I am actively exercising self-discipline not engaging with certain western shitlibs gloating about the terror attack in Moscow.

Putin is Schrödinger's dictator isn't he? When something bad happens to ordinary Russians, it's backlash for supporting Putin. But when they talk about elections/democracy etc. then Putin is a dictator who cannot be removed except with force. Which is it ~~western~~ liberals?

Biden would never do something as authoritarian as repairing a bridge.

carbon emissions put lives of billions at risk

The cartoon is not really about building twice as many new nuclear power plants, but using and maintaining and upgrading the ones we already have.

Just a couple of sidenotes

At the start of the Ukraine war, it was unclear whether Russia might also launch attacks on us, including our nuclear reactors.

RU attacking Germany is as unlikely as RU shelling London, NY, or Tokyo

Russia also attacked nuclear reactors in the Ukraine, which certainly reminded people of Chernobyl.

I think the news was that someone shelled Zaporizhzhia "Russia and Ukraine blamed each other for shelling the Russian-controlled plant." Now, I'm not Hercule Poirot, but if RU controlled the plant at the time, wouldn't that make UKR the most likely culprit?

Russia also cut off our natural gas supply.

Surely Russia turning a tap is less pertinent than USA literally bombing the pipeline?

We have practically no own Uranium deposits either,

So where are you buying from the rest of your resources? Surely nuclear is more feasible than coal from a purely geopolitical/economic point of view? I guess good luck with the solar panels.

You seem to be a bit confused about the situation.

RIP Instagram Yeltsin

Munich Security Conference were already reeling

Do you know if UKR+USA blowing up Nord Stream was on the agenda of this important German security conference? What did they say about that? Will they bring them to justice?

It's amazing how obvious it is that Zelensky is just a regional manager propped up by the Corporate HQ in Washington.

White Terror actually murdered more civilians, but for some reason some historians don't count the antisemitic mass murders committed by the Whites.

Liberal historians are being weird again.

They correctly see certain facts (about the British intervention in the Russian Civil War):

There was plenty of reason to see the intervention as nasty – for starters, lack of clear war aims, atrocities on which the Allies turned a blind eye, half-hearted support of reactionaries followed by ignominious betrayal – but the real reason it was judged so harshly was that it failed. Nothing substantive was achieved, while, as the British commander of Allied forces in the north, Edmund Ironside, noted at the time of the British withdrawal from North Russia in the autumn of 1919, the cost was to incur ‘the everlasting enmity of both sides – the Whites for deserting them, and the Reds for opposing them’.

Exactly - it was hopeless and unnecessary.

Apart from getting rid of the Bolsheviks, the aims of the Western intervention were remarkably ill-defined. Sometimes it was to protect British interests and keep the Germans, Turks, Poles, or Japanese imperial or territorial ambitions in check; sometimes to support ‘democratic forces’ in Russia, notably the transient Czechs; and sometimes just to back up the (anti-democratic) Whites.

So the support of "democratic forces" was just posturing, in other words.

A national claim the Allies did not support, however, was the Ukrainian one, or rather, any of the various Ukrainian claims that were on offer.

the Allies essentially accepted the Poles’ argument that Ukrainian nationalism was German-inspired and incoherent, with little popular support. In Reid’s summation, although Ukrainians today ‘view the Allies’ failure to support them as a tragic missed opportunity’, ‘in truth the scoffers were probably right. Split, by the end of 1919, between two paper governments, one allied with the Poles against the Russians and the other the reverse, they did not have the leadership or unity to win power, even with outside military aid.’

Sounds about right

Reid’s encounter with widespread and virulent antisemitism – both as practised on the ground in Ukraine by Whites, Poles and Ukrainian nationalists, and as tacitly condoned by the Allies – was ‘one of the most jolting aspects of researching this book’. The first major pogroms of the Civil War were conducted in December 1918 by the Polish army after capturing Lviv from Ukrainian forces. The local British representative, setting a pattern that was often to be followed in subsequent months, ‘dismissed pogrom “rumours” as “grossly exaggerated”’. Antisemitism was a core component of White propaganda [..] Altogether, the pogroms of 1919 in Ukraine were on a scale ‘not seen since the Cossack rebellions of the 17th century’, but the Whites weren’t the only ones to blame: Symon Petilura’s and Nykyfor Hryhoriv’s Ukrainian forces, as well as Nestor Makhno’s anarchist ‘Greens’, were also heavily involved.

and so on and so on. But then.

Reid’s problem is that, recognising a degree of similarity in the two episodes of foreign involvement in war on Ukrainian territory, she holds diametrically opposed value judgments of them: the early 20th-century intervention on behalf of the Whites was pointless, but current Western support of Ukraine in a war started by the Russians is morally imperative and, in global political terms, necessary. Present-day Ukraine is a democratic or democratically aspiring country that ‘for all its faults ... really does deserve the world’s help’, she writes in the recent second edition of Borderland. ‘Betraying the country would be moral and strategic failure on a par with the crushed Hungarian Rising or Prague Spring – and with much less excuse.’

It is so weird that liberals have this fundamental premise that Western powers have both the moral superiority and the means to sort out conflicts in far away lands. How is this different from the early XXth century British conception of a benign civilizing Empire? What kind of mental gymnastics they need to perform so that their heads don't split from the cognitive dissonance? How come they don't see the similarities that the Western powers are willing to support any kind of reactionary force so long as it is in their geopolitical interest? That they didn't give a shit about pogroms, because the main concern was to own the ‘the blood-stained, Jew-led Bolsheviks’? That they are supporting Azov just to hinder Putler?

Perhaps the real takeaway from Reid’s history isn’t so much a lesson as a premonition: that not too far down the track, we could be witnessing a shamefaced withdrawal of Western support that leaves the Ukrainians – like the Russian Whites a century earlier – to sort out the mess with Moscow on their own.

It's always an "I told you so", but they just don't care.

Anyone who said a year ago that sending billions of dollars worth of weapons to one of the most corrupt countries on Earth is not the brightest idea*, was branded to be a Putlerist shill

Hell, even linking this article would make you seem like a Russian bot

*except of course if you own shares in the MIC

the Russo-Georgian war imperialism

Wait, are you saying Saakashvili has done an imperialism? Because even western/EU reports have confirmed that Georgia started that war, not Russia.

They end up supporting or refusing to criticize regimes that generate similar war crimes.

"From 24 February 2022, which marked the start of the large-scale armed attack by the Russian Federation, to 30 July 2023, OHCHR recorded 26,015 civilian casualties in the country: 9,369 killed and 16,646 injured"

Almost 10 thousand civilians killed is horrible. But compare this to Iraq: it's less than the first month of the war in Iraq, and no US politicians was tried for war crimes. Maybe you should ponder this factoid.

If you live in a NATO country maybe you should demand Blair and Bush to be tried for their war crimes. If you live in the west you should spend more energy of criticizing the ruling class above you.

"supporting or refusing to criticize" This is a made up leftist. Per definition there is no leftist that uncritically supports a right wing capitalist country.

advancing absurd peace deals then they've been gotten at.

You do realize that in order to minimize (working class) casualties some kind of peace deal needs to be signed? And in order to sign a peace deal first there needs to be a ceasefire? The sooner the ceasefire starts, the better.

Are you saying that western politicians torpedoing any kind of truce and/or peace deal is "Russian misinfo"?

the cost of the war

Should we ignore the significant human and economic costs of the ongoing war and the support for the military-industrial complex? Why? Is this some kind of noble war against Sauron or what?