Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Options
16626636656676683691

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,303 ✭✭✭liamtech


    Sic semper tyrannis - thus always to Tyrants



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,278 ✭✭✭thomil


    There are probably going to be several each in St. Petersburg and Moscow alone, which drastically reduces the number of stores in the "provinces" Also, I'd bet that some of these "stores" are just in-store shops in larger Russian department stores, similar to the way Nespresso operates here in Ireland with their in-store boutiques in Brown Thomas.

    Also, I'd just like to point out that some "provincial" cities in Russia can be pretty large. Cities like Kazan, Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk or Samara all have more than a million inhabitants in the city alone, not counting their metropolitan areas. Plenty of space for both legit and "alternative economy" rich people to both make and spend money.

    Good luck trying to figure me out. I haven't managed that myself yet!



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭Hobgoblin11


    not much Slavophilia on this thread, lots of  Slavophobia

    Dundalk, Co. Louth



  • Registered Users Posts: 110 ✭✭Botrys


    good read.



     Putin’s Strategic Mistakes In Ukraine Have Devastating Consequences For Russia – OpEd​

    March 5, 2022 Paul Goble 0 Comments

    By Paul Goble


    Vladimir Putin made five strategic mistakes that led him to his broadening of his invasion of Ukraine, mistakes that collectively will have five devastating consequences for the Russian Federation for decades to come, according to London-based Russian analyst Vladimir Pastukhov.

    The mistakes are easily listed:

    First, Putin had a mistaken notion about the military-political situation in Ukraine. He thought the Ukrainian regime would collapse like a house of cards because he failed to understand “the nature of the Ukrainian revolution, its anti-colonial and national liberation character” (echo.msk.ru/blog/pastuhov_v/2988207-echo/).

    Second, Pastukhov continues, Putin had a mistaken idea about the military potential of the Ukrainian army. Like most Western experts, he assumed it would be defeated in two to four days. But the Ukrainian army is still fighting and fighting well. Putin’s easy victory in Crimea eight years ago has played a dirty trick on him.

    Third, Putin had an unrealistic assessment of the military capabilities of the Russian army. He assumed that the cartoons he liked to show about super weapons described its reality when in fact those weapons either aren’t part of the armament of his army or don’t work as well as he thought and its officers and men are less capable than he had convinced himself.

    Fourth, Putin underrated the power and unity of the international reaction. Almost everyone turned against him and his war. “Even China has shown that its relations with the US were a priority” compared to those with Russia. Putin thus finds himself in a position like North Korea and not one like that of the former USSR.


    And fifth, the Kremlin leader overrated the effectiveness of nuclear blackmail. Putin has always assumed that because he has a nuclear shield, he can act with impunity. But what he has done is reduce the reputation of Russia today to that of Hannibal Lector in “Silence of the Lambs.” Everyone knows he is a threat but they will do what is necessary not to live under him.

    These strategic miscalculations, the London-based Russian analyst says, led Putin to invade; and that in turn has “serious and irreversible consequences for Russia in the next several decades:

    · First, from now on, Putin, the Kremlin, Russia and Russians “in the eyes of international public opinion” are equivalents. “No one is going to divide sanctions anymore between those against the Kremlin and those against Russia.”

    · Second, Putin’s actions have reduced Russia to the status of “the most tabooed regimes of the 20th century.” Reversing that will require “decades.”

    Third, the Kremlin leader is on his way to establishing “a theocratic totalitarian regime without any pretense of post-modern liberality.” He is making Russia into a place like those described in all the classical anti-utopias of the 20th century.

    Fourth, his isolation of Russia will leave it with little chance to recover to the level of the Soviet Union but rather push it down to that of North Korea, a country with nuclear weapons but without an effective economy.

    And fifth, because Putin can be counted on to try to use nuclear weapons to blackmail the West into letting Russia reenter the world, the danger of nuclear war will be “a constant nightmare for several generations” not only over the rest of the world but of Russia too.



    https://www.eurasiareview.com/05032022-putins-strategic-mistakes-in-ukraine-have-devastating-consequences-for-russia-oped/



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,573 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Yup - the US objective is not to destroy Russia as such. It is to return it to the 1990s when it's resources were open to wholesale looting. To turn it into a gas station masquerading as a country as the late John McCain said. The Russians disagree with this objective.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,570 ✭✭✭MyStubbleItches


    Shell.

    Please correct me here if I’m incorrect but did they not very recently relocate their stock listing to London ftse? The same London that thrives on Russian money?

