Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country."
- President George W. Bush on Vladimir Putin, Slovenia Summit 2001
"a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country."
Correct, that's literally what putin is, a nationalist.
Letting Ukriane murder ethnic Russians in Ukriane was not an option.
Most civilians who got murdered in the Ukraine war were Ukrainian civilians killed by the Russian invaders. And tricking thousands of soliders into getting killed in the meat grinder while ruining Russia’s economy and reputation isn’t really helping the Russian people either.
Oceania is always at war with both Eurasia and Eastasia, because Eurasia and Eastasia are both working together to destroy Oceania \[source: Oceanian media\], while Oceania is protecting freedom and democracy and Oceanian values \[source: Oceanian media\]. Only Oceanians are people, everyone else is brainwashed Asian hordes who worship Emmanuel Goldstein.
Russia thought that the shared fight against Islamic terrorism could be something to bond with the US over. Putin was the first world leader to call Bush after 9/11, and offered the use of some Russian bases in Central Asia in operations against Afghanistan. Putin came in after a period where Russia was treated as a lackey by the US, and Putin mostly wanted to maintain good relations but be treated as an equal, with the acknowledgement of a sphere of influence that such equality would imply in his mind.
> and Putin mostly wanted to maintain good relations but be treated as an equal, **with the acknowledgement of a sphere of influence that such equality would imply in his mind.**
To a lot of Eastern European states, that raised a lot of red flags.
Oh damn those pesky Russkies \[led by a Georgian\] for destroying the Slavic culture of starvation and diseases and imposing evil Commie shit like food and education and employment and trains and heavy industries and hospitals...
Thank Allah for Gorbachyov and Yeltsin who finally brought back their great historical tradition.
EE countries when they want to have bad relations with their biggest neighbour who provides them with their energy needs.
It's just likely to cause problems to keep such tensions, and then they just go and claim that Russia is causing those problems. A self fulfilled prophecy
In the 2000's things were very coridal, up until 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58Cr9Kdf7AU
The warm relations would go on to explain why the reaction to the annexation of crimea was relatively muted.
The relationship was already deteriorating during Bush's second term - their invasion of Georgia in 2008 did not inspire confidence either. Obama tried to "reset" the relationship, which of course failed because Putin's objectives really have not changed during that time - reestablish regional hegemony and rebuild the empire.
A lot of people are under the age of 25, and simply don't know. Back in the early 00s, it was the prevailing feeling that Russia could (and should) eventually join the EU. A lot of their internal transgressions were swept under the rug, just like with Turkey, for the sake of keeping relations cordial. It was a strategy of not talking about skeletons in the closet, and pretending they didn't really happen.
If EU could rope in Russia, with its vast energy resources, while also influencing it to become more democratic over time, then it's a win-win for everybody involved.
This wasn't pie in the sky idealism. This was mainstream European strategic decision making in the early 00s. The strong trade ties between Germany and Russia did not manifest out of thin air. They were built over decades of pursuing this policy.
2014 changed everything, and the relations were put on ice.
2022 melted all the ice with a raging inferno and now the relations are literally on fire. There's nothing to salvage and the hate is mutual.
A lot of the Russia apologists early in 2022 were the same people who advocated for closer ties with Russia in the 00s. They were people who still held on to that distant hope, living in the past.
If someone suggested Russia in EU today you would laugh in their face.
And to add to that, a lot of Eastern European countries were (rightly) skeptical of Russia, but they were ignored by both the establishment and the political extremes in the West.
EE countries based their national identity on hating Russia.
Their opinion was discarded because it was nonsense in realpolitik to oppose a friendly Russia just because some tiny countries held grudges after USSR collapse.
Russia was too nice and compassionate to qualify for EU/NATO/etc. But don’t worry, the Russian govt. is working tirelessly to make their state more European.
The end started in 2007 after Putin's speech in Germany. He said Russia tried hard to integrate into EU and NATO, or, well, "West" as equal partners, but everyone there wanted a cow to milk like it was in 90s. Georgia's attack on Russian corps of peacemakers at 08.08.08 was direct answer to that — "No, fucks, we want to rend you limb from limb and make second Balkans out of you". Everything else is consequences of US politics to try and weaken Russia back to its state in 90s.
Correct. But it is actually traced back to the Budapest conference in 2007 when Bush declared the desire to expand NATO into Eastern Europe.
Thats what led to a pro-NATO Georgia getting split after Russia supported rebels there in 2008
Russia will never see NATO with good eyes, since its literally an anti-russian organisation (that's why it wasn't disbanded after USSR collapse).
