UKRAINE

Tools    





Winding you up. Changed it from a smiling face.



Totally. Winding up CR for his hurtful comments about the British Empire. ďSecond tierĒ? How dare he.



Just having a laugh with CR.
Got it



"How tall is King Kong ?"
Saying you can trace everything back to culture does not imply that you can trace everything back to our culture, let alone a particular sliver of it. And even if you could, it would still not follow that we have that influence now, at this point in the conflict, so at most the venting and arguing about the situation now could be said to maybe possibly indirectly contribute to some future conflict.
Indeed, there is no causality between what we're typing here right now and what is happening now in Ukraine. In that sense, it has "no effect on the conflict". However :

1) Yes, I do relate remote world events to "our culture" in the sense that I relate them to the global cultural ecosystem as a whole, of which "our" (whose?) "culture" is a part. Pragmatically, a person can vote for Putin partly because "even the USA" elect Trump or because "even his US gamer community" praises Putin as the saviour-of-white-schlong. We're all each others peers, nowadays (to varying degrees : a very closed full dictatorship ŗ la North Corea isn't affected by global discussions to the same degree as a free speech liberal democracy, and Russia is somewhere in-between). In fact, Trump's election did also bolster extreme-right votes in many unrelated countries. And cultural sociopolitical currents ŗ la #metoo or #gamergate do affect public debates and cultural sensitivities throughout the world. Money wouldn't be invested in troll farms without these causalities.

2) So many things have long term effects, you could prevent any action by using its lack of immediate result to delegitimize it. "It's not our fault anymore" skips directly to "the consequences would be too far later". The choice of focusing on immediacy is, itself, a convenient way to escape the notion of interconnection and responsibility. Again, as I said, there are practical reasons to escape these notions (forum cohesion), but it's a little cheat. And it hides the fact that today's Putin has been (partly, indirectly) the consequence of decades of international praise, and that tomorrow's putinoÔds are the consequences of the same values being still fetishized. For me, the shame of Ukraine's war is also carried by remote admirers of Putin and of what he represents, and so is the responsibility for future manifestations of (geo)political True Manhoodô. And this doesn't leave my eyes when I look at people around me. But I know that they'd never feel shame for it. The 20th century was full of mutual admiration (and more than that : emulation !) between different autocrats promoting the same values, and the praised turned to hostility when the geopolitical ambitions started competing. "They're our broth... wait, down with these guys, we have nothing in common !".



Here's my question: what doesn't this apply to? If everything is downstream of culture, doesn't that mean every topic can be defended this way? Once we discard distinctions based on both size of influence and direct/indirect, I see no limiting principle. Why can I say, using the same logic, that a bitter argument about Liz Phair's Exile in Guyville is part of achieving gender parity in the Middle East?
In a way it does. Feminist movements in Middle East, even though their forms and priorities differ from western feminism, are not unrelated to the models displayed in Europe or the USA. As I said above, there are variations depending on the scales of public discourses and the permeability of a given culture (I wouldn't equal a confidential argument about Liz Phair to a broad public dispute on social networks, also different societies engage with global/foreign debates to varying degrees). But such debates shape dominant mainstream values, and dominant mainstream values color the world. They form consensuses that are referred to in various countries, through various forms of diffusionism. The world tends to frown, nowadays, on black slave trade or native american genocides, and that stems from individual actions, discussions, interrogations, debates, elections, jurisprudence, etc. And this, already way before the popularity of online international arguments. Ideas and worldviews travel.

There are few things that it wouldn't apply to. Abortion rights are currently the stake of geopolitical domino games, where the pieces get pushed by local public debates, and shifting senses of normalcy. What affects public worldviews affects policies, and in turn these affects other countries discourses (political discourses are full of "see what happens over there" and "but we would be the only ones to").


but individual responsibilities have chokepoints around things like elections, and between those chokepoints many of them are swamped.
Elections are the expression of public sentiments, and public sentiments are formed through ordinary interactions throughout the years. A racist being elected or not is less the effect of a vote being cast than the effect of years hearing from peers that racism is or isn't okay (and I mean racism as the content, not as the label). Votes used to give punctual visibility to dominant values, now these are permanently visible on the internet.


