The Vladimir Putin appreciation thread.

Grayson

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.

Except they had actually performed opinion polls regarding it. The number of people who wanted to join Russia was far less than 50%.

BTW, that "puppet" regime was elected in free and fair elections. Elections that were considered fairer than Russian elections. It was certainly fairer than the referendum held in Crimea. RT journalists filmed themselves voting in it. The international observers were all from right wing European parties. Actual nazi's were acting as observers.
The only places where fair elections weren't held in ukraine was in rebel held areas where the rebels disallowed them. Instead they held their own elections that involved running around with photocopied printouts and then declaring that everyone loved them.

Grayson

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.

That's what's called a false dichotomy. The idea you're presenting is that Russia can only invade Ukraine if it takes all of it over in a traditional land war. You know that's not the case. It's also trying to change the topic by ignoring Crimea and instead focussing on a different location.

Lets try a simple syllogism...

1) Russia did send troops into Crimea. Putin has admitted that the little green men were russian special forces.
2) Crimea was part of Ukraine.
Therefore Russia invaded the territory of another country. Russia invaded Ukraine.

Egginacup

Grayson wrote: »

That's what's called a false dichotomy. The idea you're presenting is that Russia can only invade Ukraine if it takes all of it over in a traditional land war. You know that's not the case. It's also trying to change the topic by ignoring Crimea and instead focussing on a different location.

Lets try a simple syllogism...

1) Russia did send troops into Crimea. Putin has admitted that the little green men were russian special forces.
2) Crimea was part of Ukraine.
Therefore Russia invaded the territory of another country. Russia invaded Ukraine.

That's just a technicality but it is also irrelevant.
Russian troops were stationed in Crimea as part of an agreement with Ukraine. When NATO orchestrated the fascist coup in Kiev their aim was to draw Ukraine out of Russia's orbit and into NATO as part of a broader plan to militarily surround, weaken and ultimately break up Russia into a collection of weak, semi-autonomous vassal states that could be easily controlled.
The first step would of course be to seize Sevastapol while it was still geographically part of Ukraine. This would have been a disaster for Russia as it would have lost them the home of their Black Sea fleet and access to the Mediterannean/Suez. Putin was never going to allow this to happen and while he could just as easily have invaded Crimea he insisted on holding a referendum. The people voted in favour of returning to Russia and the rest is history.

People can cry all they want about unfair elections, dirty tricks, invasions, and all that other sh1t which basically amounts to a temper-tantrum laden case of sour grapes. Putin outsmarted the neocon assholes in Washington and they are fuming.
Nobody can provide evidence of rigged elections despite swearing blindly that it is the case. Nevermind that they have no problem with rigged elections if the result is the one they want.
Why would Putin trust a single person in Washington after what they have been doing since 1990? Double-crossing and betraying at every turn.

As it stands the Ukrainian army is now in disarray and no amount of supplies of weapons from Washington is going to help them. In fact the Ukrainian public are growing ever more impatient with the fascists in Kiev. Many of them have relatives and friends in the East who have suffered under artillery bombardment from Kiev forces. Discipline is also a problem as is command. There's no one unifying command. Different units are communication with each other via mobile phone rather than with encrypted radio channels. They're also using fucking Twitter to rant about their experiences, whereabouts, etc. They are a debacle. But it doesn't surprise me. Everything that the geniuses in Washington touch turns to shit. They think they can just snap their fingers and lo and behold an army will fight to the death for them and do as they say. And when it doesn't quite happen the way they erroneously said it would they blame everyone but their own naivete and stupidity.

pcardin

Egginacup wrote: »

That's just a technicality but it is also irrelevant.
Russian troops were stationed in Crimea as part of an agreement with Ukraine. When NATO orchestrated the fascist coup in Kiev their aim was to draw Ukraine out of Russia's orbit and into NATO as part of a broader plan to militarily surround, weaken and ultimately break up Russia into a collection of weak, semi-autonomous vassal states that could be easily controlled.
The first step would of course be to seize Sevastapol while it was still geographically part of Ukraine. This would have been a disaster for Russia as it would have lost them the home of their Black Sea fleet and access to the Mediterannean/Suez. Putin was never going to allow this to happen and while he could just as easily have invaded Crimea he insisted on holding a referendum. The people voted in favour of returning to Russia and the rest is history.