    Again, correct me if it’s needed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Various reports that the Russians are to attempt to take Yuzhnoukrainsk NPP next, hopefully they will show a bit more restraint with their rockets.



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,907 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    It's not though. The objective is to oust putin via impacting the populace normal function.

    No one wants to punish actual Russians, in fact the EU would prefer the entire opposite. They tried trade relations for years to fix and repair any east west alliances.

    But that wouldnt really fit your narrative now would it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭Longing


    Reports that Mariupol has been captured on a few news outlets. Has I said earlier the Russians wouldn't agree to the cease fire and save passage for civilians because the new there were close to taking it and afraid of Ukrainian regrouping.

    Odessa next. When taking. Russia will look to an end to peasant conflict.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,573 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Well, the western narrative is that Russia has no legitimate national interests or concerns that should be respected by it's neighbours, or indeed by the US. Any concerns it has are groundless. Any assertive foreign policy aims it has are malicious. And as you say, the western aim is to effect regime change in Russia as if it was Nicaragua or Libya.

    We can disagree with the aims of Putin, but let us not pretend that a Western backed leader parachuted in by Washington to rule Russia in the aftermath of the assassination of Putin would be no more legitimate than a puppet Ukrainian government installed by the Kremlin. The Russians do not want to see a new Yelstin.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,516 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Yes, Crimea is an interesting one. It's very possible that the sanctions against Russia will never be lifted until they withdraw from there too - it's the same illegal invasion by the same dictator.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,804 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    I don't think anyone on here on the the west would want to see a puppet government in Russia, they just would prefer a democratically elected one.

    Puppet governments are prone to revolutions and cause a resentment to those that installed them.

    It always seems dictators cause more wars/suffering than democratically elected governments.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭StevenToast



    They aren't white enough for the likes of tubridy and his kind to make it "feel real"....

    What an absolute @%$%....

    "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining." - Fletcher



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,804 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    Very hard for the west to drop all sanctions while Crimea is still illegally in control of Russia. It would be akin to the west accepting Russia's claim to it.

    High probability the people of Donbas & Luhansk won't want to be under Russian control either after this invasion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Richard Hillman


    TBH I don't think the Crimean's would be happy if the Russians withdrew. A lot Ukrainians probably left over the last 8 years, it's a Russian stronghold.

    Ukraine will probably have to concede Crimea and Luhansk. Donetsk is a different story. It's a mix of people in those areas.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,573 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    I don't think that follows. Putin has launched two aggressive wars. Georgia in 2008. Ukraine 2014-2022. Georgia was short and sharp. We'll see how Ukraine pans out. But they both have clear cut objectives to assert easily understood hard interests. How many wars has the democratic west waged in that time? Often for vague ideology, ill-defined and sometimes conflicting or naïve aims like securing female education in Afghanistan. "Forever wars".

    I made the point earlier that democratic countries are more..."emotional" in their dealings. Concessions to avoid the 2022 Ukrainian war were impossible not because it didn't make sense but because democratic nations could not abide the idea of conceding anything to Putin or Russia. They were evil, and you never concede to evil. So instead we prefer war to concessions.

    Authoritarian regimes can afford to be more cold blooded in their dealings.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Prime-time b*llocks Sand.

    The Putinists had their crime syndicate petrostate on lock. Putin had the political system by the short and curlies and personal energy residuals and kickbacks flowing from his oligarch patrons.

    The mob bosses that hijacked Russia had it all their own way, but they f*cked it up by going full-Mussolini in Abyssinia.

    The difference being that Mussolini was prepared, and Putin is not. Then the League of Nations stood by and did nothing, but this time the West is dropping the financial equivalent of an A-bomb on Russia - and Ukrainians are armed with Javelins and Stingers to burn fascist war materiel.

    How does it feel being an online fluffer for a crime syndicate Sand? These people have been laughing at you and people like you from their yachts for years. If you were of any consequence and posed a theat to them, they'd send a hit squad your way make no mistake.

    You're spending your days trying to muster a defence for criminals conducting a criminal invasion. Have you ever considered what has become of your life?

    You don't care about the fate of Ukraine, the Russian economy or the fact that Russia is run by some of the most rapacious, ruthless and corrupt individuals on earth - you just want to see 'the West' and Western institutions get a black eye at any cost. And if that's at the expense of the Ukrainian state and Ukrainian civilians, that seems to be fine and dandy for you.

    Post edited by Yurt2 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,804 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    I don't think any of that has any relation to my reply to your OP saying if Putin was to be replaced, that the west would prefer a democratically elected government over a puppet one.


