Because you so obviously are more interested in spreading libel and doubt about those who put forward critique of Russian corruption, than to actually analyze the subject matter in a civilized manner.
If you really care about Russia, start acting better than those who libel Russia. That means, don't libel back.
Because virtue signaling. I'm not saying this to de-legitimize the "russia is bad" message, but the fact is, in instances like this (eg. a personal blog) such actions are far more about benefiting the person performing the action (ie. setting up the redirect) than it is actually about getting russia to stop.
I was specifically trying to avoid the whataboutisms that so frequently come up in these discussions. I find what Putin is doing to be deplorable, and the pro-Russia astroturfing is often blatantly obvious. I had a genuine curiosity, but obviously I did a poor job of expressing it.
Russia is no more of a "corrupt shitty regime" than your own. So maybe, just maybe, you should focus on constructive criticism of your own country instead of offending others, hmmm? After more than 60 years of anti-Russian propaganda I am not quite surprised that most Americans take every opportunity to jab at or feel somehow morally or otherwise superior to Russia and Russians, yet you would be surprised just how opposite and rather humane most Russians think of Americans and the States... and not because of some God given right of American righteousness and superiority, or some Russian inferiority complex.
At this point it's pretty much wilful libel from you... try being more intellectually honest! I'm neither a Vatnik nor a Tankie, nor any other dismissive term you care to throw, but it's the usual fare from people who push an agenda and someone brings up substance ("nevermind the facts, that's off topic, you're just a racist, antisemite, misogynist, uncle tom, self-hating Jew, anti vaxxer, white supremacist or whatever else") to distract from the substantive questions. The word "whataboutism" is also used to shut down any questioning about double standards, or about reasoning by analogy, or comparing apples to apples, etc.
A term which "which is used to disparage someone as a blindly patriotic and unintelligent jingoist who pushes the conventional views presented in Russian government media as well as those of Russian web brigades"
Hm, first of all, do Vatniks regularly go around condemning Russia's destroying of Grozny, Aleppo and Homs, killing civilians, arming rebels in Donbas, and now constantly saying "no to War" and advocating resumption peace negotiations? In Russian channels I keep challenging Russians the same way I challenge you. And in each case some jingoistic people think I'm "an agent of the other side". It's very common, when you're holding an extreme position (USA is 0% at fault, Russia is 100% at fault) to think anyone with a more balanced view is some kind of follower of "enemy" propaganda.
Second of all, I don't follow Russian propaganda, most of what I am telling you I pieced from mainstream Western sources like the BBC, PBS, NYTimes, Washington Post, The Guardian, mainstream politicians, as well as Western experts and critics of the US (thankfully we have freedom of speech in our country).
You must really think Tulsi is a Russian asset, Noam Chomsky is a Vatnik, etc. You probably think that I follow Russian propaganda because you can't imagine someone thinking for themselves, following mainstream Western sources, arriving at the same conclusions as some of what Russia has been saying (because some -- not all -- of it is true). The argument "well, Hitler also says 2+2 is 4 so your conclusions are remarkably similar, you must be a nazi sympathizer" is a logical fallacy, in any case.
Third, you're uncritically repeating all CIA talking points, and always quietly dodging any direct questions come up with regard to US involvement. What should I call you? A jingoist American exceptionalist? A useful idiot for US intelligence agencies to destabilize more countries, agencies which have admitted to lying to our own citizens for decades, but every time you take everything they're saying at face value -- until they declassify 10 years later the extent of their involvement?
In fact, in your OWN ARTICLE, quoting from it multiple times, you conveniently omitted paragraphs which PROVE MY POINT:
He added that the lack of large-scale support from Russia was a major disappointment for the separatists, who lacked the manpower or weapons to combat government forces.
"Initially I assumed that the Crimea scenario would be repeated: Russia would enter," he told Zavtra. "That was the best scenario. And the population wanted that. Nobody intended to fight for the Luhansk and Donetsk republics. Initially everybody was for Russia."
After Donetsk and Luhansk held "referendums" on their independence from Ukraine in May, separatist leaders appealed to Moscow to accept the territories as Russian regions but Moscow responded with vague statements calling for "dialogue" between rebels and Kiev.
The separatist groups had not contemplated building functional states and had pinned their hopes on being absorbed by Russia, Strelkov said, reasoning that Moscow needed a land connection to Crimea, which it had annexed in March.
"And then, when I understood that Russia was not going to take us in — I associated myself with the resistance — for us that decision was a shock," Strelkov was quoted as saying.
So let's see. You asked how did Russia refrain from escalating. They told the Rebels they're not annexing them, and to work things out with Kyiv. They did however help the rebels more than the official government admits (another place where I call bullshit on Russian government claims... unlike you with US government claims).
Every time the CIA declassifies the extent of their role behind the events 10 years later, it turns out to be way bigger than the "US Vatniks" have ever admitted. By then, of course, they've moved on to the next thing, or a next generation of "US Vatniks" rises up to say, this time, it's 100% the other country's fault. Like, all those dozens of countries, they're all bad, and US is the indispensable nation, that is simply helping others achieve their freedom.
You don't see the irony of you defending the US coordinated official talking points, calling someone who thinks for themselves a Vatnik?
it is not illegal or unethical to be a Russian; that means doing things that people do, like publish papers or try to be influential to other thinking people. Vilification of an opponent is yet another ugly aspect of this man-made disaster occurring now.
As I stated, it was possible that you wrote the comment to divert criticism. I said that because Russia has a giant army of internet trolls who spend all day doing that sort of thing.
But I also said it was possible there was another cause, and I see now that is the case. My apologies.
You may not be attempting to spread Russian propaganda, but your point of view is one of Russia's many propagandist talking points. Do not be surprised at the negative reaction.
I just responded to your question about "why no dialog" elsewhere in the thread.
This.
This kind of bias leaves us no way other than participate in this doomed political discussion inevitably loosing karma :(
Why don't you ask for sources to support claims such as
"Putin jailing and killing his political opponents".
As a hypothetical pro-Russian user, why would you ...?
Because as a troll, your goal certainly isn't to be popular. It's to dilute the narrative, and wear people down. For which getting dogpiled is just par for the course.
Why don't you read what I wrote instead of making up your own meaning?
Your link was about anti-Russian sentiment being tied to western propaganda when in reality, they're creating that sentiment through their own actions.
If you really care about Russia, start acting better than those who libel Russia. That means, don't libel back.
reply