If you think I have some delusion (or even eventual expectation of) "cohesion," then we're not on the same page at all.
You actually do have cohesion, and you have a requirement of cohesion. If the forum started bursting into full scale open hatred it simply wouldn't be a forum, it wouldn't be controllable at all. And the same goes with society : you wouldn't be able to go buy bread if you knew everyone's opinions and deeds and realized the continuity between their opinions and the actual practical real-life sufferings that result from them. These are realities we sweep under the carpet. We keep out of sight the death of homeless people, we hide asylum seekers in remote camps or drown them in the sea, we live off bombings and starvation, we deprive gender-atypical people from their own lives and identities, we scorch the Earth, and it's all remote abstractions and lolz down the chain of votes, policies and everyday attitudes. Bring up these ghosts, show who gloat or pride themselves for their own indifference, and you've got a society of cynical monsters you're supposed to be polite with, far from the screams, gurgles and suicides they cheer for. Civility becomes impossible, or even obscene. So we mask it all. We don't think of it. It's simply a necessity of life. We can't afford newton balls to bring back our consequences. And on internet forums, it means that those who are for or against bombs being dropped on a village have to get along in the name of their hobby, as this is more important to their lives than children being burned alive ("come on we won't ruin the friendly atmosphere over mere differences of opinion").

And frankly, your job is quite easy here, compared to places where discussions are about whether ukrainians deserve the bombs. There's actually a vague local consensus on this. My gripe is about more remote, abstract elements (the deniability of indirect responsibility/complicity about events - events which themselves are, at least, deplored and disowned).

So yes, in practice, there is a maintained cohesion on this forum. What would be profound antagonisms are actually vastly put aside, in this forum's day-to-day activities.

(Also, I don't really see people "bristle" at the rules. Not even me. I admit their necessity while feeling bitter about what it shows and hides about mankind.)

The fallacy is that we would change that ugly and awkward reality if only we could confront it on your forum, etc. Let's forget the layers and filters between our trickles of culture and world events. Let's concede their importance totally: even then, there is still the assumption that arguing about something here will produce better "culture" in any particular instance. I'd have thought the last few years would have obliterated that notion. It certainly isn't something that can be assumed.
Indeed, I doubt that a political flamewar would change anything. But not because of how remote (in time, scale, space) it is from the consequences : again, this is the voting fallacy but upstream. Sensitivities are shaped by everyday discussions and mirrored attitudes, by values circulations, by subcultural normativities - votes are just the end result of it. But it would be pointless because flamewars are sterile clashes of void rhetorical violence. It would bring the forum down without changing anyone's opinion (on the plus side, it would shatter an impression of tacit assent, on the minus side it would only polarize over-invested postures construed as core identities). In this zero-sum context, skipping the whole mess probably brings a same result at a reduced cost. And as I said, the shame that I'd consider legitimate from Putin fans (or ex-Putin fans), the reconsideration of values that should stem from it, would certainly never occur : there are too many cognitive devices shielding people from it.

But I disagree about the rationale for these rules. I disagree about this idea that words on a forum are disconnected from world events, and that places where a dominant consensus go one way or the other play no role. I think that a community being defined by one consensus (one way or the other) plays a role as a jigsaw piece in the vast mosaic of global public discussions. There is, currently, a dominant consensus in the western world about the illegitimacy of Putin's invasion. This has an impact very different from the one that the opposite consensus would have. It legitimizes and encourages ukrainian resistance ("the world is with us") and it opens a potential window of doubt for russians who access it ("woah, the world sees us as the baddies there"). Ukraine feeling let down by the world's consensus, warmongering Russians feeling vindicated by the whole planet, would shift political attitudes -slightly or dramatically- differently there and there. And this consensus is an ocean of droplet (with a dominant color). The same could go for many things that are unfortunately less consensual.

I'm not promoting this or that forum policy. I'm pointing at the fictions it preserves, and why it needs to preserve it. I think it has reasons to be, and I think it has also rationalization that go beyond these reasons. My point is simply to lift the carpet's corner, point at what we hide, and why we hide it, and drop it. We hide it because discussing our responsibilities would be too costly. But letting the question aside on these forums, considering it off topic", is different from claiming "hey, anyway nothing of it is related to anyone from us here, we're too far and too small". This is, itself, a specific stance, an opinion left above the carpet. It belongs either under it, or next to the opposite reminder : putinism has been legitimized, glorified and reinforced by western forumers for years, no matter their current stances on Ukraine.