People can cry all they want about unfair elections, dirty tricks, invasions, and all that other sh1t which basically amounts to a temper-tantrum laden case of sour grapes. Putin outsmarted the neocon assholes in Washington and they are fuming.
Nobody can provide evidence of rigged elections despite swearing blindly that it is the case. Nevermind that they have no problem with rigged elections if the result is the one they want.
Why would Putin trust a single person in Washington after what they have been doing since 1990? Double-crossing and betraying at every turn.

As it stands the Ukrainian army is now in disarray and no amount of supplies of weapons from Washington is going to help them. In fact the Ukrainian public are growing ever more impatient with the fascists in Kiev. Many of them have relatives and friends in the East who have suffered under artillery bombardment from Kiev forces. Discipline is also a problem as is command. There's no one unifying command. Different units are communication with each other via mobile phone rather than with encrypted radio channels. They're also using fucking Twitter to rant about their experiences, whereabouts, etc. They are a debacle. But it doesn't surprise me. Everything that the geniuses in Washington touch turns to shit. They think they can just snap their fingers and lo and behold an army will fight to the death for them and do as they say. And when it doesn't quite happen the way they erroneously said it would they blame everyone but their own naivete and stupidity.

Remember for once again, the ONLY fascist nation in today's world that fits fascist ideology and implements fascistic methods is Russia. Even calling everyone else fascist in every post you make is fascistic.

Karl Stein

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I responded with an elegant way of saying 'who gives a damn' - have you nothing to add?

Elegant? That's funny. The Russians give a damn. They see NATO encroachment as a threat - that's how it is. We Europeans should give a damn because Washington and Moscow's brinkmanship is threatening to destabilise Europe.

You'll be aware that US-Russian relations began to sour around the time the Moscow started taking control of their oil and gas resources. Now nationalist Russia has replaced the Soviet Union as the menace in the east.

You might also be aware that Bush unilaterally withdrew from the anti-ABM treaty in 2002 and planned to put a missile defence system in Eastern Europe. The Russians were set to decommission hundreds of nuclear warheads in 2007 but instead chose to renovate them.

Just as we have seen the balkanization of Yugoslavia, Libya, and Iraq by US-NATO it appears that the same strategy has been developed for Russia. With NATO’s continuing military encirclement of Russia the plan appears to be to draw Moscow into a military quagmire in Ukraine that will weaken that nation. The Rand Corporation has studies that call for the break-up of Russia into many smaller pieces thus giving western corporations better access to the vast resource base available there.

pipr.co.uk

Irish Praetorian

Karl Stein wrote: »

Elegant? That's funny. The Russians give a damn. They see NATO encroachment as a threat - that's how it is. We Europeans should give a damn because Washington and Moscow's brinkmanship is threatening to destabilise Europe.

You'll be aware that US-Russian relations began to sour around the time the Moscow started taking control of their oil and gas resources. Now nationalist Russia has replaced the Soviet Union as the menace in the east.

You might also be aware that Bush unilaterally withdrew from the anti-ABM treaty in 2002 and planned to put a missile defence system in Eastern Europe. The Russians were set to decommission hundreds of nuclear warheads in 2007 but instead chose to renovate them.

By NATO encroachment you mean those small things called independent countries outside Russia's borders expanding into a defensive alliance and an economic union? Its rather curious, because those countries that enter these international groups have tended to do quite well, whilst those countries outside of them, such as Georgia and Ukraine are the only ones actually facing destabilization, and that might be due to the fact that they end up invaded by Russia or face sporadic economic sanctions.

