bizarre! It's like ..

you kinda need to keep up dude if you want to be taken seriously.

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. Thank You!

[LostOne4Ever]

35. +1000(nt)

[Ken Burch]

40. I oppose ANYBODY militarily intervening anywhere.

What you forget is that wars of words almost always end up turning into just plain wars.

And if we did end up in any military conflict with Russia, all hope for anything positive anywhere would be gone.

Nothing could ever be worse than another Cuban Missile Crisis.

For the rest of history, nothing can ever be worse than war.

[Cha]

54. Well said BB!

"There most certainly are a few members dedicated to justifying Russian military takeover of the Ukraine and reciting Russian propaganda. Putin controls foreign policy, so I see zero difference between that and being pro-Putin.
You'll have to ask those members why they are so keen on Russian military invasions."

[mackerel]

15. Crimea River

LOL

[Warpy]

19. Yeah, I usually alert only for egregious posts

and a lot of them get hidden 6-0, my fuse is that long. However, calling anyone here at DU a Putin dupe or any of the loaded language that says the same thing is going to get an alert.

Maybe it will be enough to start getting rid of some of the cleverer trolls around here.

Most of us are all too aware of Putin's KGB past and ruthless present.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. Some people seem to have learned international affairs from "Game of Thrones".

[vlakitti]

24. Robert Parry is right.

Thanks for saying what you said. The news media I see in stories all over the web (and in particular the Associated Press) are working overtime to drag this country back into a cold war mentality, and the neocons are suddenly an increasing influence seemingly everywhere.

How on earth did this happen?

[uriel1972]

25. Putin has the power not to invade the Ukraine...

Nor threaten to do so. I say that makes him high on the list of people responsible. Sure the situation is complex, but I can't see anyone holding Putin's arm behind his back, forcing him to go hawkish. He must bear the responsibility of his position as the person who has the ultimate authority to order out Russia's war machine.

[Skip Intro]

26. A question would be, if Crimea wants to be part of Russia, and Russia wants Crimea

to be part of Russia, do other nations really have a right to stop that?

[bpollen]

29. Putin...

Never trust a spook. Did we learn nothing with Pappa Bush?

[treestar]

36. There were people giving him credit for the Syria settlement

Saying we / Obama should get none.

Then there were those praising him for giving E. Snowden asylum. And blaming Obama/the US that Eddie "had" to stay in that semi-dictatorship kleptocracy with no functioning bill of rights.

Then the group claiming Obama/the US started the Ukrainian issues now happening; that the Crimea should be part of Russia, that Russia already is allowed to have troops there, etc. I.E., that Putin is right.

[politicman]

66. not so simple

I like Obama (I really do) because he does many good things, but I also know that Obama, like any president before him does many bad things.

Simply pointing out the bad things and policies that Obama follows is not being pro-Putin or pro-terrorists, or pro-anything else.
We do it because we believe that the bad things done by Obama and presidents before him not only affect the current crisis what ever it is, but those bad things can contribute to crises in the future.


If Obama were to stop the double standards practiced by the country he governs, then he would be viewed as a hero while Putin the evil devil, but when Obama (and presidents before him) interfere in nearly every country, when they support dictators that are their puppets while destroying the countries of dictators that don't submit to the will of America, when they act outraged if one innocent American dies yet they themselves kill innocents around the world on grand scales, when they reserve the right to invade any country that they deem is in the best national interests of America yet dent those same rights to other countries, you can bet you bottom dollar that many people ill find it hard to distinguish who the good guy is in a crisis.

[mathematic]

43. Love the sin. Hate the sinner.

OR SOMETHING.

[MADem]

60. You might want to talk to the people on MIRT instead of making "pronouncements"

about what is/isn't the POV of some posters here.

I was recently in a thread where a blatant Putinista was acting like, well, a fucking asshole, and MIRT very nicely took him out. In fact, quite a few jerks who are now called "Name Removed" have touted the Putin position quite relentlessly.

Mirt is working their asses off. They should get paid, they're working so hard.

And these shit-stirrers aren't "dupes" for Putin--they know exactly what they are doing.

[Democracyinkind]

65. This is, I think, a lost cause.

But it is true that no one really is pro-Putin but some newly arrived disruptors who are quickly taken care of by MIRT. But adding nuance and substance to the discussion of events without first condemning everyone from Peter the Great to Putin will get you labeled a Putin supporter. But that's how it's always been in this country, no matter which team holds the office.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

77. Most of that I agree with, but not "all of us here stand with LGBTQ people in Russia and etc"

I think there are a significant number of DUers who, while they doubtless like to think that they do, are in effect not doing so.

I also think you're completely wrong about it serving no purpose for this to be a global confrontation. I think Putin's policy is frog-boiling expansion - invading one country after another, first Georgia, then Ukraine, and who knows where next - and that the only hope of stopping that is other countries banding together and opposing him through sanctions.

[uriel1972]

79. "My last territorial demand in Europe."?

Methinks I've seen that policy of "Frog-boiling" happen before. Look how that turned out. Maybe we should look for a better strategy than plain appeasement this time. I don't know what, entirely, but sanctions are a start.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

80. The "I don't know what" is universal.

I'm not sure there is a not-awful option.

