The Vladimir Putin appreciation thread.

cnocbui

Deleted User wrote: »

Speaking of Eurovision singers, any chance Ukraine will stop acting childishly and let Julia Samoilova sing in the competition in Ukraine?

About as much chance as Russia not picking her deliberately because they knew it would cause trouble, and trouble being something Russia would ever want to stir up deliberately.

So a snowballs chance in hell, I would say.

robindch

XsApollo wrote: »

I don't think Putin is stupid enough the call its bluff.

As his popularity declines owing to more and more corruption and a declining economy, he'll be forced - by his own nationalistic logic - to create more and more foreign enemies, and more and more opportunity for nationalistic glory from invasion and acquisition as in Crimea.

It's impossible to know at this point whether the balance will tip and he'll invade. It's more likely in the short term that he'll ring the EU's doorbell and run away by doing something in Transnistria, Poland, Hungary, Greece or Serbia. Or indeed the Baltics, but at a hybrid warfare level - rather than direct invasion.

XsApollo

robindch wrote: »

As his popularity declines owing to more and more corruption and a declining economy, he'll be forced - by his own nationalistic logic - to create more and more foreign enemies, and more and more opportunity for nationalistic glory from invasion and acquisition as in Crimea.

It's impossible to know at this point whether the balance will tip and he'll invade. It's more likely in the short term that he'll ring the EU's doorbell and run away by doing something in Transnistria, Poland, Hungary, Greece or Serbia. Or indeed the Baltics, but at a hybrid warfare level - rather than direct invasion.

I honestly can't see that happening.
I think it's a bit far fetched to be honest.
I think his actions in Ukraine are pushed by the US and Europe trying advance NATO forward.
He has his reasoning for doing it,
Crimea is a very strategic location for the Black Sea , if that fell into the hands of NATO what would Russia do then?
Do you think Russia would let them have that area? Well he didn't.
I think the US would react the same if Putin rocked up in mexico and started planting missiles and ****e.

He has no reason to invade Europe or the Baltics. They are already Part of NATO so he can do nothing, he has acted in Ukraine before his hands were tied.

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

About as much chance as Russia not picking her deliberately because they knew it would cause trouble, and trouble being something Russia would ever want to stir up deliberately.

So a snowballs chance in hell, I would say.

An inconsequential song contest? Ukraine should have known better.

Elmer Blooker

robindch wrote: »

As his popularity declines owing to more and more corruption and a declining economy, he'll be forced - by his own nationalistic logic - to create more and more foreign enemies, and more and more opportunity for nationalistic glory from invasion and acquisition as in Crimea.

The worst excesses of corruption were in the Yeltsin era and you know it.
(he was a great democrat and got on great with Bill apparently)
Why hasn't there been civil disobedience, rioting, strikes, violence, bloodshed, death and destruction in Crimea? You would expect Russians to rise up and take up arms against Russian occupation wouldn't you?

Jimmy Garlic

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Can you chupacabra or your Estonian friends give me a single solitary reason why Putin would want to invade the Baltic States? (an invasion has been "imminent" for three years now!)
Anyone who falls for this "Putin-wants-to-restore-the-Soviet-empire" fairytale should really try and think for themselves and not fall for this 1950s mindless propaganda.
If that's being "pro-Putin" then that's too bad!

He wants all their turf and swamps.

Elmer Blooker

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Why hasn't there been civil disobedience, rioting, strikes, violence, bloodshed, death and destruction in Crimea? You would expect Russians to rise up and take up arms against Russian occupation wouldn't you?

I'd say thats because it appears a majority remain in favour of the change of sovereignty. Polls even by western based organisations have shown the same outcome. The example of the GFK (a German organisation) poll of 2015 is particularly noteworthy. Conducted by Taras Berezovets, it didn't give the outcome he hoped for and oddly enough was taken down by GFK themselves later, but not before somebody imaged it and published it online.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-02-06/one-year-later-crimeans-prefer-russia

https://imgur.com/a/Rm5Aa

Jimmy Garlic

chupacabra wrote: »

This thread is interesting reading.

Pro-Putin guys asking for facts. You give them facts and they either ignore them or put it down to some kind of conspiracy nonsense. I have lived in Estonia for many years, i've lived and worked with Estonians, Russians and Russian-Estonians, Latvians etc. and you better believe they all live in fear of Putin and his shady warmongering ways every day of their lives. They expect the same shíte happening in eastern Ukraine to happen in Latvia and Estonia and they know that there is absolutely nothing the west will do to stop it in the end. NATO are toothless and they feel very much alone.