    You mention conceding anything to Putin. A sovereign state should be under no obligation to concede any of their sovereignty to any other country (democratically elected or a dictator) I don't care what Russia's or Putin's concerns are, Ukraine as a sovereign country can do what she likes.

    It's not a matter of good vs evil, a sovereign state is a sovereign state, end off.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,189 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    It's been "Russian" since the 1700's when it was taken back from the Turks. The majority of people there identify as Russian. Russian is the official language. It's far more Russian than it ever was Ukrainian.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 651 ✭✭✭Dank Janniels




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Given the state or the Russian economy on paper, average income is only about €450 a month, the fact that all these luxury goods get consumed - the volume of Louis Vuitton stores etc in a couple of glitzy cities it would seem to be living way beyond its means and that probably just indicates a massive untaxed parallel economy and widespread corruption. Although, that’s hardly surprising.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭StevenToast


    "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining." - Fletcher



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,401 ✭✭✭Homelander


    I don't see anything wrong with what he said or maybe how he said it; it effectively captures the mood.

    It is easier to overlook wars in "far flung" places, in other parts of the world, with radically different cultures, values, places that are hotbeds of uninterrupted conflict, broadly speaking.

    Regime change, civil war, conflict based on ideology, religion, whatever - we've come to accept this as a very, very unfortunate norm for certain parts of the world that are distant to us.

    Yes, ultimately we're all human, but to see a war come to continental Europe in 2022, is very disturbing because we thought we were far past that - and it is disturbing people, because contextually, there's the bigger question of how far it will spill.

    Context is important. Tubridy was only saying what a lot of people do genuinely feel and it has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with being white.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,804 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    I'm sure you can interchange "Russian" with "English" and Crimea with Northern Ireland and it would be similar. let's see:

    It's been "British" since the ~1169 when it was taken from the Irish. The majority of people there identify as British. English the official language. It's far more English than it ever was Irish.

    An yet here we are in 2022 and the north is at peace and has an option to stay as they are or join a united Ireland. Doesn't seem to be any rush and neither Ireland nor the UK are threatening war for the north. Just letting the north choose what they want, when they want.

    Ti's a little different than invading Crimea and having a sham referendum.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭briany


    I don't think anyone in the West is unaware at this point that Russia is concerned with NATO being on its borders. The problem is that we cannot really begrudge the right of a sovereign country to choose its foreign policy. Is it the first time a country has been invaded in order to keep it out of a sphere of influence? No. Does that make it OK? Not really.

    Putin has completely f*cked it, here. He's ruined any goodwill Russian had with the people of Ukraine by blasting them out of it, first of all, and he's regarded as a fully rogue leader by the west. And the big fat cherry on the cake is that he has more countries looking at joining NATO and/or the EU.

    He should have stuck to his previous strategy of diplomacy with a dash of subterfuge, and keeps the thumb on Crime and Donbass. But he overreached, and now hes looking at a massive own goal and possibly even self inflict the regime change to which you refer.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Total misread and misrepresentation of the invasion of Afghanistan.

    That country was a security black hole and a global terrorist and extremists playground. That invasion was essential for both regional and global security, and if you know anything about anything, countries like Russia and China were damn glad that the US took the lead on it. It had full UNSC backing.

    I'll double down and say that not only was that war necessary, they should still be there along with an international coalition.

    Afghanistan as a semi governed failed state will come back to haunt at some stage in the future. Mark my words.

    The US won't be going back in, but it might be the Russians get their hands burned there again. I wonder what you'd say then Sand?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,214 ✭✭✭wylo


    In fairness, if that was being actively carried out by a Western country there wouldn’t be a media blackout. Unlike Russia, we have free press, so the decisions whether to run with stories are based on public interest (for advertising reasons). Yemen has clearly failed to ignite the Wests public interest. :(

    I myself have lost count of the amount of times I scrolled passed those Facebook ads pleading for help/donations. Sad really, but if UK or America was doing it I think it would be different.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Crimea only ended up Russian majority via ethnic cleansing of Tartars, Turks, Greeks, Jews, Bulgarians Germans etc.

    The place only became Russian majority in the fairly recent past (mid 20th century), Russians were a mere plurality before that as Crimea was an extremely cosmopolitan entropot peninsula.

    Russia's history in Crimea is not a proud one. It's more colonial prize and real estate opportunity than spiritual heartland of of the Russian soul.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    If we’ve already committed an act of war we might as well send in the jets fighters and all the other stuff now since he didn’t use the nukes.

    The brutal dictator is also a hypocrite.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement