The Invisible War - How millions learned not to see what was happening.

The Loud Boom - Why one night of explosions can matter more than years of quiet decline

Moscow Matters Most - Why fear in the capital changes the emotional weather of the country

Victory Meets Reality - How drone attacks break the story that Russia is winning

Daddy Never Fails - Why Putin's system cannot admint that the war came home

The Dangerous Question - What happens when frightened citizens start asking why they were not protected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia is a huge country with literally more landmass than any other country in the world. It spans at least two continents, including both Europe and Asia. Its capital is Moscow, and its population exceeds 140 million

And? Is there a point here besides obvious facts I learned in fourth grade?

It is impossible to understand the country with an appreciation for what makes it unique

You didn't say anything we didn't know. DCUM tends to be highly educated and traveled, and many of us are from Europe, Asia or other parts of the world, where governments educate their kids better than here.

DCUM is in fact short for District of Columbia UM, so this is probably not true and if it is it is just by happened-stance. In any event, the reality is that Russia is a very large country with many people (though a population that is maybe not so commensurate with its geography, which is expansive)

Are you stupid? The people who post here skew towards wealthy, educated transplants whose cerebral career choices led them to pitch their tents in or near DC. They're transplants from other parts of the US, and some of them have deep knowledge of other countries, because of their careers and lifestyles; or they're foreign nationals or recent immigrants (equally, if not more, educated), whose jobs have also led them to DC (World Bank, IMF, NIH, contractors for same, etc).

There are very few posters whose families have lived in this area for generations. Practically none. My neighbor is one, but she's also a dual national.

Don't think you're the only person who knows stuff.

I can tell you think you’re social because you’re rich or in the IMF or whatever but the reality is that facts about the size of Russia and its geography can actually be found on Wikipedia or with a quick search on Google.com.

Anonymous wrote:Russia is a huge country with literally more landmass than any other country in the world. It spans at least two continents, including both Europe and Asia. Its capital is Moscow, and its population exceeds 140 million

And they’re losing 20k dead a month to this war. A number that can’t keep going.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No American would ever, in the slightest, be concerned about Russian Media Monitor.

"Concerned"? No, of course not.

But, it is a useful look into the media machine that pushes the Kremlin narrative that a significant portion of the Russian public is profoundly influenced by. Similar to how one could listen to Bannon, Carlson, Loomer, Breitbart, FOX, OAN, etc to understand the right/MAGA and it's influence.

So, yes, no American should be concerned. If you watch it, it's mostly hot air, posturing and hyperbole(not dissimilar to our maga media). But an informed American would be interested in what is being said insofar as it plays into current geopolitics.

You missed the context

I don't think I did. And I've spelled it all out for you. You're welcome.

You completely did. Doubling down on your mistake with condescension just makes you look stupid as well as a jerk.

Ok what's your take then, since you seem to think you have it all figured out.

It's all there on Page 3.

The only thing that's now missing is a back and forth on whether this forum is important enough to be propagandized - to which the "no American would ever be concerned with [appearing to support] Russian Media Monitor" comment was addressed.

Well now you've changed what was actually said by adding "appearing to support" - what that your post where you were not clear in what you wrote or are you changing another poster's words? These are two completely different statements... you can't change the context and then accuse someone of missing the context! LOL!

The context was obvious - since it DIRECTLY followed those comments.

You effed up. Accept it.

Words have meanings.

Sentences convey ideas.

The sentence you wrote the first time did not clearly convey the idea you wanted it to(apparently), and completely SHIFTED THE CONTEXT to something else. It was making a completely different claim(than you apparently intended) and that was then addressed. Now, you did actually re-work your original sentence to more CLEARLY convey the idea you wanted to but that was just a thinly veiled admission of your guilt. We can all see that.

Rather than keep doubling down on your eff up, you should own that and move on. Not doing so makes you look like a bit of a nudnik and a dullard.

But hey, you do you!