[uriel1972]

81. The least awful option...

The one that results in the least overall harm. Dare I say it... "The Lesser of Evils."

[djean111]

82. That only counts when voting, silly!

What a place! In one thread, someone whose wife has been denied a drug for her MS is admonished that hey! The ACA helps a LOT of people (get insurance, not to be confused with actual health care), so stop whining.
If some say why vote for or abjectly worship politicians who act like republicans, we are told lesser evil! or called Freeper trolls.
There is no logic.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

84. Not *quite* true.

I agree that claims of "loving" Putin have been grossly exaggerated, but there have been some instances of blatant Putin apology on here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4677598

"This recent situation in Crimea, I believe, is a godsend. First, it has permitted the situation here in Kiev to assume a certain level of normalcy. And I've been thinking recently that how much better the 20th century would have been if, within the first couple of months of Hitler's rule in Germany, someone had decided it was time to put an end to his nonsense and went ahead and invaded Germany. Maybe people in the states don't learn from history, but it certainly looks like Mr. Putin has."

FWIW, that post got 75 recs. Not saying that those recs were based on that particular paragraph, but they did fail to call that OP out on a pretty disturbing statement on his part.

[snooper2]

85. Could you at least wait a couple months before you try

to re-write history here LOL

[Bluenorthwest]

87. You should try speaking for yourself and only yourself. My other advice is this: do not

assume that support for LGBT rights 'goes without saying'. It does not go without saying, not everyone here is supportive and there are others who might claim to be but who would gladly excuse anti gay horrors if it advanced some agenda they saw as 'really important'. If you spoke for yourself, it would be more convincing. If you did not claim all the important things that need to be said 'go without saying' you'd be more convincing.
Your post says 'It goes without saying, but....' So you won't even actually say it. You type around it. And it leads directly to a 'but'. Exempting that support.
I have had people on DU call me a 'red baiter' and say that I 'hate the entire Russian people' because I criticized the anti gay laws. So do not fucking tell me everybody or everyone. Speak for your own damn self, and actually speak. None of this 'goes without saying but' bullshit.
And also, stop preaching at LGBT people that you, as a Straight person, know how we should be advocating for ourselves. Your advocacy is unspoken, goes without saying, so it is exactly the same as no advocacy at all.
If those anti gay laws were targeting a racial group, you would not so casually dismiss them. 'Of course apartheid is terrible, but is South Africa really BAD? Does the US, a former slave nation, have moral authority to criticize them?'
Imagine.

[JJChambers]

89. I'm pro-putin

Now change your OP to reflect the ridiculousness of your absolute.

[KamaAina]

93. I'm not even pro-poutine

it's the cheese curds that ruin it.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

96. And more:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4638710

[Capt. Obvious]

98. With regard to the Pro-Putin wars

All I need to know is the posters claiming that members are Putinistas (or whatever term of the day is) to know that is thin straw bullshit.

It's the same crowd that likes to post threads that, "this horrible person agrees with you" or "your hero agrees with me."

Same shit, different day. Yet they always seem to have dance partners.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

100. Well, yes, except for the ones who have actually praised Putin. nt

[Capt. Obvious]

101. Yes, the huge contingent of DU

That totally negates my post.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

106. The OP claimed there were no Putin apologists on DU whatsoever.

Don't know if you were actually echoing his sentiment or not, but the fact of the matter remains there are some DUers who have in fact complimented or agreed with Putin as it relates to his actions in Ukraine. I'm not saying everyone who urges caution as it relates to the Ukrainian crisis is a Putin apologist--far from it, actually--but there are in fact some on here who have been quite complimentary of what the man's done.

[Capt. Obvious]

107. I have no shot at winning my office pool

Which is not true. I have as good a shot as any.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

102. True. However, my eyes are on the U.S.'s penchant for paying for coups, as was done to my country

and so many other countries around the globe. It's what the U.S. does. It wouldn't be the first time, and it sure as hell won't be the last. In fact, if and when the U.S. ever stopped doing regime-change, would it be the U.S. anymore? I doubt it.

[jazzimov]

103. "NOBODY"? Seriously? so you're ready to vouch for every single DUer?

Such absolutist declarations automatically turn me off.

Especially when I have personally seen evidence to the contrary.

Oh, and before you ask "show me some examples" - you made the initial assertion, therefore it's up to you to prove your point. That "NOBODY" has ever posted anything pro-Putin on DU.

Good luck with that.

[OilemFirchen]

104. NOBODY uses declaratives on DU.

OTOH, an OP very similar to yours was posted a week or so ago. The author, if I'm not mistaken, has since quietly acquiesced, noting in posts on other threads that, in fact, there are Putin boosters on this board. More than a few, but less than a few dozen, by my observation.

His thread was a bit less condescending and his replies a bit more thoughtful. So I give you a month or so to come to the same conclusion.

That said, I've seen ONE poster advocating for physical aggression in this matter, and said poster is now on a permanent vacation.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

108. .....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022926303