He didn’t say “I”, he said “we”. And the “we” in that sentence was Soviet Russia. Soviet Union is clearly no more, but modern day Russia has inherited a lot of policies and values from them.
At which point do you think they just gave up on thinking the US as their enemy?
Because you posted him with no context. It wasn’t clear you meant Russia.
but modern day Russia has inherited a lot of policies and values from them.
I’d disagree with that. They inherited autocracy, but it’s not even a vaguely similar model of it. In a lot of ways current Russia is a backlash to the USSR, although they shoehorn communist stuff together with Tsarist stuff and everything else from even earlier to pretend they have some kind of ideology.
They still see the West as enemies or at least competition, though, that’s true.
You’re being downvoted because I think they think you’re a Tankie - but as a Russian - you’re 100% correct about the ideology bit.
This image is from 2023. Everyone who has a brain and some grasp on historical truth should immediately find this deeply absurd, so let me explain.
Imperial Russia and RSFSR (Russian Country in USSR) are two opposed entities who would sooner let Germans make gains on their territory than take men away from fighting each other, and if you think about it - it makes perfect sense, and is also quite literally what happened.
Well, imo - Putler’s Fascist Russia is nationalist first and foremost, which is inherently very right-wing, but of course a lot of their glory days were at least under the pretense of leftism, and plenty of Russian nationalists wish for Soviet revival, when in reality they’d be first in the gulags for being rightoids, or if for nothing else - optics.
So putler has a choice, just memoryhole Russia at its most successful as RSFSR both in evil (imperialism, authoritarianism) and good ways (science, technology, welfare) and embrace Romanov lineage Revanchism, or attempt to work in the optics of the soviet union into the national imperial image.
Unfortunately for everyone, Surkov, Dugin and the lot chose post-truth. The Russian “Federation” has no ideology, other than power and maintaining the economic and political capital of its oligarchs and their ability to steal from the Russian people and anyone else unfortunate enough to get in the way.
Uh, it’s literally the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from the time that he was in power.
“No context”
Fkin lol. You can’t be serious?
You’ll probably disagree with Putler being wanted by the ICC for warcrimes as well? Or at least make some excuse for how he’s not responsible or how the ICC or the UN are somehow the bad guys or smth?
Yeah, and I was wondering if this was a “commie democrats” thing. Russia isn’t my first association, or even my second. He was even from Ukraine.
You’ll probably disagree with Putler being wanted by the ICC for warcrimes as well? Or at least make some excuse for how he’s not responsible or how the ICC or the UN are somehow the bad guys or smth?
No, Putin is shit and I hope he ends up in the Hague where he belongs.
No, Putin is shit and I hope he ends up in the Hague where he belongs.
Thank you for confirming that. I know it’s a bitch when people assume shit, but you know, you can never know. So, thanks. Even if you are Russian. Or rather especially if you are. Like I doubt it, from context, but if you were.
Khrushchev may have been originally Ukrainian, but that doesn’t really mean that much.
Who the fuck wouldn’t associate Khrushchev with Russia or the Cold War in general? Who would be the “we” in that if not Soviet Russia? Stop writing in Bad Faith. And I capitalise that on purpose.
Let me help you learn something. If I posted about a random person who know-one knows, saying something random, that would be “without context”. However if I posted a picture of Obama saying “we will find Osama Bin Laden”, you probably wouldn’t say “there’s no context we can’t know who the ‘we’ is in that quote”, would you?
So I’m puzzled why you’d make such a bad faith argument over this. Did you know really not know who Khrushchev was?
I really don’t think the funny shoe man from the 60’s is to blame for this.
He didn’t say “I”, he said “we”. And the “we” in that sentence was Soviet Russia. Soviet Union is clearly no more, but modern day Russia has inherited a lot of policies and values from them.
At which point do you think they just gave up on thinking the US as their enemy?
Because there was a small conflict that went on for literally decades after Khrushchev’s death.
So idk why you’re trying to pretend like “funny shoe man” was waging a personal war against the US when he was the leader of a world power?
Because you posted him with no context. It wasn’t clear you meant Russia.
I’d disagree with that. They inherited autocracy, but it’s not even a vaguely similar model of it. In a lot of ways current Russia is a backlash to the USSR, although they shoehorn communist stuff together with Tsarist stuff and everything else from even earlier to pretend they have some kind of ideology.
They still see the West as enemies or at least competition, though, that’s true.
Yeah modern Russia scrapped everything of value from the Soviets.
You’re being downvoted because I think they think you’re a Tankie - but as a Russian - you’re 100% correct about the ideology bit.
This image is from 2023. Everyone who has a brain and some grasp on historical truth should immediately find this deeply absurd, so let me explain.
Imperial Russia and RSFSR (Russian Country in USSR) are two opposed entities who would sooner let Germans make gains on their territory than take men away from fighting each other, and if you think about it - it makes perfect sense, and is also quite literally what happened.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War
So why are the three flags together?
Well, imo - Putler’s Fascist Russia is nationalist first and foremost, which is inherently very right-wing, but of course a lot of their glory days were at least under the pretense of leftism, and plenty of Russian nationalists wish for Soviet revival, when in reality they’d be first in the gulags for being rightoids, or if for nothing else - optics.
So putler has a choice, just memoryhole Russia at its most successful as RSFSR both in evil (imperialism, authoritarianism) and good ways (science, technology, welfare) and embrace Romanov lineage Revanchism, or attempt to work in the optics of the soviet union into the national imperial image.
Unfortunately for everyone, Surkov, Dugin and the lot chose post-truth. The Russian “Federation” has no ideology, other than power and maintaining the economic and political capital of its oligarchs and their ability to steal from the Russian people and anyone else unfortunate enough to get in the way.
Uh, it’s literally the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from the time that he was in power.
“No context”
Fkin lol. You can’t be serious?
You’ll probably disagree with Putler being wanted by the ICC for warcrimes as well? Or at least make some excuse for how he’s not responsible or how the ICC or the UN are somehow the bad guys or smth?
Yeah, and I was wondering if this was a “commie democrats” thing. Russia isn’t my first association, or even my second. He was even from Ukraine.
No, Putin is shit and I hope he ends up in the Hague where he belongs.
Thank you for confirming that. I know it’s a bitch when people assume shit, but you know, you can never know. So, thanks. Even if you are Russian. Or rather especially if you are. Like I doubt it, from context, but if you were.
Khrushchev may have been originally Ukrainian, but that doesn’t really mean that much.
Who the fuck wouldn’t associate Khrushchev with Russia or the Cold War in general? Who would be the “we” in that if not Soviet Russia? Stop writing in Bad Faith. And I capitalise that on purpose.
Because it’s an incantation to you?
I’d be inclined to respond and explain further, but I don’t think learning and understanding is the point of this exchange anymore. Bye.
Let me help you learn something. If I posted about a random person who know-one knows, saying something random, that would be “without context”. However if I posted a picture of Obama saying “we will find Osama Bin Laden”, you probably wouldn’t say “there’s no context we can’t know who the ‘we’ is in that quote”, would you?
So I’m puzzled why you’d make such a bad faith argument over this. Did you know really not know who Khrushchev was?