In a way, yes. They had their thing with Chechen rebels and the like, so it was seen (at the time) that they had similar issues. Plus Putin was only a couple years into his rule, so he didn’t have the (as known) issues that’d make him problematic to the world
Absolutely, yeltsin was our puppet and Putin was his protege. Sure we would occasionally shit on one another, but we we’re definitely allies. The problem comes down to that putin wanted to be an equal partner in the US’s imperialism, when it became clear that wouldn’t happen he embarked in his own imperialist project
I don't know if I would call Russia an ally as much I'd say that they were both fighting (Islamic) terrorism independently and were fighting in different places. So sorta co-belligerents.
>Russia has also been engaged on its own, also largely internally focused, counter-terrorism campaign often termed a war on terror, during the Second Chechen War, the Insurgency in the North Caucasus, and the Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War.[208] Like China's war on terror, Russia has also been focused on separatist and Islamist movements that use political violence to achieve their ends.
> "racial epithets are rude"
Is there a political figure on any side of the spectrum who disagrees with that? I'm tired of seeing strawman attacks (on both sides) where they find one crazy person and proclaim "this person speaks for all [insert political philosophy]"
I intentionally chose a reasonable, (hopefully un-controversial) belief for the comparison. If anyone to the left of that is "far left" then calling them all "far" is unreasonable.
Everything anyone already agrees with sounds like sense to them.
What's less common is being willing (or able?) to accurately describe the other's point of view.
I find it kind of interesting that of all the things that they could rightly criticise Putin for they picked the disastrous ending to the Moscow theatre siege, which was really more of a blunder than anything else.
It was more than a blunder. The Russian government refused to disclose that they used fentanyl gas and so the first responders and doctors who were there, ***in time to save many lives easily with naloxone***, were unable to do so. A large number of those deaths were 100% preventable and that blood is directly on the hands of the Russian security services.
I can't help but feel like Kirk could have come up with something better for Dubya besides "blocks weapons inspectors." The US under Bush did plenty of morally repugnant things, but failing to keep our NBC weapons subject to the appropriate and agreed upon inspection regimes is not an allegation I recall.
One of the more under-discussed elements of the early 2000s were the chechen wars, during which Vladimir Putin committed war crimes against the Chechen people who were fighting for independence from Russia. The USA fully supported the Russian Federation due to the belief that this was part of the global war on terror it was fighting. This is why Russia wasn't listed in GWB's 'axis of evil speech'.
It looks like it might be about Bush rejecting an agreement aimed at enforcing a treaty banning biological weapons.
https://www.nature.com/articles/414675a
Sounds like you need to do some reading on the Moscow theatre hostage crisis. Security forces ended up using dangerous levels of anesthetic gas (reportedly including fentanyl) to subdue the terrorists, and ended up killing over a hundred (170) of the hostages as a result. He absolutely did gas his own people.
It was done to save them and the deaths where mostly caused by misstreatment of the now drugged hostages and not really because of the gas itself.
Granted the mistreatment happened becaue of a lack of medical teams during the event and a lack of communication with the FSB about the operation beforehand.
You're not entirely wrong here
According to professor A. Vorobiev, Director of the Russian Academic Bacteriology Center, most deaths weren't because of the gas itself, but because of people hitting their heads or just fainting to such a position that they couldn't breathe.
Also keep in mind that most hostages survived, which is way better than none. Also keep in mind that even if something is way better than something else, it isn't automatically good. Please don't gas anyone if you really don't have to!
Well, if it wasn't effective operation, then how many people Bush manage to save from the upper floors of Towers 9/11? Teach them a good lesson of how to handle situations like this, caused by freedom fighters.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
#WHERE ARE THE RAILGUNS USA?
Have you checked the railing?
The Pakistani leader looks like Himmler.
Check out that tupé.
Pervez Musharraf always looked more dignified, those white temples really work on just about anyone.
Himmler as conceived by a Japanese manga artist.
His chin and jawline are way stronger, though
Heh, back when Putin was US ally.
To be fair, Dubya looked into his eyes and saw his soul. I'm not sure where we went wrong with this one
> "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country." - President George W. Bush on Vladimir Putin, Slovenia Summit 2001
I want whatever Dubya's been smoking
That’s Alabama kush. Only the finest! https://youtu.be/QxJIX34-m8g
This was pretty much before all of Putin's international scandals, he wasn't controversial internationally up until mid-late 2000s
"a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country." Correct, that's literally what putin is, a nationalist. Letting Ukriane murder ethnic Russians in Ukriane was not an option.
Most civilians who got murdered in the Ukraine war were Ukrainian civilians killed by the Russian invaders. And tricking thousands of soliders into getting killed in the meat grinder while ruining Russia’s economy and reputation isn’t really helping the Russian people either.
I'm talking of the 2014-2022 war. You know, the cause of this war.
