The Vladimir Putin appreciation thread.

Iwasfrozen

fran17 wrote: »

So the theory is that President Vladimir Putin has manipulated the vote in the entire Russian parliament so that all 436 members voted in a manner that pleased him.A country with a land area of over 17,000,000 sq km,over 80 different electoral regions,different religious beliefs and a dozen different political parties with opposing beliefs.Thats the theory?

Now your contradicting yourself in the next sentence.If Putin controlled the vote,as you say he did,how could everyone be "homophobic" if they were denied a free vote?

Perhaps the answer to this conspiracy theory is Occam's razor.The Russian people,like the majority around the world,believe that any form of corruption of a child through sexual information,should be banned.Before you get on your high horse now,i'm speaking about all forms of sexual information be it straight,gay or whatever else.And the punishment for such corruption is a fine of $152 so lets keep it in perspective.

I had to read your post twice because I couldn't believe anyone would make that argument. Then I looked at your username. Now it makes sense.

Guys, can we just not engage this person?

B_Wayne

Fran, Occams razor would require you to take into account that political opponents have been killed and jailed. I've previously destroyed your point tbh but your opinion on gay people overcomes everything. You give no ****s of the attacks against that occur in Russia. It's glorious mm Putin in your books which is just a little bit sad. What do you think of him implying gay people are paedophiles? It's been much of the argument of his government.

Also, Egginacup. I've done the historiography of cold war history. You are one of the few people I have ever heard claim Putin disabled the USSR...

fran17

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I had to read your post twice because I couldn't believe anyone would make that argument. Then I looked at your username. Now it makes sense.

Guys, can we just not engage this person?

Excellent contribution as always.Really forwards the debate.

B_Wayne

fran17 wrote: »

Excellent contribution as always.Really forwards the debate.

Just rather worrying that you seem to think yourself more correct than human rights groups across the globe... Condemn the right group and you're okay with it.

fran17

B_Wayne wrote: »

Fran, Occams razor would require you to take into account that political opponents have been killed and jailed. I've previously destroyed your point tbh but your opinion on gay people overcomes everything. You give no ****s of the attacks against that occur in Russia. It's glorious mm Putin in your books which is just a little bit sad. What do you think of him implying gay people are paedophiles? It's been much of the argument of his government.

Also, Egginacup. I've done the historiography of cold war history. You are one of the few people I have ever heard claim Putin disabled the USSR...

No Bruce,tbh your insinuations of racism against me and others without anything to back it up has "destroyed" your credibility and my respect for you.You come across as no more than a bumbling fantasist.

B_Wayne

fran17 wrote: »

No Bruce,tbh your insinuations of racism against me and others without anything to back it up has "destroyed" your credibility and my respect for you.You come across as no more than a bumbling fantasist.

I think my credibility is perfectly safe, you never answered racial purity question but you'll find it's closely aligned with racism .My words were xenophobia btw, fine as long as they don't enter the country... That's what poster believed in since you keep bringing up to attack me with .

The fact you won't address some pretty clear points is sign enough and I imagine vast majority in discussion will agree. So bumbling and well informed.

Jimmy Garlic

Grayson wrote: »

The opposition includes Gary Kasparov. You might know him as the greatest chess player in the world. The guy who literally thinks 20 moves ahead. can you imagine having someone like him leading a country?

Like a lot of people who specialise in one thing or another they very often know little about anything else. Wayne Rooney knows a lot about football but I wouldn't let him do my accounts.

Jimmy Garlic

Grayson wrote: »

So Crimea was part of Ukraine... Then one morning there's a load of little green men...who were all local volunteers.....definitely not Russian.....most definitely not Russian...they surround the local parliament building...They wake up a pro Russian politician who had less than 10% of the vote....he holds a quick vote with his mates and then suddenly all the little green men turn into Russians. The day beforehand though they were definitely not Russian troops. Despite the fact that Putin has admitted that they were Russian troops.

I don't know about you, but when one country rolls a load of APC's and heavily armed troops into another country, then forces the local army and police to surrender and finally declares that the land is now part of their country, I'd call that an invasion. Maybe an anschluss is a more accurate term.

