The Vladimir Putin appreciation thread.

one world order

He is the only leader in the world at present that speaks sense. Since coming to power Russia has done very well and he is well liked especially among women.

ISIS will always exist as long as the US and Britain continue to support them. They will just rebrand and call themselves something else.

Irish Praetorian

Chrongen wrote: »

An adult wouldn't spit out such an epithet as "I like Russia and I don't like the West"

You had a smidgen of credibility until the childish snipes emerged.

Not technically an epithet (rather a broad caricaturization of your position) but then that's not the point; you've come onto this thread, made a rather untenable argument quite poorly and are now are presumably expecting the rest of us to be impressed with your trite observations - that's not how a forum works. If you have a particular argument you wish to make then by all means and we can deal with that, but if you have nothing more than what I characterised before, well you might be disappointed by the responses of the rest of us.

Irish Praetorian

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Isis was in trouble when they took on different factions from all sides, it was inevitable they would lose all the land they gained. Russia joined helping Assad speedied up the eventual collapse. Isis is not defeated they have just moved location and now are setting up in Afghanistan and other unstable places to continue the fight against the unbelievers. Isis can easily emerge again in Syria and Iraq their movements need to be tracked closely to stop them.

Regarding Putin. He is essentially is a dictator, but Russia is stable and better off day than the Soviet era. Removing Putin maybe not be the best thing for Russia and the World, it hard to tell.

Fair points all, although I think it's a bit of a leap to suggest that taking issue with Russian foreign policy (or rather with those obsequiously fawning over it on forums like this) is anyhow related to wanting to overthrow Mr. Putin. Whatever might be said about him and how we might approach him, he does appear to have quite a standing in Russia. That being said, I feel no need as some posters do, to worship him as some kind of second coming.

Cheerful Spring

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Fair points all, although I think it's a bit of a leap to suggest that taking issue with Russian foreign policy (or rather with those obsequiously fawning over it on forums like this) is anyhow related to wanting to overthrow Mr. Putin. Whatever might be said about him and how we might approach him, he does appear to have quite a standing in Russia. That being said, I feel no need as some posters do, to worship him as some kind of second coming.

I don't see Putin wanting to fight wars for domination. For me, US foreign policy is murky we don't often know what the agenda was they intervene militarily? The Ukrainian business was messy as a certain section of the people who wanted to change the status quo had known affiliations with fascist groups. I can understand Russia fear with this. I don't think Putin started the crisis he stepped in preventing bloodshed. We can disagree the right he had to intervene, but the fact is the majority of the population of Crimea wanted to merge with Russia. Syria, I think it better to have Assad in power and avoid giving power to people who clearly are not friendly to the west. America thinks Putin is trying to take over Europe this is a ridiculous idea they have and there is no evidence Putin has eyes on a major global war. I will agree Putin has a Russia first policy just like Trump, but I don't see him as a global threat to world peace I see him as someone who understands history. Putin invades Europe I change my opinion, but i don't see Putin sending Russian ground forces to Mexico. I understand the point you made worshipping him, but Putin to me is a good leader.

Dinarius

Raising hell in North Africa was a stroke of genius on Putin’s part.

Are those poor unfortunate people crossing the Mediterranean to be taken in by Russia?

No, they want to be taken in by us and the rest of Europe.

He is not suffering any consequences for his actions.

D.

Hande hoche!

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Isis was in trouble when they took on different factions from all sides, it was inevitable they would lose all the land they gained. Russia joined helping Assad speedied up the eventual collapse. Isis is not defeated they have just moved location and now are setting up in Afghanistan and other unstable places to continue the fight against the unbelievers. Isis can easily emerge again in Syria and Iraq their movements need to be tracked closely to stop them.

Regarding Putin. He is essentially is a dictator, but Russia is stable and better off day than the Soviet era. Removing Putin maybe not be the best thing for Russia and the World, it hard to tell.

He is better for the country than Yelstin, that's for sure. Will be interesting to see who his successor is.

Tea drinker

Dinarius wrote: »

Raising hell in North Africa was a stroke of genius on Putin’s part.

Are those poor unfortunate people crossing the Mediterranean to be taken in by Russia?

No, they want to be taken in by us and the rest of Europe.

He is not suffering any consequences for his actions.

D.

