The Vladimir Putin appreciation thread.

Chrongen wrote: »

Why don't you give your arse a chance? Former Ambassador to Uzbekistan has a different take on events and it is quite frankly a lot more sensible than your absurd and ludicrous suspicions:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/03/russian-to-judgement/


Read his article and then try and set aside some time to take a few deep breaths and attempt to open your mind a little wider and do some logical emotion-less thinking and analysis. You'd be surprised at what you might accomplish and how quickly Britain's spin machine starts to look ridiculous.

cnocbui wrote: »

The irony of you implying you are capable of independent thought when all you ever engage in is a repetition of official Russian misdirection and bombast is epically ironic.

You can't even manage simple geography. Let me help you there:



Crimea is not in the Baltic.

The US is a Democracy. Russia is not. US Organisations like the CIA, FBI and NSA are answerable to elected political representatives, as evidenced by the assessment that the CIA lied about the significance and importance of information derived via torture. Clearly there is independent oversight and assessment of the integrity of these bodies. A report compiled by all three of those organisations concluded:

http://www.newsweek.com/intelligence-report-governments-key-findings-russian-hacking-efforts-540082

I find that credible. That you do not speaks for both your intelligence and capacity for critical judgement.

I don't swallow any statements by governments, organisations or individuals without independent thought. The irony of you deriding me for for not being a CO2 climate change believer is hilarious given your claims I always just believe and parrot the official line.

You have officially sanctioned Russian state media gloating over multiple suspicious deaths of Russians in the UK, basically warning Russians that if they betray Russia, the same is likely to happen to them. That was tantamount to an admission that those deaths weren't accidental and were intentionally arranged.

You talk about an inability for independent thought yet you can't even comprehend the most trivial basics of what is happening. Litvinenko was assassinated with Polonium. It was deliberately chosen to send a strong message because the substance is such that only a nation-state would be able to manufacture it. Putin might as well have carved his name on Litvinenko's forehead and posed with him for a selfie and posted it on Facebook. As assassinations go it was deliberately not subtle or anonymous. The same goes for the poisoning of Skripal. A substance was used that was deliberately and unmistakably linkable to a nation state - Russia. Again, the intention is clearly to send a strong message, the Russian media doubles up on the message and as good as admits these events were Officially contrived, gloats and warns the populace.

A BBC article summed it up rather well:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43355904

jamesbere wrote: »

Only last week he murdered a rock, injured a stone, hospitalised a brick! he's so mean he makes medicine sick! :pac:

Chrongen wrote: »

I never said that Crimea was in the Baltic. What the hell are you talking about? There has been hysteria in the West about Russia's "plans" to invade Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania and maybe gobble up Poland as well in the process. Are you so blinkered that you have to just focus on one farce, i.e. Crimea and think that all other arguments surround it?

Chrongen wrote: »

And when you produce photographs of Russian columns in Georgia and try to mug people off by saying it's a photo of Russians entering eastern Ukraine ... You will swallow hook line and sinker any fairytale that you are told about Russia invading the Baltics

Chrongen wrote: »

I don't think the British public are as dumb as you think. If they were then the bullshitters in Whitehall would know that they could recommend that joe bloggs should go out and buy bin bags and sellotape and seal up his windows to save himself from chemical weapons. That crap might work on the dummies in the US but the British public aren't that thick.

cnocbui wrote: »

You are unreal.

Discodog wrote: »

I am alarmed by the security, spying and armaments industries’ frenetic efforts to stoke Russophobia and heat up the new cold war. I am especially alarmed at the stream of cold war warrior “experts” dominating the news cycles. I write as someone who believes that agents of the Russian state did assassinate Litvinenko, and that the Russian security services carried out at least some of the apartment bombings that provided the pretext for the brutal assault on Chechnya. I believe the Russian occupation of Crimea and parts of Georgia is illegal. On the other hand, in Syria Russia has saved the Middle East from domination by a new wave of US and Saudi sponsored extreme jihadists.

The Russians invited the public to name their new, impenetrable ICBMs - hardly cooling the cold war.

The author agrees that Russia used Polonium on British soil, illegally bombed, committed a brutal assault, illegal occupations but not this attack :rolleyes:

He also believes that Russia is the saviour of the Middle East.

And you expect me to take this seriously.

Chrongen wrote: »

Why not? He has a lot more experience with the security services than you do.

You believe Teresa May and doubt this guy?

What exactly is so impossible to fathom in what he says? Is it that it contradicts your initial view so it MUST be false because you don't want to consider that you got it wrong?

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Am I speaking to the same person as last night's chrongen? I only ask because this is not the first time Ive seen you take one position after a post, then completely change a short period later. I can only imagine this is some kind of parody of the russian troll factory meme.

Now to return to your Donbas argument, you may not have been present when I made the case that there were russian "volunteers" (a phrase which spans actual volunteers to russian contract troops) in donbass, but everyone arguing against the idea seemed to go quiet once I finished proving the point. Now if the media reports, photography, testimony of soldiers and familiarity with the russian MO in these frozen conflicts is not enough for you, perhaps you could reread some of the arguments I made.

Otherwise, youre not so much representing a healthy skepticism as much as a deranged refusal to consider the facts, like a no moon landing nut or a holocaust denier. And given your other contributions on this forum on diverse subjects I find it difficult to sustain that proposition.