Crimea was part of Ukraine in name only. The vast majority of people there speak Russian and identify as Russian. They didn't want to be part of Ukraine anymore and quite frankly it was the best decision they ever made. Khrushchevs silly mistake needed to be undone. Donetsk, Lugansk and most likely Odessa will also completely split from Ukraine one way or another. The murderous puppet regieme in Kiev with their actions have guaranteed that these regions will no longer be a part of Ukraine in any way, shape, or form in the very near future.

miss tickle

Grayson wrote: »

The opposition includes Gary Kasparov. You might know him as the greatest chess player in the world. The guy who literally thinks 20 moves ahead. can you imagine having someone like him leading a country?

He ran in 2008, but his popularity was very low, but yes I can see the advantages of such a strategist.

The Th!ng

Earlier this evening on Sky News I heard John Kerry using words like sovereignty and integrity when he spoke of Ukraine. These things he speaks of are only of concern to the United States when it's in their own interest, when it's not the American's interfere in the affairs of foreign countries in all manner of ways to further their own goals.

The One Doctor

FloatingVoter wrote: »

A murderer of journalists.

Surely that's not illegal?

Elmer Blooker

Don't say you weren't warned! I am taking this VERY seriously.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/539448/Putin-Russia-secret-plan-rule-europe-Kremlin

Irish Praetorian

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Crimea was part of Ukraine in name only. The vast majority of people there speak Russian and identify as Russian. They didn't want to be part of Ukraine anymore and quite frankly it was the best decision they ever made. Khrushchevs silly mistake needed to be undone. Donetsk, Lugansk and most likely Odessa will also completely split from Ukraine one way or another. The murderous puppet regieme in Kiev with their actions have guaranteed that these regions will no longer be a part of Ukraine in any way, shape, or form in the very near future.

Whatever you make of nationalism and the idea that all people from a single ethnic group should be in a single state, whatever you make of Kruschevs decision to transfer that territory to the Ukrainian SSR and whatever you make about the Crimean Tatar population being deported from the peninsula wholesale in the 1940s and 50s (something I never hear Russian apologists asking to reverse) - why is it that we only heard about this great Russian desire to re-unite with Crimea, AFTER, it had been invaded, AFTER Ukraine removed president Yanukovych and AFTER Russia decided to recognise the borders with Ukraine in 1994? I mean lets be fair, territorial movements are not unheard of, there is a desire for Flemish nationalists to have their own state, Morroco has territorial claims on parts of Spain, Cyprus is a spectacular patchwork of different entities, yet this great desire amgonst Russians to 'reclaim' Crimea seems to have emerged from thin air about a year ago, and certainly doesn't seem to have been an issue in the Russian-Ukrainian relationship prior to that, even within Crimea.

And I'm not even opposed to the idea of a border change in principle, but this idea that the hitherto unknown Russian national claims enforced by invisible armies invading is just the worst possible way about it in every sense.

Jimmy Garlic

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Whatever you make of nationalism and the idea that all people from a single ethnic group should be in a single state, whatever you make of Kruschevs decision to transfer that territory to the Ukrainian SSR and whatever you make about the Crimean Tatar population being deported from the peninsula wholesale in the 1940s and 50s (something I never hear Russian apologists asking to reverse) - why is it that we only heard about this great Russian desire to re-unite with Crimea, AFTER, it had been invaded, AFTER Ukraine removed president Yanukovych and AFTER Russia decided to recognise the borders with Ukraine in 1994? I mean lets be fair, territorial movements are not unheard of, there is a desire for Flemish nationalists to have their own state, Morroco has territorial claims on parts of Spain, Cyprus is a spectacular patchwork of different entities, yet this great desire amgonst Russians to 'reclaim' Crimea seems to have emerged from thin air about a year ago, and certainly doesn't seem to have been an issue in the Russian-Ukrainian relationship prior to that, even within Crimea.

And I'm not even opposed to the idea of a border change in principle, but this idea that the hitherto unknown Russian national claims enforced by invisible armies invading is just the worst possible way about it in every sense.

It is what the people there want, that is what really matters. Russia couldn't risk the possibility of their most important naval base falling into the hands of the Kiev regime, nobody should be surprised about that. If there was no western backed coup in Ukraine then there would have been no war and no border changes. The coup is the root of it all.

Guy:Incognito

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

It is what the people there want, that is what really matters..

Kill or remove enough of the people that oppose what you want and of course what the people want will be what you want...........

