• 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

Rorschach said:
You may get someone worse than Putin. That may happen. But in the patheon of clams Putin is easily in the top 10. He is directly responsible for tens of thousands of deaths and countless brutal war crimes. He blew up his own people to bolster his reputation when his poll numbers were in the single digits.
He is viewed as some kind of horrible but stable despot. You only think that because of the bizzare reputation washing that was still pervasive in western media until very recently. Sure Prigozhin is a heinous monster but is still a choir boy compared to Putin.
Click to expand...
He is, without doubt, a total clam, Russian leaders tend to be, it's the only way to get to power there. I wouldn't say he's stable, if he was then he wouldn't have attacked Ukraine. But according to experts on Russia, there's even worse and more warlike in the background. He doesn't have long left in power anyway so it's going to play out within the next few years anyway.
And thanks for telling me what I think and why I think it.
 
scaramanga said:
Where's his replacement going to attack?

It won't be Ukraine - if anyone in NATO has any sense, they'll be fast tracked as members as soon as the conflict is over. It won't be Finland, Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania - Russia wouldn't last 5 minutes. They keep giving Belarus reacharounds so it won't be them.

China? North Korea? Get me the popcorn....
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, there are more countries than China and North Korea close to Russia. The countries they would go after would be ex-Soviet Union countries to try and rebuild that.
And I don't believe they would get the same support from US and Europe as they are outside Europe.
 
Rorschach said:
You may get someone worse than Putin. That may happen. But in the patheon of clams Putin is easily in the top 10. He is directly responsible for tens of thousands of deaths and countless brutal war crimes. He blew up his own people to bolster his reputation when his poll numbers were in the single digits.
He is viewed as some kind of horrible but stable despot. You only think that because of the bizzare reputation washing that was still pervasive in western media until very recently. Sure Prigozhin is a heinous monster but he is still a choir boy compared to Putin.
Click to expand...

How do you feel about the South African PMs point, that no one arrested Tony Blair for invading Iraq and the million or more people who died as a consequence of the war and destabilization of the region? WMD was nonsense. Do Bush and Blair make your top 10? They have caused more deaths via that 10-year conflict and its ongoing aftermath, do you rank them higher or lower than Putin?

Is the West fueling of war and deaths a consideration at all? Or we only critique when its other despots?
 
Last edited:
DubSpur said:
Believe it or not, there are more countries than China and North Korea close to Russia. The countries they would go after would be ex-Soviet Union countries to try and rebuild that.
And I don't believe they would get the same support from US and Europe as they are outside Europe.
Click to expand...
How many border them? One, I think.
 
SpurMeUp said:
How do you feel about the South African PMs point, that no one arrested Tony Blair for invading Iraqu and the million or more people who died as a consequence of the destabilisation of the region. WMD was nonsense. Do Bush and Blair make your top 10? They've probably caused more deaths via that conflict, so do you rank them higher or lower than Putin? :)
Click to expand...
As much as I'm sure your narrow view would like to see that as the same, Iraq was continually failing to meet the terms of its ceasefire and hampering weapons inspections.

The WMD brick was obviously just to sell to the public, as I'm sure you know. They needed something to keep the "Peace, no matter how much it costs us" types quiet.
 
DubSpur said:
Think it's two that are not in Nato with others across the Caspian sea. But if they did attack Kazakhstan then it opens the way to several more.
Click to expand...
I just looked it up. Kazakhstan is ranked 63rd in military might - they'd destroy the Russians.
 
DubSpur said:
He is, without doubt, a total clam, Russian leaders tend to be, it's the only way to get to power there. I wouldn't say he's stable, if he was then he wouldn't have attacked Ukraine. But according to experts on Russia, there's even worse and more warlike in the background. He doesn't have long left in power anyway so it's going to play out within the next few years anyway.
And thanks for telling me what I think and why I think it.
Click to expand...
Apologies I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I should have said 'we', not 'you'. It was more a general comment on how he was portrayed to all of us, or has been up to this war. He is certainly not in a stable position now, but this is not his first rodeo. His previous attacks went unchallenged by the west and the pathetic responses then have directly led to this war. My point though is the perception of Putin being viewed through the lens of 'better the devil you know' is a mistake, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Noone have any concerns that Russia have/are/will send nuclear weapons to Belarus and now sending Wagner there as well?

I haven't stayed up to date on the news the last week or so
 
scaramanga said:
As much as I'm sure your narrow view would like to see that as the same, Iraq was continually failing to meet the terms of its ceasefire and hampering weapons inspections.

The WMD brick was obviously just to sell to the public, as I'm sure you know. They needed something to keep the "Peace, no matter how much it costs us" types quiet.
Click to expand...

