• 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

Mr Gogolak said:
I'm not sure I understand the reasoning. If Russia is massively weakened, then how is a threat to all of Europe?

There's a lot of propaganda on both sides of this war, but Russia is definitely winning a war of attrition here. What makes you think they are on the brink of collapse? If anything, the more neutral observers I've read suggest it's Ukraine who are hanging by a thread. Then again, the number of casualties alone is the subject of an intense information war, ranging from 200,000 to 1,000,000+ depending on who you're listening to.

As for Putin's intentions... who knows? My guess is that it's a mix of political and strategical agendas. Judging by past aggressions, he seems to focus his attention on territories with a lot/majority of Russian-speaking people. So, yes, the Baltic States are understandably worried. Then again, some of their legislations on citizenship make them obvious targets.

My take on it is that over the past 50 years or so, no country in the world managed to occupy a foreign territory for very long. It took Russia three years to push the border 300km to the West. I really can't see them occupying the whole of Ukraine, let alone Eastern Europe.

I respect your idealism but I believe it needs to be tempered by two considerations. Firstly, Ukraine isn't the only country in the world who's suffering from a neighboring aggression. The DRC is in a terrible state, for instance, but very few people seem to care about it. Secondly - and perhaps more importantly -, even if you were correct on everything, Russia is a nuclear power. You can't make it 'collapse' and even if you could, it would be an incredibly dangerous and irresponsible move.

You only have to look as far as what Hitler did with the Berlin underground to realise that, when their backs are against the wall, people sometimes take drastic decisions. Yes, it sucks to be Ukrainian in 2025 but it sucked to be Vietnamese in the 70s too. Again, sorry if that sounds cold but a) I didn't mean to get involved in the conversation and b) I'm not saying I'm right and everybody's wrong but I do believe we all live in different 'cultural baths' and I just meant to say that what you Anglo-Saxons consider as evidence is not necessarily seen as a such in Southern Europe, for instance.
Click to expand...

Russia has collapsed before and it was not even that long ago.
 
Mr Gogolak said:
I'm not sure I understand the reasoning. If Russia is massively weakened, then how is a threat to all of Europe?
Click to expand...
While a bully is weak and on the floor, you need to stamp on them and kill them off.
You don't let them stand up, dust themselves off and get their breath to attack again.
Putin stated he wants to [[ethnically wipe out Ukrainians and]] rebuild the USSR and become a superpower once more.
Their GDP is a tenth of the EU but their main focus is war, whereas ours isn't.

Mr Gogolak said:
There's a lot of propaganda on both sides of this war, but Russia is definitely winning a war of attrition here. What makes you think they are on the brink of collapse?
Click to expand...
I keep reading that their economy is about to tank, the rouble is tanking, they are about to implode... but then it keeps not happening "yet".
I can't remember all the sources and rabbit holes I've been down, but most stem from these guys, who really know their stuff and repost hundreds of threads

Mr Gogolak said:
My take on it is that over the past 50 years or so, no country in the world managed to occupy a foreign territory for very long. It took Russia three years to push the border 300km to the West. I really can't see them occupying the whole of Ukraine, let alone Eastern Europe.
Click to expand...
A collapse can be very slow and then happen very quickly if dominos fall. Kiev seems far from the frontline but there are only so many Ukrainian humans available in the armed forces vs the endless meat waves.

Mr Gogolak said:
I respect your idealism but I believe it needs to be tempered by two considerations. Firstly, Ukraine isn't the only country in the world who's suffering from a neighboring aggression. The DRC is in a terrible state, for instance, but very few people seem to care about it.
Click to expand...
I had no clue about DRC at all, I wouldn't be able to point to it reliably on a map, so it is not at all in my view. It probably should be, but... it isn't.

Mr Gogolak said:
Secondly - and perhaps more importantly -, even if you were correct on everything, Russia is a nuclear power. You can't make it 'collapse' and even if you could, it would be an incredibly dangerous and irresponsible move.
Click to expand...
By collapse I just mean 'fudge off home and fudge yourselves, don't threaten Georgia/Ukraine/Belarus/Hungary/etc'.
I wonder if China is enjoying the weakening of Russia, and waiting to pounce on their Eastern flank.