Putin is a monster and its disgusting to see so many people praising him here. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

They need to stop sniveling and grow a pair. The Baltic countries have been hysterical for years now..

robindch

XsApollo wrote: »

I think his actions in Ukraine are pushed by the US and Europe trying advance NATO forward.

I'm not sure you understand how NATO works. You realize it's a co-operative military alliance whose members are pledged to treat an attack on one as an attack on all? And that countries must apply for membership and be approved by all existing member countries before a new member can be admitted? And that Ukraine and Georgia are not members?

You seem to be labouring under the Russian-inspired narrative that it's a grasping, thieving military empire, run by the US, intended to "encircle" Russia, steal all its gas, oil and women-folk and force its men to wear miniskirts and fishnet tights with a hole in the back.

XsApollo

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand how NATO works. You realize it's a co-operative military alliance whose members are pledged to treat an attack on one as an attack on all? And that countries must apply for membership and be approved by all existing member countries before a new member can be admitted? And that Ukraine and Georgia are not members?

You seem to be labouring under the Russian-inspired narrative that it's a grasping, thieving military empire, run by the US, intended to "encircle" Russia, steal all its gas, oil and women-folk and force its men to wear miniskirts and fishnet tights with a hole in the back.

Where did I say any of what you said?
Get off your high horse because you were in Ukraine and your opinion is the only one that matters on here.

You seem to labouring over the US inspired Narrative that Putin is hell bent on invading and taking over the world and soon he will have crushed the Baltic nations and be steam rolling through Berlin.

Did you read what I posted?
Or trying to be smart asking do I know about NATO?
Good one.

robindch

XsApollo wrote: »

Did you read what I posted?

Yes, that's why I replied as I did

XsApollo wrote: »

You seem to labouring over the US inspired Narrative that Putin is hell bent on invading and taking over the world and soon he will have crushed the Baltic nations and be steam rolling through Berlin.

Knowing where I get my information from - first hand - I'd say I get my information less from a "US narrative" and more first hand experience of the countries involved, plus watching moderately close, what the Kremlin is up to. For the latter, I note that, under Putin, it has instructed its troops to invade Ukraine twice, Georgia twice and seized, or supported the seizure, of the territory of another sovereign nation each time. And supported what's effectively a neo-Soviet dictatorship in Transnistria. To say nothing of the widespread destruction dealt out by the Russian army to what's allegedly its own territory and its own citizens in Grozny and elsewhere in Chechnya.

But I'm curious about this "US narrative" thing you have going with me - are you saying that because I believe that Putin is doing these things, and he certainly is, that Putin is also therefore following the "US narrative"?

You should consider whether you have things entirely backwards here.

conditioned games

robindch wrote: »

Yes, that's why I replied as I did :)Knowing where I get my information from - first hand - I'd say I get my information less from a "US narrative" and more first hand experience of the countries involved, plus watching moderately close, what the Kremlin is up to. For the latter, I note that, under Putin, it has instructed its troops to invade Ukraine twice, Georgia twice and seized, or supported the seizure, of the territory of another sovereign nation each time. And supported what's effectively a neo-Soviet dictatorship in Transnistria. To say nothing of the widespread destruction dealt out by the Russian army to what's allegedly its own territory and its own citizens in Grozny and elsewhere in Chechnya.

But I'm curious about this "US narrative" thing you have going with me - are you saying that because I believe that Putin is doing these things, and he certainly is, that Putin is also therefore following the "US narrative"?

You should consider whether you have things entirely backwards here.

Robin, how can anyone take you seriously when you continue to state false facts.

B_Wayne

conditioned games wrote: »

Robin, how can anyone take you seriously when you continue to state false facts.

Pot calls kettle black scenario...

robindch

conditioned games wrote: »

Robin, how can anyone take you seriously when you continue to state false facts.

"conditioned games" - I'm not sure what exactly you mean here - are you suggesting for example, that Putin and the Kremlin's armies actually didn't invade Chechnya and maim and kill and destroy as they saw fit?

If that's the media line being played by RT/Sputnik/Kremlin these days, I must apologize for missing the briefing.

Could you provide a link from a Kremlin-controlled or Kremlin-linked site which clarifies this new understanding of history, please?

B_Wayne

robindch wrote: »

"conditioned games" - I'm not sure what exactly you mean here - are you suggesting for example, that Putin and the Kremlin's armies actually didn't invade Chechnya and maim and kill and destroy as they saw fit?

