• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Putin & Russia

Definitely worth echoing what Danish said that much of our fight in the free world will be waged economically and culturally.

Meanwhile we bolster the defensive forces in the east and ensure that the Russian sewer doesn’t overflow further West than it has.

Kettle the clams and let them turn on themselves sooner or later.
 
It is ridiculous that we stop relatively poor Russians from earning money, getting medicine, buying materials, or importing any goods they need - hitting the average Ivan - while we give Putin millions a day. That is fundamentally wrong. Punishing the Russian people while we fuel the problem.
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
It is ridiculous that we stop relatively poor Russians from earning money, getting medicine, buying materials, or important any goods they need - hitting the average Ivan - while we give Putin millions a day. That is fundamentally wrong. Punishing the Russian people while we fuel the problem.
Click to expand...

I think there's a big divide between the European population and the corporations. I think an overwhelming majority of people would willing forsake/ration gas for a year, while the renewable roll-out is supercharged, for the sake of bringing Putin down. But neo-liberalism just doesn't pander to morality, and anything harming profits or viewed as interventions just can't be entertained. Governments seem a bit caught between those positions.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
One of the oddities of living in the UK is the constant even today reference's to the second world war. I always defended its relevance in our culture saying that is was not because we want to be seen as heroes or go on about our finest hour.

But because it is important to learn from history so it is not to be repeated. This is not a "little englander" or someone who thinks that Britain should rule the waves. But it was meant to be that we remembered it so it was never repeated.

I don't know how Europeans and include us in that can live with themselves. I will be interested what the poppy people try and say in November. The point of wearing a poppy was to never forget. I think our elected leaders have.
Click to expand...

So on-point. Agree completely.
 
SpurMeUp said:
It is ridiculous that we stop relatively poor Russians from earning money, getting medicine, buying materials, or importing any goods they need - hitting the average Ivan - while we give Putin millions a day. That is fundamentally wrong. Punishing the Russian people while we fuel the problem.
Click to expand...

It would work against leaders that gave a damn about their citizens. Even Hitler knew the importance of having a set of physically strong and mentally aligned supporters - I don't think Putin cares, he just wants "Ukraine liberator" in a state written Russian history book.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
One of the oddities of living in the UK is the constant even today reference's to the second world war. I always defended its relevance in our culture saying that is was not because we want to be seen as heroes or go on about our finest hour.

But because it is important to learn from history so it is not to be repeated. This is not a "little englander" or someone who thinks that Britain should rule the waves. But it was meant to be that we remembered it so it was never repeated.

I don't know how Europeans and include us in that can live with themselves. I will be interested what the poppy people try and say in November. The point of wearing a poppy was to never forget. I think our elected leaders have.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The problem with always using just WWII is it so easily gets linked with triumphalism like "we won the war", which isn't true.
The sentiment is right, but it often gets lost in sensationalism and the inevitable Godwin law (the irony that I did that in the post above is not lost on me!!).
I find it useful to use WWII as part of an example, then also the wars the UK has been in since the 90s, recognising what went right and wrong from all sides.
The reasons that contributed to Hitler developing his narrative and getting control are very different for example to how Hussain got there or Gaddafi or Putin.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
One of the oddities of living in the UK is the constant even today reference's to the second world war. I always defended its relevance in our culture saying that is was not because we want to be seen as heroes or go on about our finest hour.

But because it is important to learn from history so it is not to be repeated. This is not a "little englander" or someone who thinks that Britain should rule the waves. But it was meant to be that we remembered it so it was never repeated.

I don't know how Europeans and include us in that can live with themselves. I will be interested what the poppy people try and say in November. The point of wearing a poppy was to never forget. I think our elected leaders have.
Click to expand...

Absolutely spot on.

I'm an avid history reader myself, and although I do understand that not everyone have the passion for history as I have, I simply cannot fathom the lack of understanding for the importance of history some people have. Even bright people, with excellent minds and whose opinions on other matters I highly respect, can in certain settings say things as "less important subjects, such as history and social sciences" when debating what should be in the school syllabus, etc.
"less important" my ass.. As if not knowing where you've been in order to know where you should go was important..

And as far as history goes, one of the most fundamental lessons you can learn is this: Nature hates a void! If there is a void somewhere, it wants to be filled. Forcefully if neccessary.
To _create_ such a void, by downscaling fundings for defence just because there were no visible dark clouds just at that time, has been bordering to criminal neglect.
But that is what happens when you allow the blue collar rule over those with the professional knowledge...
 
monkeybarry said:
It would work against leaders that gave a damn about their citizens. Even Hitler knew the importance of having a set of physically strong and mentally aligned supporters - I don't think Putin cares, he just wants "Ukraine liberator" in a state written Russian history book.
Click to expand...

Russia has its unique history and culture. Like the UK many pine for the old days. Even though Communism was largely a failure. Its failure was mainly economic however, many of the social aspects of the communist society were pretty strong - education, health, collective ethics, and national pride etc. When the West imposed sanctions that hit the people on the ground you can see why they actually coalesce around the old-style centralised regiem.

I wonder when these kinds of situations unfold how much is a product of individual agency (Putin) and how much is railroaded by historical and societal structures (Russia's empire and its relationship to the west and NATO) that seem to perpetuate whoever's in charge. Of course both are important.
 