Jimmy Garlic

The Th!ng wrote: »

Earlier this evening on Sky News I heard John Kerry using words like sovereignty and integrity when he spoke of Ukraine. These things he speaks of are only of concern to the United States when it's in their own interest, when it's not the American's interfere in the affairs of foreign countries in all manner of ways to further their own goals.

I wouldn't take lectures about sovereignty from a cretin like John Kerry very seriously. When the US approves regime change in countries like Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, the list goes on, then of course it is all about "freedom and democracy". When anyone opposes their malevolent inroads anywhere in the world then they are terrorists, insurgents, anti-democratic etc. The US as it stands today is the greatest threat to humanity since the Black Death.

Jimmy Garlic

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Kill or remove enough of the people that oppose what you want and of course what the people want will be what you want...........

Was there a genocide in Crimea recently? The demographics of Crimea speak for themselves, there is a clear Russian majority.

Irish Praetorian

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

It is what the people there want, that is what really matters. Russia couldn't risk the possibility of their most important naval base falling into the hands of the Kiev regime, nobody should be surprised about that. If there was no western backed coup in Ukraine then there would have been no war and no border changes. The coup is the root of it all.

Who is this 'West' and what coup did they launch? And this still doesn't address my point, Russia had not made so much as a peep about Crimea until after the invasion and now we're supposed to believe that it was some territorial irredentism?

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Was there a genocide in Crimea recently? The demographics of Crimea speak for themselves, there is a clear Russian majority.

No, there was a census last time in 2001, which showed 58% of the population describing themselves as ethnically Russian, a figure which had been declining for sometime whilst the Tatar population at 12% was on the increase, to say nothing of the 24% of the population who described themselves as Ukrainian.

Now the problem here is, just because someone describes them-self as ethnically Russian, doesn't mean they automatically want to be part of Russia (not least Putin's Russia) - this idea that the population voted and 99% of them decided to join Russia isn't an indication of popular opinion, its a pretence.

Jimmy Garlic

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Who is this 'West' and what coup did they launch?

Ah come on, it is a bit late in the game for you not to know the background of what transpired in Kiev a year ago.

contactbackup

engineerbrah wrote: »

I've never been a part of that website. I just believe all people deserve a homeland where their language, culture and ideals can be preserved. Multiculturalism does not favour the host nation.

2 years ago the Japanese PM declared japan a homogenous nation and it would 'stay' Japanese. I don't remember hearing any public outcry about it though. Meanwhile any white person who wants a country where he can live amongst his own people is a neo-nazi/bigot/horrible person

Japan can be a horrible little racist nation. It is just that "we" need them as "we" target bigger fish in the region.

Egginacup

Grayson wrote: »

So Crimea was part of Ukraine... Then one morning there's a load of little green men...who were all local volunteers.....definitely not Russian.....most definitely not Russian...they surround the local parliament building...They wake up a pro Russian politician who had less than 10% of the vote....he holds a quick vote with his mates and then suddenly all the little green men turn into Russians. The day beforehand though they were definitely not Russian troops. Despite the fact that Putin has admitted that they were Russian troops.

I don't know about you, but when one country rolls a load of APC's and heavily armed troops into another country, then forces the local army and police to surrender and finally declares that the land is now part of their country, I'd call that an invasion. Maybe an anschluss is a more accurate term.

Grayson,

If Russia had invaded the Ukraine then don't you think they would have smashed their way to Kiev in perhaps a week?

Russian troops and bombers and tanks could have had Lviv, Kiev and all of the country in 48 hours. That, one would expect, would be the objective if you invade a country. If you invade a country isn't the object to engulf the entire land?
Wouldn't the first thing be to knock out ground artillery? Next, to destroy all forms of communications?
Next, to impose all forms of border control and seizure of anyone who you deem suspicious? I don't see any Russian troops operating checkpoints in Ukraine.
I don't see any Russian attack planes blasting Ukrainian targets around the capital. Do you?

Where is this huge Russian "invasion"?

There isn't one.

Egginacup

And I'm watching Newsnight and Kirsty Wark...who I used to be so hot for, and she's talking about Russian "aggression" and how it is about to spill over into the Baltics.

???

Really, who is trying to ramp up this fight?

I read that Russian military aircraft were sighted "off Cornwall"

Russian military aircraft have flown "off Cornwall" for decades in international airspace. Much like this episode.