The context was obvious but you were too lazy to read and jumped to a conclusion. If I didn't know better I'd think you were a Russian.

lol, you are hilarious - every accusation is an admission with you!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that the truth matters to the delusional people of this forum, but the main schism in Putin's administration is over hardliners' push to use tactical nukes in Ukraine. Highly influential longtime insiders like Karaganov, whom most of you have probably never heard of, are advocating ending the war by making an example of Ukraine so Europeans think twice about continuing their campaign against Russia. Putin is the one counseling restraint because, lawyer that he is, he actually believes in observing the treaties on non-use of nukes and is worried about the precedent that using nukes could set for the ongoing Middle Eastern conflicts that Russia has an interest in. Anyone who cares about Ukrainians had better be rooting for Putin to stay in power because any would-be replacement would be much further to the right than he is.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for this insight. It's hard to find anything except regurgitated CNN talking points on DCUM nowadays.

No. I disagree completely with the both (or one) of you. The reality is that Putin is not demented like Trump, and does not listen to FAR RIGHT CRAZIES who want to use nuclear weapons. Putin is a cruel, obsessed, paranoid leader, whom NO ONE should support. If he dies, there won't be a crazy to take his place, but someone more like him, pragmatic and not addled with far-right theories. And we won't support the new guy either.

But the probability that anyone who reaches the top of the heap in the Russian Federation would be nuke-friendly is infinitesimal.

Stop giving air to the Nuke Nutjobs.

Kinda in the same vein to what some of you are saying about Putin (I think)... We should hope for someone to come from outside of the political arena in the US to break through political barriers like Trump did. Yes, like Trump did but obviously not a person with Trump's poor character and lack of integrity. Trump's 2016 victory was against all odds and against everything the RNC and their financiers wanted. They were even trying to figure out how not to give him the nomination at the convention right up until a few weeks before the convention.

I'm thinking a Teddy Roosevelt or Eisenhower type who has accomplished meaningful things outside of the political arena before pursuing political leadership positions. Someone who doesn't have established relationships with the corrupted elements of our political system. We need a leader that breaks through based on the will of the people and not the will of our wealthy and power political investors. It just needs to be an individual with the character and integrity we expect in a POTUS.

Russia needs someone kinda like Putin in some ways but not Putin himself due to his aggressive and unpopular to the world ambitions. Not sure if I'm on the same page or not but just a thought.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No American would ever, in the slightest, be concerned about Russian Media Monitor.

"Concerned"? No, of course not.

But, it is a useful look into the media machine that pushes the Kremlin narrative that a significant portion of the Russian public is profoundly influenced by. Similar to how one could listen to Bannon, Carlson, Loomer, Breitbart, FOX, OAN, etc to understand the right/MAGA and it's influence.

So, yes, no American should be concerned. If you watch it, it's mostly hot air, posturing and hyperbole(not dissimilar to our maga media). But an informed American would be interested in what is being said insofar as it plays into current geopolitics.

You missed the context

I don't think I did. And I've spelled it all out for you. You're welcome.

You completely did. Doubling down on your mistake with condescension just makes you look stupid as well as a jerk.

Ok what's your take then, since you seem to think you have it all figured out.

It's all there on Page 3.

The only thing that's now missing is a back and forth on whether this forum is important enough to be propagandized - to which the "no American would ever be concerned with [appearing to support] Russian Media Monitor" comment was addressed.

Well now you've changed what was actually said by adding "appearing to support" - what that your post where you were not clear in what you wrote or are you changing another poster's words? These are two completely different statements... you can't change the context and then accuse someone of missing the context! LOL!

The context was obvious - since it DIRECTLY followed those comments.

You effed up. Accept it.

Words have meanings.

Sentences convey ideas.

The sentence you wrote the first time did not clearly convey the idea you wanted it to(apparently), and completely SHIFTED THE CONTEXT to something else. It was making a completely different claim(than you apparently intended) and that was then addressed. Now, you did actually re-work your original sentence to more CLEARLY convey the idea you wanted to but that was just a thinly veiled admission of your guilt. We can all see that.