I do hope you are trolling... it was EU and NATO that destroyed Libya, and then sent ships down to take in all comers.
The Irish Navy was a taxi service for this, and the "rescue ships" would just park a few miles off the libyan coast to "rescue" the migrants who came after a few flares shot off. I'm not sure of the pick up and processing costs, but the cost of return is called out as 90k here:
https://euobserver.com/migration/137720
We in the EU have to pay for our masters in Brussels "grand" plans, nothing to do with Putin.
It is beaucoup expensive for EU.

Irish Praetorian

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't see Putin wanting to fight wars for domination. For me, US foreign policy is murky we don't often know what the agenda was they intervene militarily? The Ukrainian business was messy as a certain section of the people who wanted to change the status quo had known affiliations with fascist groups. I can understand Russia fear with this. I don't think Putin started the crisis he stepped in preventing bloodshed. We can disagree the right he had to intervene, but the fact is the majority of the population of Crimea wanted to merge with Russia. Syria, I think it better to have Assad in power and avoid giving power to people who clearly are not friendly to the west. America thinks Putin is trying to take over Europe this is a ridiculous idea they have and there is no evidence Putin has eyes on a major global war. I will agree Putin has a Russia first policy just like Trump, but I don't see him as a global threat to world peace I see him as someone who understands history. Putin invades Europe I change my opinion, but i don't see Putin sending Russian ground forces to Mexico. I understand the point you made worshipping him, but Putin to me is a good leader.

Not fighting wars for domination? With respect have you been observing the litany of Russian foreign involvements since the end of the Cold War? Places from Moldova to Georgia play host to rather unpleasant Russian presences which emerged in the rather murky waters of the post 1990 period. If we limit ourselves just to Putin's premiership one has to consider everything from the invasion of Georgia (far beyond the borders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia) to actions in Ukraine. This is before we consider the lengthy number of 'health and safety disputes' (trade wars) which Russia has been waging on and off with those neighbouring countries it believes are ranging too far from its influence. Incidentally Ukraine is yet another example of this and was in the midst of yet another trade dispute with Russian in the months ahead of the 'Maidan'.

Now part of me can see where you're coming from in regards some of the elements of Putin's foreign policy, namely it's focus on the near abroad and Russian speaking regions. Yet I cannot help but feel that in the long run simply writing off this foreign policy as simply putting Russia first and in the process consigning much of Eastern Europe to be Putin's breathing space is fundamentally an unwise policy. Now one can point quite easily to US involvements post 1990 and say that they are bad too, which many of them were, but I don't think it's asking too much for people to hold a consistent view in regards foreign policy engagements rather than simply opting to castigate one and fawn over the other.

Chrongen

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Not fighting wars for domination? With respect have you been observing the litany of Russian foreign involvements since the end of the Cold War? Places from Moldova to Georgia play host to rather unpleasant Russian presences which emerged in the rather murky waters of the post 1990 period. If we limit ourselves just to Putin's premiership one has to consider everything from the invasion of Georgia (far beyond the borders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia) to actions in Ukraine. This is before we consider the lengthy number of 'health and safety disputes' (trade wars) which Russia has been waging on and off with those neighbouring countries it believes are ranging too far from its influence. Incidentally Ukraine is yet another example of this and was in the midst of yet another trade dispute with Russian in the months ahead of the 'Maidan'.

Now part of me can see where you're coming from in regards some of the elements of Putin's foreign policy, namely it's focus on the near abroad and Russian speaking regions. Yet I cannot help but feel that in the long run simply writing off this foreign policy as simply putting Russia first and in the process consigning much of Eastern Europe to be Putin's breathing space is fundamentally an unwise policy. Now one can point quite easily to US involvements post 1990 and say that they are bad too, which many of them were, but I don't think it's asking too much for people to hold a consistent view in regards foreign policy engagements rather than simply opting to castigate one and fawn over the other.

Why do people keep repeating the lie that Russia invaded Georgia?
Georgian troops at the instruction of NATO attacked and killed Russian peacekeepers and tried to advance into South Ossetia. Russia retaliated and beat the Georgian army back to where they came from in a week.

If you attack me and I punch your lights out you can hardly accuse me of assaulting you for no reason yet that's exactly how you're trying to sell this dross.

Gatling

What was the last account

cnocbui

Chrongen wrote: »

Why do people keep repeating the lie that Russia invaded Georgia?
Georgian troops at the instruction of NATO attacked and killed Russian peacekeepers and tried to advance into South Ossetia. Russia retaliated and beat the Georgian army back to where they came from in a week.

If you attack me and I punch your lights out you can hardly accuse me of assaulting you for no reason yet that's exactly how you're trying to sell this dross.