Last edited:
monkeybarry said:
Agreed. The problem with always using just WWII is it so easily gets linked with triumphalism like "we won the war", which isn't true.
The sentiment is right, but it often gets lost in sensationalism and the inevitable Godwin law (the irony that I did that in the post above is not lost on me!!).
I find it useful to use WWII as part of an example, then also the wars the UK has been in since the 90s, recognising what went right and wrong from all sides.
The reasons that contributed to Hitler developing his narrative and getting control are very different for example to how Hussain got there or Gaddafi or Putin.
Click to expand...

All for looking at different histories. Find it slightly odd that people look at WWII over and above Russian and Ukrainian history, however.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
I find your defence of Russia baffling to be honest.
Click to expand...

You’re not alone. But then I spent far too long listening to IRA apologists during The Troubles.

I wonder what the justification is for bombing a train station being used by civilians trying to escape conflict. No doubt it’s just another interesting footnote in Russian/Ukrainian history for some.
 
Mikey10 said:
You’re not alone. But then I spent far too long listening to IRA apologists during The Troubles.

I wonder what the justification is for bombing a train station being used by civilians trying to escape conflict. No doubt it’s just another interesting footnote in Russian/Ukrainian history for some.
Click to expand...

Has anyone in this thread defended Russia carrying out atrocities? If you look at the anti-Russian academic viewpoints referenced by Rorschach for example, they more or less mirror my views. There are going to be different perspectives in war and the histories that pre-date the conflict. These are more interesting to consider giving a fuller picture which can help resolution; rather than just stating the obvious condemnation of Russian action which is indefensible. The question is, are you open to different perspectives and nuances and complexities - or it is wrong to look at them given the carnage and suffering?
 
Mikey10 said:
I wonder what the justification is for bombing a train station being used by civilians trying to escape conflict.
Click to expand...

None.
But did you ever contemplate that it may never have been the target and it was the result of brick weaponry?

It's war, mistakes can and do happen all the time.
  • How many blue-on-blue in Gulf i & ii?
    (I lost a friend of a friend cos some taco of a Yank pilot couldn't recognise a bloody Union Jack)
  • What about the Brits who went up on charges for killing Iraqi soldiers rather than medic them?
  • How many blue-on-blue in Vietnam?
  • How much *struggle cuddle* and killing of innocent civilians happened in Vietnam?
  • How many blue-on-blue in WWI & WWII?
  • etc. etc. etc.

  • Sheesh, as it is the favourite narrative atm, Germany bombed London by accident in WWII thus starting the whole blitz atrocities.
    (And don't believe the UK was innocent in that period, Dresden says hello.)
 
Last edited:
Mikey10 said:
You’re not alone. But then I spent far too long listening to IRA apologists during The Troubles.

I wonder what the justification is for bombing a train station being used by civilians trying to escape conflict. No doubt it’s just another interesting footnote in Russian/Ukrainian history for some.
Click to expand...
The justification given, and for all their acts of genocide, is that Ukrainian lives are less than worthless. Ukrainians have been dehumanised through years of propaganda. The labelling of Ukrainians as nazis and this push to denazify Ukraine sounds preposterous but the meaning of Nazi to Russian ears is not the same meaning for western ones. Nazi has been redefined to mean against imperial Russia, and it gives them 'permission' to commit the henious acts we are seeing.

Timothy Snyder explains it well.

https://snyder.substack.com/p/russias-genocide-handbook?s=r
 
Last edited:
Trixster said:
None.
But did you ever contemplate that it may never have been the target and it was the result of brick weaponry?

It's war, mistakes can and do happen all the time.
  • How many blue-on-blue in Gulf i & ii?
    (I lost a friend of a friend cos some taco of a Yank pilot couldn't recognise a bloody Union Jack)
  • What about the Brits who went up on charges for killing Iraqi soldiers rather than medic them?
  • How many blue-on-blue in Vietnam?
  • How much *struggle cuddle* and killing of innocent civilians happened in Vietnam?
  • How many blue-on-blue in WWI & WWII?
  • etc. etc. etc.

  • Sheesh, as it is the favourite narrative atm, Germany bombed London by accident in WWII thus starting the whole blitz atrocities.
    (And don't believe the UK wasn't innocent in that period, Dresden says hello.)
Click to expand...

I believe everyone thinks that Russia invading Ukraine is unjust and any war crimes are wrong. War itself is in my book. But if you are Russian, these are the kinds of things that are being said. There is a different perspective to ours.

One interesting question is what would have happened if Russia - or anyone - had funded Sadam Hussien and given him sophisticated arms when we and the US invaded Iraq? Before anyone complains - I backed NATO providing some weapons to Ukraine to fight back the Russian invasion multiple times in this thread. There is no doubt arming Ukraine has resulted in increased losses of lives. But it has also stopped Russia in its tracks. Would Russia be using more desperate measures and tactics now if Ukraine didn't have all the NATO aid, weaponry and intelligence? Almost certainly not. It is impossible to try to put a number on how many lives make it all worthwhile. Is 100 deaths okay to defend sovrignity? Or 500? War is always messy, destructive, and abhorrent as far I am concerned. This is why I would never wish to see my nation fuel war if it can be avoided. You never know where conflicts will go, and how they will turn out (e.g. the rise of ISIS in the middle east as a direct result of our military interventions). That is the key takeaway from modern history imo. The more weapons you add to a conflict, the more people die. In all of the wars we've seen over the past decades, the vast majority of arms used are NATO manufactured. Yet it seems that we must first blame others. Rarely ever looking at ourselves and our role in conflicts (such as Yemen where we are directly involved in sustaining a devastating war).

None of this absolves Putin of his actions. Before anyone accuses me of defending Russia.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back