And you want to make the argument that we could have avoided these kinds of situations by simply conceding Eastern Europe and the population of those countries as being not quite independent, but really just pretend states, extant only to assuage Russian nationalist fervour? You're right, it does look like they have replace the Soviet Union as a menace.

I'll close with this; for all Bush's many, MANY, faults, he did at least have the decency to piss off once his term expired - how much longer do you imagine we will have to wait for us to say the same of Putin?

P.S. Could you expand on you're argument about US-Russia relations and the oil industry?

I think in the Western media they like to create a narrative where Russia is the "bad" guy and the US is the "good" guys, and too few journalist try to challenge that world view, unless you switch the TV over to RT.

Grayson

Egginacup wrote: »

That's just a technicality but it is also irrelevant.
Russian troops were stationed in Crimea as part of an agreement with Ukraine. When NATO orchestrated the fascist coup in Kiev their aim was to draw Ukraine out of Russia's orbit and into NATO as part of a broader plan to militarily surround, weaken and ultimately break up Russia into a collection of weak, semi-autonomous vassal states that could be easily controlled.
The first step would of course be to seize Sevastapol while it was still geographically part of Ukraine. This would have been a disaster for Russia as it would have lost them the home of their Black Sea fleet and access to the Mediterannean/Suez. Putin was never going to allow this to happen and while he could just as easily have invaded Crimea he insisted on holding a referendum. The people voted in favour of returning to Russia and the rest is history.

People can cry all they want about unfair elections, dirty tricks, invasions, and all that other sh1t which basically amounts to a temper-tantrum laden case of sour grapes. Putin outsmarted the neocon assholes in Washington and they are fuming.
Nobody can provide evidence of rigged elections despite swearing blindly that it is the case. Nevermind that they have no problem with rigged elections if the result is the one they want.
Why would Putin trust a single person in Washington after what they have been doing since 1990? Double-crossing and betraying at every turn.

As it stands the Ukrainian army is now in disarray and no amount of supplies of weapons from Washington is going to help them. In fact the Ukrainian public are growing ever more impatient with the fascists in Kiev. Many of them have relatives and friends in the East who have suffered under artillery bombardment from Kiev forces. Discipline is also a problem as is command. There's no one unifying command. Different units are communication with each other via mobile phone rather than with encrypted radio channels. They're also using fucking Twitter to rant about their experiences, whereabouts, etc. They are a debacle. But it doesn't surprise me. Everything that the geniuses in Washington touch turns to shit. They think they can just snap their fingers and lo and behold an army will fight to the death for them and do as they say. And when it doesn't quite happen the way they erroneously said it would they blame everyone but their own naivete and stupidity.

It's not a technicality it's the very definition of invasion. Mobilising troops and moving them onto foreign soil is an actual invasion. You stated that it never happened.
Russian troops were already in Crimea in Russian bases. However using your logic Cuba belongs to the us because troops were in Guantanamo. The UK could have invaded Ireland because of the treaty ports. Hell, Russia could now claim all of Poland because of a naval base in Kaliningrad.

Russian reporters filmed themselves casting votes in the referendum. They walked up and showed russian ID (With a russian camera crew) and cast a vote. How the hell can an election like that count?

And your description of the Ukrainian forces is even more apt if you apply it to the rebel forces. There are units of serbian ultra nationalists. There are units that have said they will not accept any ceasefire.

Irish Praetorian

Deleted User wrote: »

I think in the Western media they like to create a narrative where Russia is the "bad" guy and the US is the "good" guys, and too few journalist try to challenge that world view, unless you switch the TV over to RT.

You are right to be sceptical of mass media, particularly broadcast media, who are rushing to fill the partisan hole which was previously held in ironclad grip by the print media, which is now facing serious problems.