Mr Gogolak said:
I'm not saying I'm right and everybody's wrong but I do believe we all live in different 'cultural baths' and I just meant to say that what you Anglo-Saxons consider as evidence is not necessarily seen as a such in Southern Europe, for instance.
Click to expand...
True, your viewpoint is very valid and much appreciated. I'm not saying I'm right either.
 
Bullet said:
Can @SpurMeUp and @Mr Gogolak agree or disagree with the Polish gentleman's speech above?
Click to expand...

As though everything is so simple and black and white? As though a Pole doesn’t have their own tacit bias and position. History is never one perspective or one account. His rendition of history can be completely truthful but still only be one narrative. For example, it negates the history where US and European interests funded and undermined a democratically elected Ukrainian President. The elections weren’t rigged. Neutral observers were happy with them being free and fair. But Yanocovick (who wasn’t just working with Russia he was far more nuanced trying to bargain the best he could for his country but eventually took up a stronger deal from Russian over the debt and stringent conditions from the west) was deposed and replaced by an unelected pro-western president. Maybe you can read some of this article for a slightly different history and “agree or disagree” with it: https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea

I completely agree with the Pole. I am not pro-Russian. I simply present a different view point to the dominant narrative and give an idea of the other sides perspective.

And for all the sanctimony, who is going to take the bullets? The Polish politician, or his kids? You? Or we should commit other peoples sons to help our moral crusade, rather than pursue peace? I don’t buy that we are stopping the next hitler who’ll maraud into Europe. Even if it were so, you’re using Ukraine as a buffer and sponge to protect Europe. Using their lives and destroying their country.
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
As though everything is so simple and black and white? As though a Pole doesn’t have their own tacit bias and position. History is never one perspective or one account. His rendition of history can be completely truthful but still only be one narrative. For example, it negates the history where US and European interests funded and undermined a democratically elected Ukrainian President. The elections weren’t rigged. Neutral observers were happy with them being free and fair. But Yanocovick (who wasn’t just working with Russia he was far more nuanced trying to bargain the best he could for his country but eventually took up a stronger deal from Russian over the debt and stringent conditions from the west). Maybe you can read some of this article for a slightly different history and “agree or disagree” with it: https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea

I completely agree with the Pole. I am not pro-Russian. I simply present a different view point to the dominant narrative and give an idea of the other sides perspective.

And for all the sanctimony, who is going to take the bullets? The politician, or his kids? You? Or we should commit other peoples sons to help our moral crusade rather than pursue peace? I don’t buy that we are stopping the next hitler who’ll marauder into Europe. Even if it were so, you’re using Ukraine as a buffer and sponge to protect Europe. Using their lives and destroying their country.
Click to expand...

Sorry to break this to you. War really is imminent. We are re-arming.

There is no point being contrarian about it all now.
 
johnola said:
Sorry to break this to you. War really is imminent. We are re-arming.

There is no point being contrarian about it all now.
Click to expand...

“The prevailing media narrative might be that Russia was wrong to invade London. See it from their point of view, though. They have viewed it for over a hundred years as the centre of a fundamental opposition to Russian life.

And Putin loves Harrods. And English breakfast tea.”
 
johnola said:
Sorry to break this to you. War really is imminent. We are re-arming.
Click to expand...
There has been war for 3 years, I don’t understand your point. Are your making a prediction that Russia will invade the EU and this is imminent?
johnola said:
There is no point being contrarian about it all now.
Click to expand...
Let’s rewind. Bullet asked if I agreed or disagreed with a Polish politicians historical account. Most of my post you quoted is reviewing what has occurred. Personally I think it is interesting that how your frame your historical account, presents a different narrative. If you look at what occurred in the naughties and 2010s you can start to understand how we got here. If you think the historic points are controversial or contrarian, flag them up. Highlight them. However, they are probably less controversial than predicting Russia invading eu nations.
 
Russia is running out of money. Budanov predicted this last year, that Russia would push for an end to things in 2025 because of this exact reason.
www.politico.eu

Why Putin is finally negotiating

Moscow could soon struggle to finance the war, and fiscal breathing room may well be what the Russian leader’s looking for.
www.politico.eu www.politico.eu
 
Mikey10 said:
“The prevailing media narrative might be that Russia was wrong to invade London. See it from their point of view, though. They have viewed it for over a hundred years as the centre of a fundamental opposition to Russian life.

And Putin loves Harrods. And English breakfast tea.”
Click to expand...

It is more likely to be the Baltics you smarmy sod.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back