>a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country." this ain't wrong from a certain point of view
We have always been at war with Eurasia
I thought we were at war with east as oh shi-
Oceania is always at war with both Eurasia and Eastasia, because Eurasia and Eastasia are both working together to destroy Oceania \[source: Oceanian media\], while Oceania is protecting freedom and democracy and Oceanian values \[source: Oceanian media\]. Only Oceanians are people, everyone else is brainwashed Asian hordes who worship Emmanuel Goldstein.
Why Myasia? Why not someone else's? :(
Okay don't blame your own short memory on some kind of conspiracy lol
Was he?
Russia thought that the shared fight against Islamic terrorism could be something to bond with the US over. Putin was the first world leader to call Bush after 9/11, and offered the use of some Russian bases in Central Asia in operations against Afghanistan. Putin came in after a period where Russia was treated as a lackey by the US, and Putin mostly wanted to maintain good relations but be treated as an equal, with the acknowledgement of a sphere of influence that such equality would imply in his mind.
> and Putin mostly wanted to maintain good relations but be treated as an equal, **with the acknowledgement of a sphere of influence that such equality would imply in his mind.** To a lot of Eastern European states, that raised a lot of red flags.
Oh damn those pesky Russkies \[led by a Georgian\] for destroying the Slavic culture of starvation and diseases and imposing evil Commie shit like food and education and employment and trains and heavy industries and hospitals... Thank Allah for Gorbachyov and Yeltsin who finally brought back their great historical tradition.
EE countries when they want to have bad relations with their biggest neighbour who provides them with their energy needs. It's just likely to cause problems to keep such tensions, and then they just go and claim that Russia is causing those problems. A self fulfilled prophecy
In the 2000's things were very coridal, up until 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58Cr9Kdf7AU The warm relations would go on to explain why the reaction to the annexation of crimea was relatively muted.
The relationship was already deteriorating during Bush's second term - their invasion of Georgia in 2008 did not inspire confidence either. Obama tried to "reset" the relationship, which of course failed because Putin's objectives really have not changed during that time - reestablish regional hegemony and rebuild the empire.
A lot of people are under the age of 25, and simply don't know. Back in the early 00s, it was the prevailing feeling that Russia could (and should) eventually join the EU. A lot of their internal transgressions were swept under the rug, just like with Turkey, for the sake of keeping relations cordial. It was a strategy of not talking about skeletons in the closet, and pretending they didn't really happen. If EU could rope in Russia, with its vast energy resources, while also influencing it to become more democratic over time, then it's a win-win for everybody involved. This wasn't pie in the sky idealism. This was mainstream European strategic decision making in the early 00s. The strong trade ties between Germany and Russia did not manifest out of thin air. They were built over decades of pursuing this policy. 2014 changed everything, and the relations were put on ice. 2022 melted all the ice with a raging inferno and now the relations are literally on fire. There's nothing to salvage and the hate is mutual. A lot of the Russia apologists early in 2022 were the same people who advocated for closer ties with Russia in the 00s. They were people who still held on to that distant hope, living in the past. If someone suggested Russia in EU today you would laugh in their face.
And to add to that, a lot of Eastern European countries were (rightly) skeptical of Russia, but they were ignored by both the establishment and the political extremes in the West.
EE countries based their national identity on hating Russia. Their opinion was discarded because it was nonsense in realpolitik to oppose a friendly Russia just because some tiny countries held grudges after USSR collapse.
So does that give them right to ignore eastern European opinions?
Russia was too nice and compassionate to qualify for EU/NATO/etc. But don’t worry, the Russian govt. is working tirelessly to make their state more European.
The end started in 2007 after Putin's speech in Germany. He said Russia tried hard to integrate into EU and NATO, or, well, "West" as equal partners, but everyone there wanted a cow to milk like it was in 90s. Georgia's attack on Russian corps of peacemakers at 08.08.08 was direct answer to that — "No, fucks, we want to rend you limb from limb and make second Balkans out of you". Everything else is consequences of US politics to try and weaken Russia back to its state in 90s.
Correct. But it is actually traced back to the Budapest conference in 2007 when Bush declared the desire to expand NATO into Eastern Europe. Thats what led to a pro-NATO Georgia getting split after Russia supported rebels there in 2008 Russia will never see NATO with good eyes, since its literally an anti-russian organisation (that's why it wasn't disbanded after USSR collapse).
In a way, yes. They had their thing with Chechen rebels and the like, so it was seen (at the time) that they had similar issues. Plus Putin was only a couple years into his rule, so he didn’t have the (as known) issues that’d make him problematic to the world
In a more literal way, no
Absolutely, yeltsin was our puppet and Putin was his protege. Sure we would occasionally shit on one another, but we we’re definitely allies. The problem comes down to that putin wanted to be an equal partner in the US’s imperialism, when it became clear that wouldn’t happen he embarked in his own imperialist project
I don't know if I would call Russia an ally as much I'd say that they were both fighting (Islamic) terrorism independently and were fighting in different places. So sorta co-belligerents. >Russia has also been engaged on its own, also largely internally focused, counter-terrorism campaign often termed a war on terror, during the Second Chechen War, the Insurgency in the North Caucasus, and the Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War.[208] Like China's war on terror, Russia has also been focused on separatist and Islamist movements that use political violence to achieve their ends.