What was the NATO inspired pretext that recently caused Russia to move the border so that a strategic oil pipeline passed in part through Russian territory so they could cut it off at will?

Oh yes, and please supply a link to western media accounts detailing how NATO gave orders to Georgia.

Irish Praetorian

Chrongen wrote: »

Why do people keep repeating the lie that Russia invaded Georgia?
Georgian troops at the instruction of NATO attacked and killed Russian peacekeepers and tried to advance into South Ossetia. Russia retaliated and beat the Georgian army back to where they came from in a week.

If you attack me and I punch your lights out you can hardly accuse me of assaulting you for no reason yet that's exactly how you're trying to sell this dross.

With respect you will see in my post I made several key points about that conflict to deal with what you are saying. Firstly, I made no reference to how or why the war started - I don't buy the Georgian 'we were fired upon' schtick but I'm certainly not buying the 'NATO told Georgia to kill' line either, which incidentally I wouldn't mind seeing a source on. Secondly, I also specifically distinguished between Russian operations in the disputed territory and those which ventured further into what we might term 'Georgia proper'. It is difficult to sustain the idea of Russia simply responding to aggression when it subsequently occupied Poti and Gori, as well as deliberately clearing out the Kodori Gorge - one of the few parts of Abkhazia not to be ethnically cleansed of Georgians in the 1990s. Thirdly, you will notice I also avoided discussion of how these statelets came to be in the early 1990s, now if I really wanted to paint a picture of aggression that would be the way to do it, but I have avoided that 'dross' as you might say.

Cheerful Spring

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Not fighting wars for domination? With respect have you been observing the litany of Russian foreign involvements since the end of the Cold War? Places from Moldova to Georgia play host to rather unpleasant Russian presences which emerged in the rather murky waters of the post 1990 period. If we limit ourselves just to Putin's premiership one has to consider everything from the invasion of Georgia (far beyond the borders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia) to actions in Ukraine. This is before we consider the lengthy number of 'health and safety disputes' (trade wars) which Russia has been waging on and off with those neighbouring countries it believes are ranging too far from its influence. Incidentally Ukraine is yet another example of this and was in the midst of yet another trade dispute with Russian in the months ahead of the 'Maidan'.

Now part of me can see where you're coming from in regards some of the elements of Putin's foreign policy, namely it's focus on the near abroad and Russian speaking regions. Yet I cannot help but feel that in the long run simply writing off this foreign policy as simply putting Russia first and in the process consigning much of Eastern Europe to be Putin's breathing space is fundamentally an unwise policy. Now one can point quite easily to US involvements post 1990 and say that they are bad too, which many of them were, but I don't think it's asking too much for people to hold a consistent view in regards foreign policy engagements rather than simply opting to castigate one and fawn over the other.

The way I look Putin did not deliberately start does wars. Syria conflict was happening long before Russia joined, the Ukrainian conflict had nothing to with Putin at the beginning. The Georgian conflict was a civil war a breakaway war with two factions opposed to each other started fighting. I can't point to anything that would show Putin had a hand in starting a conflict. With America, Iraq was stable, even if Saddam was an unstable and evil dictator, in 2003 it was a country not fighting America but still was invaded and taken over. Bin laden has no relations with Iraq at this time, so it was a war of aggression. And for 14 years the country has experienced non-stop war and destruction of cities and hundreds of thousands if not millions of people got killed, for what?

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The way I look Putin did not deliberately start does wars. Syria conflict was happening long before Russia joined, the Ukrainian conflict had nothing to with Putin at the beginning. The Georgian conflict was a civil war a breakaway war with two factions opposed to each other started fighting. I can't point to anything that would show Putin had a hand in starting a conflict

Apart from the mass passportisation of the region so he could use the excuse of protecting russian citizens as a reason to get directly involved - the UN investigation post conflict put the blame on Russia for ramping up the conditions to lead to direct conflict ,and then take into account how fast the Russians were able to get into Georgia enmass ,
Ukraine was exactly the same a failed mass passportisation of the Crimea a couple of years before he decided he was taking the land back which predated the Ukrainian protests

Irish Praetorian

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The way I look Putin did not deliberately start does wars. Syria conflict was happening long before Russia joined, the Ukrainian conflict had nothing to with Putin at the beginning. The Georgian conflict was a civil war a breakaway war with two factions opposed to each other started fighting. I can't point to anything that would show Putin had a hand in starting a conflict. With America, Iraq was stable, even if Saddam was an unstable and evil dictator, in 2003 it was a country not fighting America but still was invaded and taken over. Bin laden has no relations with Iraq at this time, so it was a war of aggression. And for 14 years the country has experienced non-stop war and destruction of cities and hundreds of thousands if not millions of people got killed, for what?

