Not P.....but Seymour Hersh admitting his self-blocked blindness....

[Martin Dietze]

Part 2 of my respose, I name it Russia and your rant against the “West".

Here I am referring to the long rest of your message. A good part of what you write there is have already responded to in part 1, and for your convenience I will keep it short(er) and try not to repeat myself.


On 3. Jan 2026, at 07:06, J Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

> Russia’s first move was basic defense of the nation,  they seized their long time major port, Crimea, with over 90% support from Crimeans.
I would not call annexations “defense”. 

However regarding your “90%”: this is wrong. 

- The “referendum” in 2014 did not even contain an option to return to the old status quo.
- It was boycotted by most of the Ukrainian and Tatar population (which accounted for 36% according to the 2001 census) which already makes your “90%” very unlikely.
- Furthermore Russia cheated massively. For instance, in 2014 Sevastopol had about 296,000 registered voters of wich about 307,000 cast votes (!). 
- A report by the Russian Human Rights Council (published on president‑sovet.ru), estimated the Crimean turnout at around 30–50 % while the officlan results claimed ~80 %.

In other words: that “referendum” was not only illegal, it is actually meaningless.


> Russia continues to support Putin for a reason, their nation was far worse off in their experiment with  US favored leader,
It is impossible to estimate how many Russians actually support Putin because there is no opposition, no free press, no real elections.
In all these points Russia differs significantly from Ukraine which according to you is the real villain.


> The US UK alliance has now resorted to pure terrorism, murder people in a nightclub, try to drone Putin’s residence,
This is what Russia claims. A fascist country which has invaded a neighbor. This seems enough for you to already consider these claims as facts.
I prefer to be more cautious.


> But Putin I find to be  reasonable, intelligent,
I see no “reasonability” in his behaviour. Launching a war of conquest is not “reasonable”.
And it is getting even less “reasonable” when you see *how* this war is conducted: systematic looting, raping, executions, kidnapping, ecological warfare while throwing hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers into meat assaults which have cost him about 750,000 to 1,000,000 casualties (dead or severely wounded). 
He claims this was about keeping NATO from “expanding”. Looks like he really messed this up, as now Finland and Sweden have joined NATO.
I would not call this “reasonable”.


> historically informed 
Putin has transformed his country to a fascist state. His “knowledge" of history has become a laughing stock for real historians.
Let me give you a few examples:

- Putin claims WW II started because of the West without even mentioning the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact which formed the base of Stalin annexing the baltic countries and half of Poland.
- Putin presents Crimea as “always Russian,” ignoring centuries of multiethnic history.
- Putin considers Kyiv as the “mother of Russian cities” and that Ukraine and Russia are “one people,” implying that modern Ukraine is just a part of Russia. However historical scholarship shows that Kyiv, Novgorod, and other principalities were independent entities, and modern Ukraine has its own distinct historical, cultural, and linguistic development.
- Putin considers dissolution of the USSR as a historical catastrophe, and claims that Ukraine was “gifted” its independence. However Ukraine’s independence in 1991 came from a democratic referendum, in which over 90% of Ukrainians voted for independence, making it a legitimate expression of the Ukrainian people.
- Putin argues that Ukrainian is a “made-up” language, subordinate to Russian. However Ukrainian is a distinct East Slavic language with its own grammar, literature, and evolution.

Actually besides his references being unscientific, they are also a good example for fascist ideology: promise your people to return to a glorious history (that never existed). 


> Your cartoon of propaganda and totalitarian social structures is laughably naive
I have already invited you to challenge me on particular points where you think I am wrong. In particular you have stated that your understanding of history is more accurate than mine. I would be very interested in pursuing this. 
Please, rather than accusing me of being ignorant, show me where I am wrong. History is a field of science, hence there is a real chance to distinguish actual facts from opinions.


> The propaganda you endorse
Let’s turn this around. What makes you so sure that it’s not actually you who is spreading propaganda? 


>  It is impossible to reconstruct many of my sources on this topic.
I disagree. Sources are available. The internet does not forget. There is no truth without facts. 


> Search engines no longer provide a full range of opinions or articles, it’s just page after page of the same message.  Zionist fascists, and Trump fascists, and Starmer fascists, and Macron Fascists and Lindsey Graham fascists, and Joe Biden fascists Anthony Blinken fascists and Narco Rubio fascists  and CNN fascists and NYT fascists  have bought it all. The future’s so bright I gotta wear shades.  
In your list something is missing: the fascist state that is conducting a war of conquest in Europe - Russia.

But apart from that: I’d be interested in learning how all those “fascists” you are mentioning fit the definition of fascism. Please elaborate.


Cheers,

Martin