Vladamir Putin a clear and present danger to peace in Europe.

Busted Flat.

comongethappy wrote: »

What was the question that he gave the right answer to?

He supplied weapons & vehicles to a customer in need.....
Was Russia's arms sales to Assad anything other than business?

Business or no look what the zionists,US, Saudia created, an active time bomb that has tentacles in every country all over the world.

comongethappy

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Business or no look what the zionists,US, Saudia created, an active time bomb that has tentacles in every country all over the world.

But what did Putin get right?
You didn't answer that.

Just because you sell weapons to a side that wins a conflict, doesn't make you "right" about said conflict.... It makes no sense.

If above you are referring to islamism/jihadis creeping into the west, you forget that for a couple of decades now, a large proportion of Europe's jihadis fighter exports are Russian.

realweirdo

Harold Weiss wrote: »

some more unelected regimes US happy to do business with today.

Museveni - Uganda
Khalifa - Bahrain
House of Saud - Saudi Arabia
Al-Bashir - Sudan
Berdimuhamedow - Turkmenistan
Rahmon - Tajikistan
Tan Sang - Vietnam
Hassan - Morocco
Kagame - Rwanda
al Said - Oman

Democracy probably wouldn't make much of a difference to the lives of people in those countries but at least it would look like the people had a choice ...

Most of these countries, the oil ones aside, the US does very little business with. For example, the US was at the forefront of getting sanctions imposed on Sudan. However, if the US does business with a dictator, they are condemned. If they encourage the fall of that dictator, they are condemned far far more, especially if as would likely happen in places like Saudi Arabia, AQ or an ISIS type group gained a foothold. So what gives? Damned if they do, damned if they don't. No matter what the US do, they will be condemned, and always by the same people.

Sand

comongethappy wrote: »

But what did Putin get right?
You didn't answer that.

Just because you sell weapons to a side that wins a conflict, doesn't make you "right" about said conflict.... It makes no sense.

And in fairness, given the heavy representation of AK-47s and RPGs in Jihadist arsenals, Russia appears to have been hedging its bets.

Busted Flat.

Nazis splitting with the Kiev government, who knows what will happen, Kiev troops are weak compared to the the right wing mercenary nazis who are financed by Ukrainian gangsters, inferior is a mild opinion. When they take up arms against the Kiev government, will it turn out like Syria, Us giving help to Syria to destroy the Isis, they set up with the zionists to destroy Syria. The world is a strange place, can NATO step in to help Kiev against the nazis, major problem. Could Putin help. It is something the world is watching right. I am not as you refer a Putinista, before you start, just interested in world affairs.

Busted Flat.

Sand wrote: »

And in fairness, given the heavy representation of AK-47s and RPGs in Jihadist arsenals, Russia appears to have been hedging its bets.

https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FIran%25E2%2580%2593Contra_affair&ei=yOv8U5zPBK2f7Abw4oGYBw&usg=AFQjCNEYfsImu9Zrp0KUmZKic74SCT1RTw


The scandal began as an operation to free the seven American hostages being held in Lebanon by a group with Iranian ties connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to Iran, and then the United States would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of the U.S. hostages. The plan deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages.[4][5] Large modifications to the plan were devised by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985, in which a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.[6][7]

I doubt it very much the zionists would have supplied their own weapons.


https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAK-47&ei=lOz8U_mdDYbD7AbBhIHICQ&usg=AFQjCNHfI_9j44E9b-2sg68OBBuRqa5_zQ


Even after six decades the model and its variants remain the most popular and widely used assault rifles in the world because of their substantial reliability even under harsh conditions, low production costs compared to contemporary Western weapons, availability in virtually every geographic region and ease of use. The AK-47 has been manufactured in many countries and has seen service with armed forces as well as irregular forces worldwide, and was the basis for developing many other types of individual and crew-served firearms. More AK-type rifles have been produced than all other assault rifles combined.[3

davwain

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

How I laughed at this latest xenophobic drivel - Putin wants to restore Russia to its former Tsarist glory by annexing countries that are EU members!
Do people actually believe this kind of stuff? Even the Sun couldn't come up with this kind of make believe.