(And while political, that's not even a left vs right thing. Putin has supported anti-establishment, divisive currents in many countries, some right-winged, others left-winged, inducing the same forgiveness or praise in return. What I don't forgive to trumpists, I don't forgive either to french politicians and militants who are supposed to represent my values. That's even more nauseating to me, and I really hope those get crushed in the next elections.)

Yoda, feel free to remove this post if you consider it leaves the "meta" level too often.
__________________
Get working on your custom lists, people !



The trick is not minding
Indeed, there is no causality between what we're typing here right now and what is happening now in Ukraine. In that sense, it has "no effect on the conflict". However :

1) Yes, I do relate remote world events to "our culture" in the sense that I relate them to the global cultural ecosystem as a whole, of which "our" (whose?) "culture" is a part. Pragmatically, a person can vote for Putin partly because "even the USA" elect Trump or because "even his US gamer community" praises Putin as the saviour-of-white-schlong. We're all each others peers, nowadays (to varying degrees : a very closed full dictatorship ŗ la North Corea isn't affected by global discussions to the same degree as a free speech liberal democracy, and Russia is somewhere in-between). In fact, Trump's election did also bolster extreme-right votes in many unrelated countries. And cultural sociopolitical currents ŗ la #metoo or #gamergate do affect public debates and cultural sensitivities throughout the world. Money wouldn't be invested in troll farms without these causalities.

2) So many things have long term effects, you could prevent any action by using its lack of immediate result to delegitimize it. "It's not our fault anymore" skips directly to "the consequences would be too far later". The choice of focusing on immediacy is, itself, a convenient way to escape the notion of interconnection and responsibility. Again, as I said, there are practical reasons to escape these notions (forum cohesion), but it's a little cheat. And it hides the fact that today's Putin has been (partly, indirectly) the consequence of decades of international praise, and that tomorrow's putinoÔds are the consequences of the same values being still fetishized. For me, the shame of Ukraine's war is also carried by remote admirers of Putin and of what he represents, and so is the responsibility for future manifestations of (geo)political True Manhoodô. And this doesn't leave my eyes when I look at people around me. But I know that they'd never feel shame for it. The 20th century was full of mutual admiration (and more than that : emulation !) between different autocrats promoting the same values, and the praised turned to hostility when the geopolitical ambitions started competing. "They're our broth... wait, down with these guys, we have nothing in common !".




In a way it does. Feminist movements in Middle East, even though their forms and priorities differ from western feminism, are not unrelated to the models displayed in Europe or the USA. As I said above, there are variations depending on the scales of public discourses and the permeability of a given culture (I wouldn't equal a confidential argument about Liz Phair to a broad public dispute on social networks, also different societies engage with global/foreign debates to varying degrees). But such debates shape dominant mainstream values, and dominant mainstream values color the world. They form consensuses that are referred to in various countries, through various forms of diffusionism. The world tends to frown, nowadays, on black slave trade or native american genocides, and that stems from individual actions, discussions, interrogations, debates, elections, jurisprudence, etc. And this, already way before the popularity of online international arguments. Ideas and worldviews travel.

There are few things that it wouldn't apply to. Abortion rights are currently the stake of geopolitical domino games, where the pieces get pushed by local public debates, and shifting senses of normalcy. What affects public worldviews affects policies, and in turn these affects other countries discourses (political discourses are full of "see what happens over there" and "but we would be the only ones to").



Elections are the expression of public sentiments, and public sentiments are formed through ordinary interactions throughout the years. A racist being elected or not is less the effect of a vote being cast than the effect of years hearing from peers that racism is or isn't okay (and I mean racism as the content, not as the label). Votes used to give punctual visibility to dominant values, now these are permanently visible on the internet.



You actually do have cohesion, and you have a requirement of cohesion. If the forum started bursting into full scale open hatred it simply wouldn't be a forum, it wouldn't be controllable at all. And the same goes with society : you wouldn't be able to go buy bread if you knew everyone's opinions and deeds and realized the continuity between their opinions and the actual practical real-life sufferings that result from them. These are realities we sweep under the carpet. We keep out of sight the death of homeless people, we hide asylum seekers in remote camps or drown them in the sea, we live off bombings and starvation, we deprive gender-atypical people from their own lives and identities, we scorch the Earth, and it's all remote abstractions and lolz down the chain of votes, policies and everyday attitudes. Bring up these ghosts, show who gloat or pride themselves for their own indifference, and you've got a society of cynical monsters you're supposed to be polite with, far from the screams, gurgles and suicides they cheer for. Civility becomes impossible, or even obscene. So we mask it all. We don't think of it. It's simply a necessity of life. We can't afford newton balls to bring back our consequences. And on internet forums, it means that those who are for or against bombs being dropped on a village have to get along in the name of their hobby, as this is more important to their lives than children being burned alive ("come on we won't ruin the friendly atmosphere over mere differences of opinion").