However its not sufficient to approach the media and simply decide their validity on the basis of whether or not we like the argument they are making. In the same way that it behoves us to take a look at facts and sources that challenge our assertions as well as support us, it is necessary for us to look with a more critical eye at those media organizations that ostensibly share our view.

Now you might not like the arguments the 'Western' (if there is such a large grouping) media make, but surely it is the argument itself which demands examination as well as who is making it. Does an unpleasant narrative of Russia versus the West preclude the possibility that maybe Russia has done something here that it shouldn't have?

Karl Stein

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

By NATO encroachment you mean those small things called independent countries outside Russia's borders expanding into a defensive alliance and an economic union?

Yes they're outside Russia's borders but would be considered buffer states between East and West and their joining NATO is viewed as encroachment by Moscow. Also the Russian have serious interests in Eastern Ukraine as regards its own defence. To imagine that Ukraine being incorporated into the West's sphere of influence while Russia watched would be pretty thick.

And you want to make the argument that we could have avoided these kinds of situations by simply conceding Eastern Europe.

Concede? They weren't ours to concede in the first place. I think these states declaring themselves non-aligned and neutral while opening themselves up to development by European industry would serve them best as regards theirs and European stability. I also think Europe needs to develop military/security independence from the US so it can assert itself in its own back yard.

I'll close with this; for all Bush's many, MANY, faults, he did at least have the decency to piss off once his term expired - how much longer do you imagine we will have to wait for us to say the same of Putin?

I think you might be mistaking me for an admirer of Putin. I think the guy is a thug. He isn't nuts though and is acting rationally in terms of Russian interests despite being portrayed as a loose-cannon by the woeful mainstream media.

P.S. Could you expand on you're argument about US-Russia relations and the oil industry?

Russia depends heavily on oil and gas revenues to fund itself as a state. There's an unwritten rule in Russia that if you stay out of politics you can keep your business interests but if you cross the Kremlin you're finished. See: Mikhail Khodorkovsky. The US viewed Moscow's appropriating oil and gas businesses as Russia asserting itself as a serious regional power.

Cool Mo D

Karl Stein wrote: »

Yes they're outside Russia's borders but would be considered buffer states between East and West and their joining NATO is viewed as encroachment by Moscow.

Except it's irrelevant what Moscow thinks. They are independent countries, free to join whatever organisation they like. Moscow doesn't get a say.

Maybe if Moscow didn't act like it gets a say in what the Baltic countries are allowed to do and treated them as equals, they wouldn't go running to NATO as insurance against Russian troops turning up on their streets.

Shurimgreat

The Crimean vote was a sham.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/17/crimea-referendum-sham-display-democracy-ukraine

Pause for a second. There is a puppet government in Crimea that seized power at the point of a gun and is run by a party that won 4% of the vote at the last election. The streets are filled with menacing militia given arms but no training, supported by a variety of lethal-looking paramilitary groups and thousands of Russian soldiers who can be seen even on rooftops. Meanwhile events are dictated quite blatantly by Moscow; visitors to the Crimean prime minister's office say even his private secretary and press aide are from Russia, along with other advisers telling him what to do.

Throw in the closure of critical television channels, the beating of a few journalists, the intimidation of opposition activists, the lies about "provocations", and you get some of the backdrop to Sunday's vote. The referendum, forced through as fast as possible to confuse voters and outwit opponents, failed to offer Crimeans the status quo choice of remaining loyal to Kiev. Given such circumstances, it was little surprise it was boycotted by fearful Tartars and Ukrainians, who comprise more than one-third of the population. Indeed, not one person I spoke to over the past week who opposed the ballot intended to vote.

.......

Before anyone rushes to accept this vote, they might also like to note the most recent poll in Crimea – published last month – showed just 41% wanted unity with Russia. This was a rise of five points in a year, and was taken as the violence flared in Kiev, but it makes it impossible to assume a majority really wanted to join Russia – let alone 97% of the population. It is also worth recalling that when the Soviet Union collapsed, a majority in Crimea endorsed Ukrainian independence – although its economic performance has been disastrous and millions have moved away these past two decades.

pcardin

Karl Stein wrote: »

I think you might be mistaking me for an admirer of Putin. I think the guy is a thug. He isn't nuts though and is acting rationally in terms of Russian interests despite being portrayed as a loose-cannon by the woeful mainstream media.