If that's the media line being played by RT/Sputnik/Kremlin these days, I must apologize for missing the briefing.

Could you provide a link from a Kremlin-controlled or Kremlin-linked site which clarifies this new understanding of history, please?

I was told a bit earlier in the thread by conditioned that Tatars aren't being persecuted In Crimea and it's been an entirely peaceful annexation...

XsApollo

robindch wrote: »

Yes, that's why I replied as I did :)Knowing where I get my information from - first hand - I'd say I get my information less from a "US narrative" and more first hand experience of the countries involved, plus watching moderately close, what the Kremlin is up to. For the latter, I note that, under Putin, it has instructed its troops to invade Ukraine twice, Georgia twice and seized, or supported the seizure, of the territory of another sovereign nation each time. And supported what's effectively a neo-Soviet dictatorship in Transnistria. To say nothing of the widespread destruction dealt out by the Russian army to what's allegedly its own territory and its own citizens in Grozny and elsewhere in Chechnya.

But I'm curious about this "US narrative" thing you have going with me - are you saying that because I believe that Putin is doing these things, and he certainly is, that Putin is also therefore following the "US narrative"?

You should consider whether you have things entirely backwards here.

I never said he didn't do any of the things you said either.
I said I can see his reasoning for doing it and he has reasons , where as you see him as a maniac and the only reason he is doing it is to fill his Ego and keep himself in power.

Elmer Blooker

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure what exactly you mean here - are you suggesting for example, that Putin and the Kremlin's armies actually didn't invade Chechnya and maim and kill and destroy as they saw fit?

Next you'll be telling us that the Chechen conflict was about freedom and democracy!
The Chechen conflict was an invasion and any country has a right to resist an invasion.
It was Yeltsin and not Putin who started the Chechen war and as far as I'm aware there was little condemnation from the west. Chechnya is a bit too close to the Azerbaijani oil and gas fields for comfort don't forget.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Mujahideen_in_Chechnya

Grayson

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Next you'll be telling us that the Chechen conflict was about freedom and democracy!
The Chechen conflict was an invasion and any country has a right to resist an invasion.
It was Yeltsin and not Putin who started the Chechen war and as far as I'm aware there was little condemnation from the west. Chechnya is a bit too close to the Azerbaijani oil and gas fields for comfort don't forget.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Mujahideen_in_Chechnya

There was peace for years between the first and second chechen war. It was Putin who started the second (and bloodier) war. And I happen to personally know a journalist who was nominated for a pulitzer for her work there on human rights abuses by the Russians. And as for governments, well a quick google shows this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_the_Second_Chechen_War

cnocbui

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

They need to stop sniveling and grow a pair. The Baltic countries have been hysterical for years now..

Maybe that is because they know their neighbour better than you do. Sweden is demonstrably one of the most level-headed countries on the planet and they too see Russia under Putin as a threat.

Russia Threatens Sweden With Military 'Consequences' If It Joins NATO Alliance

Is that an invitation to tea party or is it a threat? Where does Putin get off thinking he has the right to tell other sovereign nations what they can and can't do? How is that any different than the US doing likewise?

Both of them are reprehensible in this sort of behaviour.

Sunday 30 March 2014
Finland has increased border surveillance in recent weeks as Mr Putin moves to ‘protect what belongs to him and his predecessors’

After annexing Crimea and with troops massed on the border of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin will not stop trying to expand Russia until he has “conquered” Belarus, the Baltic states and Finland, one of his closest former advisers has said.

According to Andrej Illarionov, the President’s chief economic adviser from 2000 to 2005, Mr Putin seeks to create “historical justice” with a return to the days of the last Tsar, Nicholas II, and the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Speaking to the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, Mr Illarionov warned that Russia will argue that the granting of independence to Finland in 1917 was an act of “treason against national interests”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-wants-to-regain-finland-for-russia-adviser-says-9224273.html

Your stance that Putin is not a threat to the Baltic states is laughable in the face of Putin's real-world actions, threats and statements by people who have known and worked for Putin directly.

Yourself isit

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand how NATO works. You realize it's a co-operative military alliance whose members are pledged to treat an attack on one as an attack on all? And that countries must apply for membership and be approved by all existing member countries before a new member can be admitted? And that Ukraine and Georgia are not members?

You seem to be labouring under the Russian-inspired narrative that it's a grasping, thieving military empire, run by the US, intended to "encircle" Russia, steal all its gas, oil and women-folk and force its men to wear miniskirts and fishnet tights with a hole in the back.