And frankly, your job is quite easy here, compared to places where discussions are about whether ukrainians deserve the bombs. There's actually a vague local consensus on this. My gripe is about more remote, abstract elements (the deniability of indirect responsibility/complicity about events - events which themselves are, at least, deplored and disowned).

So yes, in practice, there is a maintained cohesion on this forum. What would be profound antagonisms are actually vastly put aside, in this forum's day-to-day activities.

(Also, I don't really see people "bristle" at the rules. Not even me. I admit their necessity while feeling bitter about what it shows and hides about mankind.)



Indeed, I doubt that a political flamewar would change anything. But not because of how remote (in time, scale, space) it is from the consequences : again, this is the voting fallacy but upstream. Sensitivities are shaped by everyday discussions and mirrored attitudes, by values circulations, by subcultural normativities - votes are just the end result of it. But it would be pointless because flamewars are sterile clashes of void rhetorical violence. It would bring the forum down without changing anyone's opinion (on the plus side, it would shatter an impression of tacit assent, on the minus side it would only polarize over-invested postures construed as core identities). In this zero-sum context, skipping the whole mess probably brings a same result at a reduced cost. And as I said, the shame that I'd consider legitimate from Putin fans (or ex-Putin fans), the reconsideration of values that should stem from it, would certainly never occur : there are too many cognitive devices shielding people from it.

But I disagree about the rationale for these rules. I disagree about this idea that words on a forum are disconnected from world events, and that places where a dominant consensus go one way or the other play no role. I think that a community being defined by one consensus (one way or the other) plays a role as a jigsaw piece in the vast mosaic of global public discussions. There is, currently, a dominant consensus in the western world about the illegitimacy of Putin's invasion. This has an impact very different from the one that the opposite consensus would have. It legitimizes and encourages ukrainian resistance ("the world is with us") and it opens a potential window of doubt for russians who access it ("woah, the world sees us as the baddies there"). Ukraine feeling let down by the world's consensus, warmongering Russians feeling vindicated by the whole planet, would shift political attitudes -slightly or dramatically- differently there and there. And this consensus is an ocean of droplet (with a dominant color). The same could go for many things that are unfortunately less consensual.

I'm not promoting this or that forum policy. I'm pointing at the fictions it preserves, and why it needs to preserve it. I think it has reasons to be, and I think it has also rationalization that go beyond these reasons. My point is simply to lift the carpet's corner, point at what we hide, and why we hide it, and drop it. We hide it because discussing our responsibilities would be too costly. But letting the question aside on these forums, considering it off topic", is different from claiming "hey, anyway nothing of it is related to anyone from us here, we're too far and too small". This is, itself, a specific stance, an opinion left above the carpet. It belongs either under it, or next to the opposite reminder : putinism has been legitimized, glorified and reinforced by western forumers for years, no matter their current stances on Ukraine.

(And while political, that's not even a left vs right thing. Putin has supported anti-establishment, divisive currents in many countries, some right-winged, others left-winged, inducing the same forgiveness or praise in return. What I don't forgive to trumpists, I don't forgive either to french politicians and militants who are supposed to represent my values. That's even more nauseating to me, and I really hope those get crushed in the next elections.)

Yoda, feel free to remove this post if you consider it leaves the "meta" level too often.
A few assumptions made (never mind the rsther condescending lecture on apathy) in this post to go through one by one, but most of this just sounds like an excuse to virtue signaling for the sake of it. This comes off as one long lecture about why we should feel guilty for not discussing it in this forum (Nevermind the assumption it isnít discussed at all outside of it by many here). Itís just an argument for an excuse to argue your viewpoints while simultaneously showing everyone how sympathetic you are. No offense intended.

This fiim site is better without the political discussion. Period. Far too often they ended in arguments and it wasnít a fun time. It wasnít an easy decision, and I I know for a fact he wrestled with it for months. Thatís not hyperbole.

You can argue ad naseum all you want, but the end result is itís not coming back. And it shouldnít at this time. The rule is intended to make the site far more enjoyable for the whole of the membership, not for some individuals who canít find another outlet for discussing such matters elsewhere.