Again I think we're going down the path of attempting to normalize Russian foreign policy by viewing it in the context of outrages committed by the US rather than on its own merits. The Ukraine conflict incidentally I would put almost entirely down to Russian interference, from Russia's self confessed invasion and annexation of the Crimean Peninsula to the flagrant if denied intervention on the part of the separatist movements in the two easternmost oblasts. The shame is that if you actually look at these places there is a reasonable argument to be made that all three would want to be part of Russia (Crimea in particular) but instead of raising that diplomatically instead we have witnessed and invasion and lingering fighting in parts. I view that as both a failure of Russian foreign policy as well as a potential red flag for the future, and I continue to believe that would be true had the US invaded Iraq or not.

badabing106

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Again I think we're going down the path of attempting to normalize Russian foreign policy by viewing it in the context of outrages committed by the US rather than on its own merits. The Ukraine conflict incidentally I would put almost entirely down to Russian interference.

The reality is that, after two decades of eastward Nato expansion, this crisis was triggered by the west's attempt to pull Ukraine decisively into its orbit and defence structure, via an explicitly anti-Moscow EU association agreement. Its rejection led to the Maidan protests and the installation of an anti-Russian administration – rejected by half the country – that went on to sign the EU and International Monetary Fund agreements regardless.

No Russian government could have acquiesced in such a threat from territory that was at the heart of both Russia and the Soviet Union. Putin's absorption of Crimea and support for the rebellion in eastern Ukraine is clearly defensive, and the red line now drawn: the east of Ukraine, at least, is not going to be swallowed up by Nato or the EU.

Gatling

badabing106 wrote: »

No Russian government could have acquiesced in such a threat from territory that was at the heart of both Russia and the Soviet Union. Putin's absorption of Crimea and support for the rebellion in eastern Ukraine is clearly defensive, and the red line now drawn: the east of Ukraine, at least, is not going to be swallowed up by Nato or the EU.

The same government that signed non aggression treaty's with Ukraine ,only to attack them and carry out an illegal landgrab

Irish Praetorian

badabing106 wrote: »

The reality is that, after two decades of eastward Nato expansion, this crisis was triggered by the west's attempt to pull Ukraine decisively into its orbit and defence structure, via an explicitly anti-Moscow EU association agreement. Its rejection led to the Maidan protests and the installation of an anti-Russian administration – rejected by half the country – that went on to sign the EU and International Monetary Fund agreements regardless.

No Russian government could have acquiesced in such a threat from territory that was at the heart of both Russia and the Soviet Union. Putin's absorption of Crimea and support for the rebellion in eastern Ukraine is clearly defensive, and the red line now drawn: the east of Ukraine, at least, is not going to be swallowed up by Nato or the EU.

There is a problem with this assertion, and that is essentially it is consigning an entire swath of Eastern Europe to the status of being not quite countries, but rather protectorates or vassals of a newly assertive Putinesque Russia. It is no less insulting to propose that Ireland should, by virtue of Brexit and British wishes, be necessitated to leave the EU and reach some kind of trade-deal with Britain, simply because Britain (for whatever reason) feels 'threatened' by Ireland trading and associating with other countries. I find it an untenable idea both morally as well as practically, to say nothing of being a fairly insulting prospect for the people actually living in these places. From my experiences with Ukrainians and their opinions of Russia, it appears that there was quite an ambivalence, if not a slight irritation at their Russian neighbours (primarily arising from those aforementioned trade disputes).

However Russians actions in 2014 changed that attitude utterly, driving home the vision that Russia could not accept equal partners but only vassals and enemies and consequently making the prospect of association with the West (primarily in the form of the EU) a far more attractive and equitable looking state of affairs. Putin has essentially just pissed away the friendship of a neighbouring state and engaged in some old fashioned military annexation, it's not something we should particularly welcome let alone be impressed by.

Dinarius

Tea drinker wrote: »

I do hope you are trolling... it was EU and NATO that destroyed Libya, and then sent ships down to take in all comers.
The Irish Navy was a taxi service for this, and the "rescue ships" would just park a few miles off the libyan coast to "rescue" the migrants who came after a few flares shot off. I'm not sure of the pick up and processing costs, but the cost of return is called out as 90k here:
https://euobserver.com/migration/137720
We in the EU have to pay for our masters in Brussels "grand" plans, nothing to do with Putin.
It is beaucoup expensive for EU.