I would argue that it's time for Russia to stop trying to play by the rules.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Why did the head of the local Bratva (Russian Mafia) in Yetakateringberg greet Putin on his recent visit. If they are so open and transparent why is a major figure in the criminal world standing along side a town Mayor who was politically appointed.

cnocbui

Egginacup wrote: »

And I'm watching Newsnight and Kirsty Wark...who I used to be so hot for, and she's talking about Russian "aggression" and how it is about to spill over into the Baltics.

???

Really, who is trying to ramp up this fight?

I read that Russian military aircraft were sighted "off Cornwall"

Russian military aircraft have flown "off Cornwall" for decades in international airspace. Much like this episode.

I would argue that it's time for Russia to stop trying to play by the rules.

It's ironic that you talk about playing by the 'rules' but in your drivel you intentionally fail to mention that the Russian military aircraft in question were flying with their transponders turned off, had not filed flight plans and had refused to answer calls from air traffic controllers, all while endangering civilian aircraft which had to be re-routed.

There are thousands of flights a day across the channel, deliberately flying a transponderless plane refusing ATC communication at right angles to the other air traffic is intentionally being a stupid dick of the highest order.

They have been violating accepted aviation rules off Norway as well:

“The bomber and tanker aircraft from Russia did not file flight plans or maintain radio contact with civilian air traffic control authorities and they were not using on-board transponders. This poses a potential risk to civil aviation as civilian air traffic control cannot detect these aircraft or ensure there is no interference with civilian air traffic,”

A Danish plane nearly collided with a Russian spy plane back in March, which also wasn't playing by the rules:

National SAS flight in Russian spy plane near miss

Published: 08 May 2014 13:35 GMT+02:00

A Scandinavian Airlines flight had to take last minute evasive action to avoid colliding with a Russian spy plane just off the Swedish south coast in March, according to a report which emerged on Thursday.
...
The plane was reportedly a Russian Ilyushin 20m military aircraft used for signals surveillance. The two aircraft are reported to have passed by each other a mere 90 metres apart.
..
The SAS flight SK 681 had just taken off from Copenhagen's Kastrup airport bound for Rome when the crew received information that an unidentified craft was in their path and which had not shown up on their in-flight warning system.

http://www.thelocal.se/20140508/sas-plane-in-russian-spy-plane-near-miss

I suspect you know most of this and are simply trolling. Nobody with half a brain in their head can fail to see who is trying to ramp up this fight.

No western planes have deliberately harassed Russian civilian aircraft, or posed a threat to their safety.

No western countries have invaded Russia with tanks and troops. and annexed part of it's territory.

No western countries have shot down a Russian civilian aircraft killing 298 people.

No Western country sent agents into Russia to kidnap an FSB agent.

etc, etc.

And you have the gall to point the finger at the West in an accusation it is ramping up this fight? You are either trolling, delusional or just completely ignorant of recent world events.

The only ones playing by the rules are the West. Maybe we should stop turning the other cheek.

Irish Praetorian

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Ah come on, it is a bit late in the game for you not to know the background of what transpired in Kiev a year ago.

Yeah I've listened to that call a few times and read the transcript, I presume you have as well. At what point (or timestamp) am I supposed to go 'WOW the US launched a coup here' because people keep reporting this as a smoking gun without actually detailing what the hell they mean by that.

Irish Praetorian

Egginacup wrote: »

Grayson,

If Russia had invaded the Ukraine then don't you think they would have smashed their way to Kiev in perhaps a week?

Russian troops and bombers and tanks could have had Lviv, Kiev and all of the country in 48 hours. That, one would expect, would be the objective if you invade a country. If you invade a country isn't the object to engulf the entire land?
Wouldn't the first thing be to knock out ground artillery? Next, to destroy all forms of communications?
Next, to impose all forms of border control and seizure of anyone who you deem suspicious? I don't see any Russian troops operating checkpoints in Ukraine.
I don't see any Russian attack planes blasting Ukrainian targets around the capital. Do you?

Where is this huge Russian "invasion"?

There isn't one.