Nato is most definitely a neo-colonial force. Although it's historically analogous to vassal states in the holy roman empire - the weak ones paying service to the top dogs for security. In this case to one top dog.

The US is a modern empire. Or world hegmon if you prefer. I doubt if future historians will concentrate too much on Russia's interventions in its own territory or near abroad when discussing early 21st C imperialism.

conditioned games

Grayson wrote: »

There was peace for years between the first and second chechen war. It was Putin who started the second (and bloodier) war. And I happen to personally know a journalist who was nominated for a pulitzer for her work there on human rights abuses by the Russians. And as for governments, well a quick google shows this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_the_Second_Chechen_War

The second Chechnya war was caused by Islamist mujahideen, who were based in Chechnya, invading the Russian republic of Dagestan on 7 August 1999.

Their aim was to create an Islamic union of Chechnya and Dagestan, while eliminating Russians from the entire Caucasian region.

Locals resisted the religious fanatics but were overrun. Along with a wave of apartment bombings in Russia by Chechen rebels, this brought Russia into the conflict. Russia fought the Chechens back into Chechnya and followed them home resulting in the Chechen war.

cnocbui

Yourself isit wrote: »

Nato is most definitely a neo-colonial force. Although it's historically analogous to vassal states in the holy roman empire - the weak ones paying service to the top dogs for security. In this case to one top dog.

The US is a modern empire. Or world hegmon if you prefer. I doubt if future historians will concentrate too much on Russia's interventions in its own territory or near abroad when discussing early 21st C imperialism.

Not too hard to figure who you work for.

Yourself isit

cnocbui wrote: »

Not too hard to figure who you work for.

That's right cnocbui. I'm sitting in Moscow right now with Putin looking over my shoulder.

How did you find me out? I thought that I covered my tracks. I post on Irish related stuff aa if I were a 38 year old Irish living in Ireland. Discussions about NAMA and bus eireann, Irish stags just today. And all this research just for nothing because i can be found out by just not being as critical of Russia as some. We will have to review our programming.

cnocbui

Yourself isit wrote: »

That's right cnocbui. I'm sitting in Moscow right now with Putin looking over my shoulder.

How did you find me out? I thought that I covered my tracks. I post on Irish related stuff aa if I were a 38 year old Irish living in Ireland. Discussions about NAMA and bus eireann, Irish stags just today. And all this research just for nothing because i can be found out by just not being as critical of Russia as some. We will have to review our programming.

My bad. So you are a self-basting turkey voting for Christmas then.

Yourself isit

cnocbui wrote: »

My bad. So you are a self-basting turkey voting for Christmas then.

Yes because the Russians are under the beds.

Under all of the beds. Invading all of the yurups.

What was it that Marx said about history repeating, first as tragedy then as farce? The modern mcarthyism is farce. At least the USSR was a threat.

The biggest threat to stability in Europe comes from the American(/NATO) invasions of the middle east and North Africa, and the wave of refugees, often understandably hostile, that these actions generate. As well as the radicalisation of Islamic locals and converts.

And NATO ally erdogan is stirring the pot of local Islamic resentment as well.

Syria. Afghanistan. Libya. Syria. Yemen. Millions dead.

Putin invaded crimea. Abd he's the bad guy.

imme

He's a miniature Gangster, simple as that

humanji

Yourself isit wrote: »

Yes because the Russians are under the beds.

Under all of the beds. Invading all of the yurups.

What was it that Marx said about history repeating, first as tragedy then as farce? The modern mcarthyism is farce. At least the USSR was a threat.

The biggest threat to stability in Europe comes from the American(/NATO) invasions of the middle east and North Africa, and the wave of refugees, often understandably hostile, that these actions generate. As well as the radicalisation of Islamic locals and converts.

And NATO ally erdogan is stirring the pot of local Islamic resentment as well.

Syria. Afghanistan. Libya. Syria. Yemen. Millions dead.

Putin invaded crimea. Abd he's the bad guy.

The sarcasm would probably be more biting if Putin hadn't arrested the opposition leader today.

Amalgam

imme wrote: »

He's a miniature Gangster, simple as that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O_FClwUpQo

Glenster

Less politics, more discussion about his lovely little head.

Please.

prinzeugen

Yourself isit wrote: »

Nato is most definitely a neo-colonial force.

Right.. OK.. :rolleyes:

You might want to go and read about NATO. Its a military alliance of free democracies (Turkey no longer included in "free").

There is an application process for NATO.

The only process for Putin is to start a civil war and invade.

Hitler Mk2.