Rather than keep doubling down on your eff up, you should own that and move on. Not doing so makes you look like a bit of a nudnik and a dullard.

But hey, you do you!

The context was obvious but you were too lazy to read and jumped to a conclusion. If I didn't know better I'd think you were a Russian.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No American would ever, in the slightest, be concerned about Russian Media Monitor.

"Concerned"? No, of course not.

But, it is a useful look into the media machine that pushes the Kremlin narrative that a significant portion of the Russian public is profoundly influenced by. Similar to how one could listen to Bannon, Carlson, Loomer, Breitbart, FOX, OAN, etc to understand the right/MAGA and it's influence.

So, yes, no American should be concerned. If you watch it, it's mostly hot air, posturing and hyperbole(not dissimilar to our maga media). But an informed American would be interested in what is being said insofar as it plays into current geopolitics.

You missed the context

I don't think I did. And I've spelled it all out for you. You're welcome.

You completely did. Doubling down on your mistake with condescension just makes you look stupid as well as a jerk.

Ok what's your take then, since you seem to think you have it all figured out.

It's all there on Page 3.

The only thing that's now missing is a back and forth on whether this forum is important enough to be propagandized - to which the "no American would ever be concerned with [appearing to support] Russian Media Monitor" comment was addressed.

Well now you've changed what was actually said by adding "appearing to support" - what that your post where you were not clear in what you wrote or are you changing another poster's words? These are two completely different statements... you can't change the context and then accuse someone of missing the context! LOL!

The context was obvious - since it DIRECTLY followed those comments.

You effed up. Accept it.

Words have meanings.

Sentences convey ideas.

The sentence you wrote the first time did not clearly convey the idea you wanted it to(apparently), and completely SHIFTED THE CONTEXT to something else. It was making a completely different claim(than you apparently intended) and that was then addressed. Now, you did actually re-work your original sentence to more CLEARLY convey the idea you wanted to but that was just a thinly veiled admission of your guilt. We can all see that.

Rather than keep doubling down on your eff up, you should own that and move on. Not doing so makes you look like a bit of a nudnik and a dullard.

But hey, you do you!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No American would ever, in the slightest, be concerned about Russian Media Monitor.

"Concerned"? No, of course not.

But, it is a useful look into the media machine that pushes the Kremlin narrative that a significant portion of the Russian public is profoundly influenced by. Similar to how one could listen to Bannon, Carlson, Loomer, Breitbart, FOX, OAN, etc to understand the right/MAGA and it's influence.

So, yes, no American should be concerned. If you watch it, it's mostly hot air, posturing and hyperbole(not dissimilar to our maga media). But an informed American would be interested in what is being said insofar as it plays into current geopolitics.

You missed the context

I don't think I did. And I've spelled it all out for you. You're welcome.

You completely did. Doubling down on your mistake with condescension just makes you look stupid as well as a jerk.

Ok what's your take then, since you seem to think you have it all figured out.

It's all there on Page 3.

The only thing that's now missing is a back and forth on whether this forum is important enough to be propagandized - to which the "no American would ever be concerned with [appearing to support] Russian Media Monitor" comment was addressed.

Well now you've changed what was actually said by adding "appearing to support" - what that your post where you were not clear in what you wrote or are you changing another poster's words? These are two completely different statements... you can't change the context and then accuse someone of missing the context! LOL!

The context was obvious - since it DIRECTLY followed those comments.

You effed up. Accept it.

Anonymous wrote:Not that the truth matters to the delusional people of this forum, but the main schism in Putin's administration is over hardliners' push to use tactical nukes in Ukraine. Highly influential longtime insiders like Karaganov, whom most of you have probably never heard of, are advocating ending the war by making an example of Ukraine so Europeans think twice about continuing their campaign against Russia. Putin is the one counseling restraint because, lawyer that he is, he actually believes in observing the treaties on non-use of nukes and is worried about the precedent that using nukes could set for the ongoing Middle Eastern conflicts that Russia has an interest in. Anyone who cares about Ukrainians had better be rooting for Putin to stay in power because any would-be replacement would be much further to the right than he is.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for this insight. It's hard to find anything except regurgitated CNN talking points on DCUM nowadays.