Operating on these standards, presumably Iraq did not invade Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, Israel did not invade Lebanon in the 1980s and Turkey did not invade Cyprus in the 1970s. To answer your question, No, an invasion is not limited in definition to the total occupation and conquest of a country, taking over even a part of a country is something that is generally frowned upon. Things like the setting up of checkpoints, the seizure of Ukrainian military assets such as ships and bases, the 'disappearance' of troublesome individuals - although personally I think the best indication of an invasion is when the invading state declares that it has annexed the region! You claim not to have seen these things, have you been looking very hard or trying very hard not to look?

cnocbui

Looks like the Russian embassy is closed on Sundays. :P

Egginacup

cnocbui wrote: »

It's ironic that you talk about playing by the 'rules' but in your drivel you intentionally fail to mention that the Russian military aircraft in question were flying with their transponders turned off, had not filed flight plans and had refused to answer calls from air traffic controllers, all while endangering civilian aircraft which had to be re-routed.

There are thousands of flights a day across the channel, deliberately flying a transponderless plane refusing ATC communication at right angles to the other air traffic is intentionally being a stupid dick of the highest order.

They have been violating accepted aviation rules off Norway as well:



A Danish plane nearly collided with a Russian spy plane back in March, which also wasn't playing by the rules:


http://www.thelocal.se/20140508/sas-plane-in-russian-spy-plane-near-miss

I suspect you know most of this and are simply trolling. Nobody with half a brain in their head can fail to see who is trying to ramp up this fight.

No western planes have deliberately harassed Russian civilian aircraft, or posed a threat to their safety.

No western countries have invaded Russia with tanks and troops. and annexed part of it's territory.

No western countries have shot down a Russian civilian aircraft killing 298 people.

No Western country sent agents into Russia to kidnap an FSB agent.

etc, etc.

And you have the gall to point the finger at the West in an accusation it is ramping up this fight? You are either trolling, delusional or just completely ignorant of recent world events.

The only ones playing by the rules are the West. Maybe we should stop turning the other cheek.

You say these Russian bombers had their transponders turned off. Can you provide proof of this and can you back up your assertion that military aircraft would have tracking and comma systems allowing them to be traced by all and sundry? Kind of defeats the purpose of stealth, wouldn't you say?

If aircraft, flying in international airspace cannot be identified the who "owns" international airspace?

Shurimgreat

Egginacup wrote: »

You say these Russian bombers had their transponders turned off. Can you provide proof of this and can you back up your assertion that military aircraft would have tracking and comma systems allowing them to be traced by all and sundry? Kind of defeats the purpose of stealth, wouldn't you say?

If aircraft, flying in international airspace cannot be identified the who "owns" international airspace?

Here you go.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/11378119/UK-summons-Russian-ambassador-after-dangerous-bombers-disrupt-civil-aircraft.html

Sources said the Russian planes were flying without their transponders turned on, making them invisible to civilian aircraft. A number of flights arriving in Britain had to be diverted to avoid potential disaster.

Am I the only one tired of your "have you proof of this" routine? You feign ignorance of widely known facts. Your pro Russian agenda is limitless and quite sad.

Egginacup

cnocbui wrote: »

It's ironic that you talk about playing by the 'rules' but in your drivel you intentionally fail to mention that the Russian military aircraft in question were flying with their transponders turned off, had not filed flight plans and had refused to answer calls from air traffic controllers, all while endangering civilian aircraft which had to be re-routed.

There are thousands of flights a day across the channel, deliberately flying a transponderless plane refusing ATC communication at right angles to the other air traffic is intentionally being a stupid dick of the highest order.

They have been violating accepted aviation rules off Norway as well:



A Danish plane nearly collided with a Russian spy plane back in March, which also wasn't playing by the rules:


http://www.thelocal.se/20140508/sas-plane-in-russian-spy-plane-near-miss

I suspect you know most of this and are simply trolling. Nobody with half a brain in their head can fail to see who is trying to ramp up this fight.

No western planes have deliberately harassed Russian civilian aircraft, or posed a threat to their safety.

No western countries have invaded Russia with tanks and troops. and annexed part of it's territory.

No western countries have shot down a Russian civilian aircraft killing 298 people.

No Western country sent agents into Russia to kidnap an FSB agent.

etc, etc.

And you have the gall to point the finger at the West in an accusation it is ramping up this fight? You are either trolling, delusional or just completely ignorant of recent world events.

The only ones playing by the rules are the West. Maybe we should stop turning the other cheek.

I'll deal with your temper-tantrum points one at a time.
You assert the only ones "playing by the rules" are the "West".

The "West" orchestrated the coup d'etat in Kiev and installed a fascist junta.

This is indisputable and also illegal under International Law.

Your thoughts?