Didn’t Putin hold a “job done” Press conference with fellow mass-murderer Assad in Syria just two weeks ago?

Yes, Blair (et al) started it all and didn’t finish the job.

But, to write “nothing to do with Putin” is naive, to put it mildly.

D.

badabing106

If you have interest in understanding putins point of view. Here it is, in terms of Russian and world politics. Plain, straight talking, no room for misunderstanding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD8lIdIMRo

King of Kings

badabing106 wrote: »

If you have interest in understanding putins point of view. Here it is, in terms of Russian and world politics. Plain, straight talking, no room for misunderstanding

I find this really interesting in that Putin is very open to Q&A style press conferences and there is an annual one where ordinary folk are selected to ask him question - yet the mainstream media here and in the UK (mostly) never really report on them.

Now I know they are stage managed , nobody denies that, but they do give an insight to how Putin and russia think. Putin is usually very clear in what he is saying.

It's quite telling how he views the west it's economy, foreign policy etc...this is news and really interesting news but rarely mentioned beyond RT and some of the more independent anti establishment news.

the average joe in Ireland just reads the same bulls&it about him...which seems to be regurgitated from the london and US media which seems intent on portraying him as the latest james bond villian and nothing more.

cnocbui

Better to judge people by their actions than their words. Applied to Putin, he is one of the most unpleasant creeps Russia has had the misfortune to be lumbered with. That poor country seems ever benighted in the leaders it ends up with.

Kristopherus

cnocbui wrote: »

Better to judge people by their actions than their words. Applied to Putin, he is one of the most unpleasant creeps Russia has had the misfortune to be lumbered with. That poor country seems ever benighted in the leaders it ends up with.

Yep and the bollox has now started sabre-rattling with his so-called unbreakable nuclear warheads that could wipe us all out. Hopefully he'll be taken out sooner rather than later:mad:.

Gatling

Kristopherus wrote: »

Yep and the bollox has now started sabre-rattling with his so-called unbreakable nuclear warheads that could wipe us all out. Hopefully he'll be taken out sooner rather than later:mad:.

Been oddly quite about the 400 russians killed by US forces last week in Syria ,
Then you had the Israeli airstrikes in Syria too and yet little or nothing from the Kremlin,

He's bluffing but they are supposedly ramping up the nuclear weapons again

Vladimir Poontang

Hope he nukes the whingers first.

Chrongen

The world is moving towards a Eurasian concept. The One Belt Initiative is unstoppable. European businesses are shifting to the East.

Trump has announced that he will clamp tariffs on American metal.
This is talk from a man who is clueless about international trade. The moment he announced this, of which he doesn't understand, all foreign markets and commercial leaders announced counter-measures.

The guy is out of his depth.

Ajsoprano

Chrongen wrote: »

The world is moving towards a Eurasian concept. The One Belt Initiative is unstoppable. European businesses are shifting to the East.

Trump has announced that he will clamp tariffs on American metal.
This is talk from a man who is clueless about international trade. The moment he announced this, of which he doesn't understand, all foreign markets and commercial leaders announced counter-measures.

The guy is out of his depth.

Your problem is that you think he makes decisions himself. He’s doing what any other president would be told to do.

Chrongen

cnocbui wrote: »

Better to judge people by their actions than their words. Applied to Putin, he is one of the most unpleasant creeps Russia has had the misfortune to be lumbered with. That poor country seems ever benighted in the leaders it ends up with.

Yet the people love him.

Bizarre.

You don't live in Russia but tell us all how they feel. People who DO live in Russia speak differently to you. Quite incredible.

Chrongen

Ajsoprano wrote: »

Your problem is that you think he makes decisions himself. He’s doing what any other president would be told to do.

It's not my "problem", or anybody else's.

It is a very simple fact. America is falling to pieces and Eurasia is on the rise.

Maybe that's YOUR problem.

Dinarius

I would argue that Blair started much of the mess in North Africa by leading an invasion of Iraq which he and his allies didn’t finish. We’ve been dealing with the follow on consequences of this mess ever since.

The civil war in Syria is allowed to continue principally because of Russian support for the murderous Syrian regime.

This has resulted is a refugee migration crisis northwards to central and Northern Europe, NOT to Russia.

Putin has caused social and political mayhem in Europe (the rise of the new political right in Europe over the last five years, or so, is due in large part to this, as well as the hangover from the financial crisis of 10 years ago) at NO cost to himself - quite the opposite, in fact.

D.