And what are your thoughts for Zhirinovsky? Why is this obviously mentally ill person, shouting verbal abuse to everyone and still keeps his post in Russian Parliament? Every speech of his starts with I will wipe this country, and kill these people or bomb this or that place. Why Putin hasn't removed him from stage? I will tell you why - a huge number of Russian parliament opposition thinks this clown is there to publicly say what Putin thinks, and this somehow proves to be correct.
So, to get more people zombied with this moron shouting his threats from tribune - check, to make rest of the world to turn backs on savage Russians - check. :rolleyes:

pcardin

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Except it's irrelevant what Moscow thinks. They are independent countries, free to join whatever organisation they like. Moscow doesn't get a say.

Maybe if Moscow didn't act like it gets a say in what the Baltic countries are allowed to do and treated them as equals, they wouldn't go running to NATO as insurance against Russian troops turning up on their streets.

And to add on the top of that, the fact that these previously by soviets/russians occupied countries are ready to sign up a deal with any evil in the world except Russians speaks itself. Everyone who has experienced Russian 'culture' (genocide) in Soviet Times will do anything for not to be there again. Russia has no friends, even their closest buddies Belarus have turned their backs on them.

Irish Praetorian

Karl Stein wrote: »

Yes they're outside Russia's borders but would be considered buffer states between East and West and their joining NATO is viewed as encroachment by Moscow. Also the Russian have serious interests in Eastern Ukraine as regards its own defence. To imagine that Ukraine being incorporated into the West's sphere of influence while Russia watched would be pretty thick.

I think CMD has put this better than I can.

Concede? They weren't ours to concede in the first place. I think these states declaring themselves non-aligned and neutral while opening themselves up to development by European industry would serve them best as regards theirs and European stability. I also think Europe needs to develop military/security independence from the US so it can assert itself in its own back yard.

With the best will in the world, they disagreed and they decided to act upon it. I mean we may bemoan the EU in this country but when compared with a trade relationship with Russia that routinely ends up in 'health and safety' sanctions that curiously coincide with political developments, is it any wonder that these countries decided to seek out a trade bloc with a more equal relationship and better protection from such bullying? European independence from the US in military and security terms I agree with however.

I think you might be mistaking me for an admirer of Putin. I think the guy is a thug. He isn't nuts though and is acting rationally in terms of Russian interests despite being portrayed as a loose-cannon by the woeful mainstream media.

Oh I would readily agree he is being motivated by a set of interests and is acting more or less in line with them, but I would disagree with the claim that other people have been trying to make here, that his actions are virtuous and that us mere Europeans should recognise them as such.

Russia depends heavily on oil and gas revenues to fund itself as a state. There's an unwritten rule in Russia that if you stay out of politics you can keep your business interests but if you cross the Kremlin you're finished. See: Mikhail Khodorkovsky. The US viewed Moscow's appropriating oil and gas businesses as Russia asserting itself as a serious regional power.

Russia does indeed depend quite a bit on oil and gas sales, but I don't see how it necessairly follows that nationalising those industries makes an inherent enemy in the form of the US. Surely Russian opposition to the Iraq war, Kosovan independence and US opposition to the Georgian war are more likely reasons?

Karl Stein

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Except it's irrelevant what Moscow thinks.

It quite obviously is relevant what Moscow thinks unless you've been living under a rock for the last few years.

Maybe if Moscow didn't act like it gets a say in what the Baltic countries are allowed to do and treated them as equals, they wouldn't go running to NATO as insurance against Russian troops turning up on their streets.