Honestly, I donít even know why it even needs to be repeated as often as it is just because you (and Iím sure maybe a few others) donít agree with it.

Edir: rereading this it comes off far more aggressive then I intend it to be.



The trick is not minding
Yeah, for the record, I have no real issue with Flicker wanting to discuss it with Yoda, but I donít think this was the best thread for it. Maybe privately. I certainly donít think it warrants that much more of a discussion once itís been made clear, mind you and I certainly donít think it warrants long paragraphs that only tangentially touch upon the topic at hand, but I do respect the guy for his intellect, after all.



Winding you up. Changed it from a smiling face.



Totally. Winding up CR for his hurtful comments about the British Empire. ďSecond tierĒ? How dare he.



Just having a laugh with CR.
No taxation without representation!



@Flicker you already had you say once and Yoda replied, do you need to keep going on? I guess you do. So THANKS Flicker because now the thread will be closed.
I hope not. While it's nearly impossible to discuss a war without politics... this war is bigger than politics. It may be the last war any of us will ever discuss.



You ready? You look ready
A few assumptions made (never mind the rsther condescending lecture on apathy) in this post to go through one by one, but most of this just sounds like an excuse to virtue signaling for the sake of it. This comes off as one long lecture about why we should feel guilty for not discussing it in this forum (Nevermind the assumption it isnít discussed at all outside of it by many here). Itís just an argument for an excuse to argue your viewpoints while simultaneously showing everyone how sympathetic you are. No offense intended..
Most of us here know a word salad when we see it, and I get why @Yoda feels the need to to engage it; I honestly donít know how he does it. The fact that he does engage it, and tacitly I might add, negates any of the claims being presented. At this point, I canít help but think you are right that it is a ruse to openly address a distaste in the structure of discussion here. Not all salads are healthy ruffage.



Survey says 86.6% of Russians support the armed invasion of Russia in other European countries.







75.5% of Russians approve the idea of a military invasion in the next country and believe that it should be Poland. According to respondents, this is a logical continuation of the so-called ďmilitary special operation of the Russian FederationĒ.
Only 25.5% of Russians strongly oppose the use of nuclear weapons. Among those surveyed, 40.3% consider a nuclear attack absolutely acceptable, and 34.3% will support such a decision to some extent by the Russian authorities.
Source

I leave you to draw your own conclusions.



Society ennobler, last seen in Medici's Florence
Augh, so many aggression and unknowledge. Please, stop this!

God, please save the innocent people!

People, don't turn into instruments in one more conflict between these four or five cartels that took the world by setting wars all around. The cartels that've traumatized and exploited people for more than a century now from LA to Baikal lake.



I am the Watcher in the Night
Just reading some of the comments on here and as a long time, if infrequent member, I hope the thread is not closed! Open discussion is needed but it must be well educated discussion, not merely spouting media propaganda.
__________________
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

"I need your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle"



Augh, so many aggression and unknowledge. Please, stop this!

God, please save the innocent people!

People, don't turn into instruments in one more conflict between these four or five cartels that took the world by setting wars all around. The cartels that've traumatized and exploited people for more than a century now from LA to Baikal lake.
Huh? Care to explain?

Just reading some of the comments on here and as a long time, if infrequent member, I hope the thread is not closed! Open discussion is needed but it must be well educated discussion, not merely spouting media propaganda.
I agree, if the MoFos could restrain themselves from political posturing and parroting, then we could learn from each other. It's interesting to see how people view the threat of the Ukraine conflict and equally interesting to see what solutions they believe would help and which solutions they believe are dangerous.



Where did this Russian propaganda about Nazism in the Ukraine come from?
(I mean, I know it comes from Putin, but where did he get the idea to use that as a rationale to attack a civilian populace?)

I never heard of it until after the attack began.

Sure, there are tiny groups of neo-Nazis in Europe and the U.S., but they are barely a relative blip on any country's radar.

It sounds like Putin is trying to capitalize on the whole "White Supremacist threat" thing that came from the current U.S. government early in 2021. That claim is an absolute myth - there are no white supremacist militias or neo-Nazi groups committing terrorist attacks in America. Rather, random & gang-related urban crime takes hundreds of lives everyday throughout U.S. cities which has nothing to do with any organized ethnic supremacist groups.