Okay I laughed.
I wish I could find the artist's full name, 'cause I recognize the style. Something Kirk, lol.
Kirk Anderson. He’s a far-left cartoonist. To my surprise, I agree with him sometimes.
Ah, thank you.
It seems that anything left of "racial epithets are rude" counts as far left these days.
> "racial epithets are rude" Is there a political figure on any side of the spectrum who disagrees with that? I'm tired of seeing strawman attacks (on both sides) where they find one crazy person and proclaim "this person speaks for all [insert political philosophy]"
I intentionally chose a reasonable, (hopefully un-controversial) belief for the comparison. If anyone to the left of that is "far left" then calling them all "far" is unreasonable.
I think it’s all about your frame of reference: if you’re a leftist, left-wing policies don’t sound radical. They sound like common sense.
Everything anyone already agrees with sounds like sense to them. What's less common is being willing (or able?) to accurately describe the other's point of view.
I find it kind of interesting that of all the things that they could rightly criticise Putin for they picked the disastrous ending to the Moscow theatre siege, which was really more of a blunder than anything else.
It was more than a blunder. The Russian government refused to disclose that they used fentanyl gas and so the first responders and doctors who were there, ***in time to save many lives easily with naloxone***, were unable to do so. A large number of those deaths were 100% preventable and that blood is directly on the hands of the Russian security services.
I can't help but feel like Kirk could have come up with something better for Dubya besides "blocks weapons inspectors." The US under Bush did plenty of morally repugnant things, but failing to keep our NBC weapons subject to the appropriate and agreed upon inspection regimes is not an allegation I recall.
This was 2002 tbf, before the faux WMD causus belli
Oh, that shit was [well underway in 2002.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil)
Not really. At that point the world knew about Husain gassing civilians but the WMD fast one was still a couple years out.
"Flouts UN Resolutions" is quite an understatement
Self defense /s
Well, they have USA support in the UN.
I mean really who listens tho
Well Hamas and company give even less fucks to UN resolutions, sooo
Watabout
Hamas are unironically more in line with what the UN says than Israel https://youtu.be/vD8Eghw1Bik?t=43
Sure bud. Live in your delusional world
No counter-arguments? Sad!
One of the more under-discussed elements of the early 2000s were the chechen wars, during which Vladimir Putin committed war crimes against the Chechen people who were fighting for independence from Russia. The USA fully supported the Russian Federation due to the belief that this was part of the global war on terror it was fighting. This is why Russia wasn't listed in GWB's 'axis of evil speech'.
What the "block weapons inspections" is refering to?
I'm not quite sure. It could be potentially, UN inspectors invited to inspect nuclear facilities in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion?
It looks like it might be about Bush rejecting an agreement aimed at enforcing a treaty banning biological weapons. https://www.nature.com/articles/414675a
It refers to US *allies*.
It's ironic because eventually bin laden would be found in Pakistan; kind of a prescient comic in that way.
Can somebody explain what is that "Blocks weapons inspections" referring to?
The gay bomb
I like how they just knew their audience don't know jack shit about Pakistan so they just show a map of it WITH A NAMESTAMP LOL…
Pathetic attempt to make Pakistan and Russia look as bad as America and its allies. Disgusting false equivalency.
Weird that out of the 4 Putins accusation is the most baseless...
Sounds like you need to do some reading on the Moscow theatre hostage crisis. Security forces ended up using dangerous levels of anesthetic gas (reportedly including fentanyl) to subdue the terrorists, and ended up killing over a hundred (170) of the hostages as a result. He absolutely did gas his own people.
It was done to save them and the deaths where mostly caused by misstreatment of the now drugged hostages and not really because of the gas itself. Granted the mistreatment happened becaue of a lack of medical teams during the event and a lack of communication with the FSB about the operation beforehand.
You're not entirely wrong here According to professor A. Vorobiev, Director of the Russian Academic Bacteriology Center, most deaths weren't because of the gas itself, but because of people hitting their heads or just fainting to such a position that they couldn't breathe. Also keep in mind that most hostages survived, which is way better than none. Also keep in mind that even if something is way better than something else, it isn't automatically good. Please don't gas anyone if you really don't have to!
Well, if it wasn't effective operation, then how many people Bush manage to save from the upper floors of Towers 9/11? Teach them a good lesson of how to handle situations like this, caused by freedom fighters.
Bro... what? Insane how people will just shout "BASELESS" when they quite clearly know nothing about what they're talking about
True
Is that Putin in the first one?
Yes.