No. I disagree completely with the both (or one) of you. The reality is that Putin is not demented like Trump, and does not listen to FAR RIGHT CRAZIES who want to use nuclear weapons. Putin is a cruel, obsessed, paranoid leader, whom NO ONE should support. If he dies, there won't be a crazy to take his place, but someone more like him, pragmatic and not addled with far-right theories. And we won't support the new guy either.

But the probability that anyone who reaches the top of the heap in the Russian Federation would be nuke-friendly is infinitesimal.

Stop giving air to the Nuke Nutjobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No American would ever, in the slightest, be concerned about Russian Media Monitor.

"Concerned"? No, of course not.

But, it is a useful look into the media machine that pushes the Kremlin narrative that a significant portion of the Russian public is profoundly influenced by. Similar to how one could listen to Bannon, Carlson, Loomer, Breitbart, FOX, OAN, etc to understand the right/MAGA and it's influence.

So, yes, no American should be concerned. If you watch it, it's mostly hot air, posturing and hyperbole(not dissimilar to our maga media). But an informed American would be interested in what is being said insofar as it plays into current geopolitics.

You missed the context

I don't think I did. And I've spelled it all out for you. You're welcome.

You completely did. Doubling down on your mistake with condescension just makes you look stupid as well as a jerk.

Ok what's your take then, since you seem to think you have it all figured out.

It's all there on Page 3.

The only thing that's now missing is a back and forth on whether this forum is important enough to be propagandized - to which the "no American would ever be concerned with [appearing to support] Russian Media Monitor" comment was addressed.

Well now you've changed what was actually said by adding "appearing to support" - what that your post where you were not clear in what you wrote or are you changing another poster's words? These are two completely different statements... you can't change the context and then accuse someone of missing the context! LOL!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No American would ever, in the slightest, be concerned about Russian Media Monitor.

"Concerned"? No, of course not.

But, it is a useful look into the media machine that pushes the Kremlin narrative that a significant portion of the Russian public is profoundly influenced by. Similar to how one could listen to Bannon, Carlson, Loomer, Breitbart, FOX, OAN, etc to understand the right/MAGA and it's influence.

So, yes, no American should be concerned. If you watch it, it's mostly hot air, posturing and hyperbole(not dissimilar to our maga media). But an informed American would be interested in what is being said insofar as it plays into current geopolitics.

You missed the context

I don't think I did. And I've spelled it all out for you. You're welcome.

You completely did. Doubling down on your mistake with condescension just makes you look stupid as well as a jerk.

Ok what's your take then, since you seem to think you have it all figured out.

It's all there on Page 3.

The only thing that's now missing is a back and forth on whether this forum is important enough to be propagandized - to which the "no American would ever be concerned with [appearing to support] Russian Media Monitor" comment was addressed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No American would ever, in the slightest, be concerned about Russian Media Monitor.

"Concerned"? No, of course not.

But, it is a useful look into the media machine that pushes the Kremlin narrative that a significant portion of the Russian public is profoundly influenced by. Similar to how one could listen to Bannon, Carlson, Loomer, Breitbart, FOX, OAN, etc to understand the right/MAGA and it's influence.

So, yes, no American should be concerned. If you watch it, it's mostly hot air, posturing and hyperbole(not dissimilar to our maga media). But an informed American would be interested in what is being said insofar as it plays into current geopolitics.

You missed the context

I don't think I did. And I've spelled it all out for you. You're welcome.

You completely did. Doubling down on your mistake with condescension just makes you look stupid as well as a jerk.

Ok what's your take then, since you seem to think you have it all figured out.

Rosenberg's take today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhG5jxNOojU