Putin is a danger to the world. That said, sanctions are having an impact on Russia's economy, although the falling price of oil (which Russia's government relies too much on for revenues) is also having an economic impact.

brandnewaward

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Putin will destroy all the European armies with one hand tied behind his back while riding a horse.

in soviet russia , horse ride you

IrishTrajan

Technoprisoner wrote: »

what a load of propaganda... the reason this whole thing happened was because the Ukraine needed a bailout...they had 2 options.. get an imf/eu bailout, but to do this they needed to join the euro...or Russia said they would bail them out. When the government decided it would go with the Russian bailout, the pro European side started riots. Putin did not start this crisis so i cant see how he wants to expand Russia. the Ukraine gained independence in 1990 and still has a sizable Russian community particularity around the border regions. the pro Russian community i believe wanted to rejoin Russia and distance itself from the euro bailout which would make more sense to them as they would have a stronger tie with Russia rather than the eu both economically and sociably .

When the Russians cut off your oil in the middle of winter and hike up gas prices, when they bully you into being nothing more than a puppet, and sanction your exports (they placed restrictions on Ukraine's dairy), do you really think taking a loan from them is the best idea?

It'd be like the British cutting off our oil, cutting our ability to export to them, and then coming in and offering to bail us out with a loan to line their own pockets.

Yea, if Ukrainians were willing to die to get out from under the yolk of Russia's hegemony, I don't think we can blame them.

Lemming

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

How I laughed at this latest xenophobic drivel - Putin wants to restore Russia to its former Tsarist glory by annexing countries that are EU members!
Do people actually believe this kind of stuff? Even the Sun couldn't come up with this kind of make believe.

AN EXULTANT President Vladimir Putin told tens of thousands of Russians, just outside the Kremlin walls yesterday, that the annexation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula was a move to protect ethnic Russians there and regain the nation's "historic roots".

...

"We realised that it wasn't just about territory, which we have enough," he said. "It's about historic roots, about roots of our spirituality and statehood."

Source

Well, what do you say now Elmer?

Elmer Blooker

Lemming wrote: »

Well, what do you say now Elmer?

Lucky Crimea!

BoJack Horseman

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Lucky Crimea!

Vlad himself invalidated your point though.

Its gotta sting when the Czar himself disagrees with you.

IrishTrajan

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Vlad himself invalidated your point though.

Its gotta sting when the Czar himself disagrees with you.

Cognitive dissonance will block it out, don't worry about it.

Lemming

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Lucky Crimea!

So you'd have no problem with Britain annexing Ireland citing "historical roots" then and would cheer-lead them whilst extolling how lucky Ireland is?

Elmer Blooker

Lemming wrote: »

So you'd have no problem with Britain annexing Ireland citing "historical roots" then and would cheer-lead them whilst extolling how lucky Ireland is?

I have no problem with historical facts.
In 1991 the Ukrainian government (after break up of U.S.S.R.) allowed a referendum on Crimean autonomy, it was passed by a huge majority and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea came into existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_sovereignty_referendum,_1991

This is interesting on the subject of the 1954 decision to transfer Crimea from Russia to Ukraine.

The transfer took place in three steps: the Supreme Soviet of the Russian SFSR proposed the transfer, the Supreme Soviet then approved, and the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR accepted the transfer on 17 June 1954. However, the Russian SSR never approved the transfer as required by Soviet law. The Supreme Council of Russia ruled in 1992 that the Crimean region had be transferred to Ukraine illegally.

There are claims[who?] that the move was illegal as there was a requirement for a referendum which was never carried out and that the Supreme Soviet was inquorate.

Lemming

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

I have no problem with historical facts.
In 1991 the Ukrainian government (after break up of U.S.S.R.) allowed a referendum on Crimean autonomy, it was passed by a huge majority and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea came into existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_sovereignty_referendum,_1991

This is interesting on the subject of the 1954 decision to transfer Crimea from Russia to Ukraine.

Crimea was an autonomous region. Yeah? And? so? what? You seem to have a very peculiar notion as to what an autonomous region can and cannot do. For example, they can't just decide to cede from the host nation on a whim. Not unilaterally (legally) at any rate.