The Baltic states have unfortunately become pawns on a bigger board where the US and Russia are moving the pieces. As I've I've said no about three time Russians see NATO encroachment as a threat and trying to move Ukraine into was bound to illicit a response.

B_Wayne

Deleted User wrote: »

I think in the Western media they like to create a narrative where Russia is the "bad" guy and the US is the "good" guys, and too few journalist try to challenge that world view, unless you switch the TV over to RT.

Russia Today had a reporter resign on air over MH17 because of the propaganda they were being fed from Kremlin.... It's a propaganda machine, hence the regular appearances of Alex Jones to decry a police state in US.

Icepick

Russia #1 ready to take over the world

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q18at_hhUsM

pcardin

Karl Stein wrote: »

It quite obviously is relevant what Moscow thinks unless you've been living under a rock for the last few years.



The Baltic states have unfortunately become pawns on a bigger board where the US and Russia are moving the pieces. As I've I've said no about three time Russians see NATO encroachment as a threat and trying to move Ukraine into was bound to illicit a response.

well that's a faith of small countries like Baltic States, always being taken by someone. And even if there are only two moving pieces - both epic liars but one of them is with manners and always wears suit and other one is half-human half-animal, always drunk and disorder, who do you think all these small nations will prefer better?

Korat

I was a fan of Putin during his first two stints in the job, as President of Russia.

He provided authority and stability at home and restored Russia's image abroad, to an extent.

He really should have retired in 2008 because he's been an absolute disaster since then.

Even Boris Yeltsin on his wildest of drunken benders couldn't have managed to turn Ukraine from an ally into a sworn enemy overnight and single-handedly revive NATO from it's death bed.

The truly great ones, or clever ones, get out while the going is good, like Julius Caesar, FDR, Robert Maxwell, Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern.

Karl Stein

pcardin wrote: »

both epic liars but one of them is with manners and always wears suit and other one is half-human half-animal

But Putin likes to cuddle puppies so he can't be all that bad!

Icepick

pcardin wrote: »

well that's a faith of small countries like Baltic States, always being taken by someone

small countries neighbouring Russia
But Finland begged to differ.

Wurzelbert

reckon that’s been posted around here somewhere already...

cnocbui

Karl Stein wrote: »

But Putin likes to cuddle puppies so he can't be all that bad!

Except he also appears to be molesting it - no surprise. There's always a catch with that man. He's almost historically great, but falls short through unnecessary petty vindictiveness, often involving deadly violence.

Iwasfrozen

And he's short. Pfft, manlet.

colossus-x

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

He has to be one of the greatest leaders the world has ever known, not just a stuffed suit like his wooden American counterpart. His steadfast resolve in the face of a proxy war being waged in Ukraine has to be admired, a war that would never have happened if billions weren't poured into Ukraine to kickstart a coup.

Like him or loathe him there is no doubt that Vladimir Putin is a very shrewd operator who is consistently one step ahead of the game.

Vladimir Putin is wrecking his own country and everybody knows it.

fergus1001

Wurzelbert wrote: »

reckon that’s been posted around here somewhere already...

The worst .......

blatantrereg

fergus1001 wrote: »

The worst .......

Gangsta number 1 :rolleyes:
I wasn't sure, so I looked it up: They are not taking the mickey out of him.

Is the song ironic, or a tribute to Putin?
King: It’s most definitely a tribute.

- http://www.vocativ.com/culture/music/go-hard-like-vladmir-putin/

I'm vaguely angry about this and what it represents, which is surprising to me.

Jimmy Garlic

colossus-x wrote: »

Vladimir Putin is wrecking his own country and everybody knows it.

I don't think many Russians would agree with you. All things considered the place is far better off now than it was 16 years ago. The IMF was kicked out. The oligarchs were put in their place. Energy was nationalised. The standard of living has improved for most people.

nelly17

I would tend to agree I also think the western media like to paint a picture of an egomaniac but if you look at whether or not he has been good for Russia I think he has.