And I'm NOT trying to get political, but did Putin adopt this bizarre & outrageous propaganda from the U.S.'s woke movement that started this bizarre and outrageous narrative that white supremacists are the leading existential threat to humanity?

What is Putin basing this on? Is there some kind of major Nazi movement in Ukraine? Does Putin realize Zelensky is Jewish?



Where did this Russian propaganda about Nazism in the Ukraine come from?
OK, I'm going to try to be as impartial as possible when answering this, which is obviously not 100% possible.

Russia's main gripe with Nazism in Ukraine is twofold:
  • Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) which has a long history I'm not even going to attempt to summarize here. The main thing here is that during the Second World War, the guys from this ultranationalist formation did some unimaginable things like the Volhynia Massacre. This is all true and well-documented. However, Russia is often using the Volhynia Massacre as an excuse to explain more recent events or to evoke hatred for the Ukrainians among e.g., Polish people. It's as if France or the UK started spreading hate for Germany for what they did back in the 1940s. Needless to say, it was a long time ago and 99% of the people who are living now weren't even born back then. It's true that there have been some recent unfortunate decorations of veterans from UPA, and even calling some of them heroes, but this can be in no way an excuse for a military invasion of a country, no matter how you look at it.
  • Azov Battalion which is a contemporary Ukrainian neo-Nazi organization located in Mariupol. I'm far from sympathizing with these guys, but they're just a paramilitary militia of, depending on different sources, 900 to 2,500 people. That's super-small, and there's no doubt there are more neo-Nazis in Russia than that. Still, Russia has been using the Azov Battalion as an excuse for many provocations and attacks during the War in Donbas, most if not all of which proved false. There has even been a video of a group of alleged Azov guys crucifying and burning a Russian citizen. Several independent experts analyzed the video and all of them came up to the conclusion it was fake. I mean, I saw it. It does look staged. Why and what for? I'll leave that for you to figure out. So the question is: How a militia of 2,500 members justifies the violent subjugation of 44 million Ukrainians including the bombing of the entirety of 430K Mariupol?

(I mean, I know it comes from Putin, but where did he get the idea to use that as a rationale to attack a civilian populace?)
This is a super-old propaganda strategy. One of Nazi Germany's inane excuses to attack Poland back in 1939 was that the Poles allegedly oppressed the German minority population. One of Russia's excuses for the War in Donbas was that, yes, you guessed it, Ukrainians oppressed the Russian minority in Eastern Ukraine. But now that Russia attacked the entirety of Ukraine, including places with a minuscule Russian populace, they had to come up with another excuse. And that was the fearsome "Nazis". During one of his speeches, Putin called Ukrainians Nazis and... junkies... So yes, there's that, too.



Society ennobler, last seen in Medici's Florence
Just reading some of the comments on here and as a long time, if infrequent member, I hope the thread is not closed! Open discussion is needed but it must be well educated discussion, not merely spouting media propaganda.
That's be good and that's what I meant though I doubt it is possible.
I hope there are people who want to learn some info from free sources.
__________________
"Population don't imitate art, population imitate bad television." W.A.
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." M.T.



No taxation without representation!
And poop to you.

God, please save the innocent people!
I pray every evening that the Dear Lord will end this. It sickens me every day that it continues.

Look at this sad photo: children of medical workers in Mariupol waiting for their parents inside the hospital.

__________________
Iím here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. Thatís why Iím here now.



I now know that Ukrainians love their pets & I now know that they are very respectful of old people. They seem to be very good people indeed.



Two more photos of this poor old thing. I reckon sheís lived through at least 3 wars in her lifetime, including this one.







A memorial of empty strollers of 109 children who have died.



A very resourceful family who have camped in the underground subway. They even have a pram down there.



Comforting their dachshund.



Russia, donít mess with this bad ass lieutenant!



BANNED (at user request)
The best revenge is living well, and it really bothers me to see internet soapboxing in general because all you can do in the end is live your life in the best way possible.


Ukraine? What do I care? I have IBS and an endless list of things to do. If you disagree, then you are nothing but a thief.
I just want to apologize publicly for this post overrall...i was having some real crazy anxiety issues, and sometimes i get irritated when people get worked up about what's going on in the news. Of course i care: about people fighting in Ukraine, and even Putin. I was reading some stuff before this whole thing happened about how Putin lives his life...all i can say is, a lot of people want to kill him...doesn't sound like a great friend or dictator.