As for the the 1954 decision; it was enacted by the Soviet leadership, who - rightly or wongly - were in charge of both Russia & the Ukraine. In any case, the Russian supreme court would have had no jurisdiction over Ukrainian soveriegn territory in 1992.

Can't wait to hear your "view" on the Russian-government bleating over how East Germany was annexed from Russian control by .... Germany.

Elmer Blooker

Crimea was an autonomous region. Yeah? And? so? what? You seem to have a very peculiar notion as to what an autonomous region can and cannot do. For example, they can't just decide to cede from the host nation on a whim. Not unilaterally (legally) at any rate.

Oh I see, the US decides whats legal and what isn't legal - its called International Law! Why not cede if the majority are in favour, just look up the road on our own little island - the majority want to stay within the UK and thats the way it is.
The decision to grant autonomy to Crimea was a recognition by Ukraine of the Russian majority in Crimea.

Can't wait to hear your "view" on the Russian-government bleating over how East Germany was annexed from Russian control by .... Germany.

Don't believe everything you're told, I don't.
An opposition communist deputy made a "proposal" in Parliament that Germany be condemned for annexing East Germany. I can't find anything anywhere that its official Russian government policy.

InTheTrees

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Oh I see, the US decides whats legal and what isn't legal - its called International Law!

Lemming

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Oh I see, the US decides whats legal and what isn't legal - its called International Law! Why not cede if the majority are in favour, just look up the road on our own little island - the majority want to stay within the UK and thats the way it is.
The decision to grant autonomy to Crimea was a recognition by Ukraine of the Russian majority in Crimea

And an invasion that began days before any rumblings of ceeding to Russia were ever aired? And thus aired under very dubious circumstances. To quote a popular Russian expression doing the rounds these days; "to pull a Crimea" implies that it was stolen. By your bestest buddies Elmer.

Don't believe everything you're told, I don't.
An opposition communist deputy made a "proposal" in Parliament that Germany be condemned for annexing East Germany. I can't find anything anywhere that its official Russian government policy.

A proposal that was not shot down iirc, and by a deputy who is not overly distant to Putin's social circles; i.e. would not have made the proposal without a nod of approval.

Edit: a proposal further alluded to by Foreign minister Lavrov in early march at the annual Munich Security Conference. So yeah, clearly not being accepted or approved by the Kremlin leadership ...

davwain

Lemming wrote: »

And an invasion that began days before any rumblings of ceeding to Russia were ever aired? And thus aired under very dubious circumstances. To quote a popular Russian expression doing the rounds these days; "to pull a Crimea" implies that it was stolen. By your bestest buddies Elmer.



A proposal that was not shot down iirc, and by a deputy who is not overly distant to Putin's social circles; i.e. would not have made the proposal without a nod of approval.

Edit: a proposal further alluded to by Foreign minister Lavrov in early march at the annual Munich Security Conference. So yeah, clearly not being accepted or approved by the Kremlin leadership ...

Putin has also shown he's a danger to Middle East stability. Witness the Russian bombings of Syria.

It seems not to be enough that many Ukrainians speak his mother tongue, although his attempts, to try to bring Donbass into the ex-RSFSR are backfiring on a lot of senior officials in his government (some of whom are banned from various EU, EFTA and other Western countries).

alcaline

Vladamir Putin a clear and present danger to peace in Europe
Only in the fertile imaginations of those who think Tom Clancy books are factual historical documents, a life time of watching western propaganda masked as Hollywood movies has created a large amount of paranoid folk in the west.

IrishTrajan

alcaline wrote: »

Vladamir Putin a clear and present danger to peace in Europe
Only in the fertile imaginations of those who think Tom Clancy books are factual historical documents, a life time of watching western propaganda masked as Hollywood movies has created a large amount of paranoid folk in the west.

It's more like a decade of watching him murder political opponents, clamp down on democratic groups, increased rhetoric and airspace incursions against the West, invasions of Ukraine and Georgia, the shutting off of gas and oil to Eastern Europeans, the blowing up of a civilian airliner...

But whatever floats your boat, mate.