It wasn't my point but the South African PMs one. But by considering alternative viewpoints you can hardly say my outlook is "narrow". No doubt Sadam Hussien was a despot, he gassed the Kurds and was bad guy (don't know where he ranks on Rorschach's top 10?). But you could also make similar mitigating arguments now. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire 40 years ago. The US, (EU) and Russia have been working behind the scenes for the past 20 years trying to pull Ukraine into their respective spheres of influence. There has been an ongoing covert war in a sense. Russia was winning that previously with a series of pro-Russian Ukrainian governments. The West also promised Russia when Germany was unified, that NATO wouldn't push further east. It did. The West effectively broke an informal agreement. Ectera ectera.

None of this justifies invading Ukraine. Just as Sadam being a pain in the arse despot didn't justify invading Iraq. Imagine if Russia had reacted to that invasion, decided it was unjust and all about grabbing oil, and sent arms and intelligence to prop up Sadam so he could fight back.
 
SpurMeUp said:
How do you feel about the South African PMs point, that no one arrested Tony Blair for invading Iraq and the million or more people who died as a consequence of the war and destabilization of the region? WMD was nonsense. Do Bush and Blair make your top 10? They have caused more deaths via that 10-year conflict and its ongoing aftermath, do you rank them higher or lower than Putin?

Is the West fueling of war and deaths a consideration at all? Or we only critique when its other despots?
Click to expand...
Yep they are on my brick list too.
 
SpurMeUp said:
It wasn't my point but the South African PMs one. But by considering alternative viewpoints you can hardly say my outlook is "narrow". No doubt Sadam Hussien was a despot, he gassed the Kurds and was bad guy (don't know where he ranks on Rorschach's top 10?). But you could also make similar mitigating arguments now. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire 40 years ago. The US, (EU) and Russia have been working behind the scenes for the past 20 years trying to pull Ukraine into their respective spheres of influence. There has been an ongoing covert war in a sense. Russia was winning that previously with a series of pro-Russian Ukrainian governments. The West also promised Russia when Germany was unified, that NATO wouldn't push further east. It did. The West effectively broke an informal agreement. Ectera ectera.

None of this justifies invading Ukraine. Just as Sadam being a pain in the arse despot didn't justify invading Iraq. Imagine if Russia had reacted to that invasion, decided it was unjust and all about grabbing oil, and sent arms and intelligence to prop up Sadam so he could fight back.
Click to expand...
They'd have sent in under-equipped drunks and lost that one too.

Iraq wasn't invaded because Saddam was a despot, weapons inspections were part of the ceasefire agreement. He didn't keep up his end of that.
 
scaramanga said:
They'd have sent in under-equipped drunks and lost that one too.

Iraq wasn't invaded because Saddam was a despot, weapons inspections were part of the ceasefire agreement. He didn't keep up his end of that.
Click to expand...

Iraq was invaded because a son wanted to finish something his Dad started, ultimately. The irony was he dad knew a lot more than he did about the complexity and how messy it could become. That is why Bush senior walked away and left the job unfinished - a wise move as proven by the horrid mess his son created. A least a million dead. The creation of ISIS, and the subsequent related conflicts in region. Bush senior was right to walk away.

Did the West or the drunks ‘win’ in Syria? Such a simplification is stupid but it works as a retort!
 
DubSpur said:
Believe it or not, there are more countries than China and North Korea close to Russia. The countries they would go after would be ex-Soviet Union countries to try and rebuild that.
And I don't believe they would get the same support from US and Europe as they are outside Europe.
Click to expand...

They already de-facto run Belarus, Armenia and the Stans. There's none else of the ex-Soviet left that isn't now European sphere (Baltic) or Turkish (Azerbaijan). Ukraine, Georgian and Moldovia are the 3 in the balance of tipping towards Europe, which is why they are the 3 Russia has invaded/has troops in. Serbia maybe in that realm too.
 
Can’t say I have followed this closely at all but the consensus from political commentators seems to be that Progozhin v Putin is far from over.
I’m really not sure whether to be interested from afar or slightly (or more?) scared of how it might unravel.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Iraq was invaded because a son wanted to finish something his Dad started, ultimately. The irony was he dad knew a lot more than he did about the complexity and how messy it could become. That is why Bush senior walked away and left the job unfinished - a wise move as proven by the horrid mess his son created. A least a million dead. The creation of ISIS, and the subsequent related conflicts in region. Bush senior was right to walk away.

Did the West or the drunks ‘win’ in Syria? Such a simplification is stupid but it works as a retort!
Click to expand...

Iraq was a lord mayors show for the benefit for the American public, hopped up on Hollywood and Tom Cruise films and the idea that they should not be compromised and to feed their hunger for some kind of 9/11 revenge. You could have told them that Hogwarts was the issue and they would believe it because they wanted to. I agree with your view BTW, decisions like Putin hide here and in the US, he just has the arrogance to admit his intentions up front. Both set of action are playing up to your public, just the PR is different
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back