Objective view on Vladimir Putin?

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119593678#Comment_119593678

The Taiwanese and Hong Kongers are greatly comforted by your post, I'm sure.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119594076#Comment_119594076

Meddling?

Either these countries are independent states free to choose their policies and alliances, or they are condemned to be vassal states of Russia independent in name only.

You don't appear to have any problem with the latter, which displays a profound ignorance of our own history.

Sleepy

@jmreire as someone with personal experience of Russia, how much credence would you give to the view that the real threat Ukraine posed to Russian oligarchs was as it's example to Russian citizens of how much better their quality of life could be in a post-Soviet nation that was actively working to reduce corruption and operate as a democratic society (i.e. one that wouldn't tolerate Putin and his cronies)?

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119595453#Comment_119595453

Only for those who are very easily fooled.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119593740#Comment_119593740

I would be of view Japan put China back in its box as regards imperialism in last century (they got upto really horrific stuff across SE Asia,quite how they got so quickly forgiven is beyond me)

,similar to nazism and russia....and both countries tradional views would be systematically changed as regard imperial ambitions.....

The likes of Africa and India backing Russia, may be a certain realpolitik for domestic issues,and not be wanting to be seen on side of country they tradionally viewed as enemies....I wouldn't think Russia would rely on em as allies (in same regard,you'll never likely see a Ukrainian politian speak up for Russia for next 50 years minimum)

jmreire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119596329#Comment_119596329

It would definitely have an effect. That and the rule of Law as its applied in Europe. Mafia business is conducted in as dark a place as possible, so an open EU Country which Ukraine is aiming for, ( and will succeed in getting) would not be in Putins interests. And thats before Russian citizens start questioning why EU citizens have better quality of life, which Russia under Putin does not offer them. ( at least the majority of them) That would be another needless thorn in his side.

Gatling

Oh look Elmer is back

Gatling

@[Deleted User] He went into middle East,defeated Isis (broke all sorts human right violations along way),stemmed the tide of suicide attacks into Europe,brought some semblance of stability to middle East after 20 or so years of American led interventions......had Russia in a v.strong position in terms of geo-politics, particularly in middle East...

Bs did he ,

He couldn't find isis if they were sitting at his famous long table.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119596897#Comment_119596897

I don't wanna be seen to be entirely on side of Russia,but realistically they did win that war,commited horrendous human right violations along the way to do so..

Reduced entire cities to rubble to crush em,some evidence of chemical weapon use (was worried they would have used chemical weapons to drive people out of apartment block basements at start of Ukraine war)..it's why their troops were able to be incomprehesibly brutal at start of war,it's generals are battle hardened and wrongly used to immunity,one was nicknamed the butcher of Syria and iirc Ukraine took him out ....

but in defeating Isis,they played an instrumental part,your simply trying to deny reality to say otherwise....the west,France in particular, was glad to foster a certain low level islamophobia (I hate that word/accusions of racism etc being thrown out btw)to help turn a blind eye to obvious human right violations,that a western/former coloniser of syria couldn't realistically carry-out without long term political damage....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.news18.com/amp/news/opinion/after-10-years-of-syrian-civil-war-it-is-russia-that-has-won-on-all-fronts-3557609.html

Gatling

@Blaaz I don't wanna be seen to be entirely on side of Russia,but realistically they did win that war,commited horrendous human right violations along the way to do so...

No they didn't realistically defeat ISIS they hardly ever went after isis ,

You are right about one thing horrendous human rights abuse's carried out on the population of Syria,

But he didn't do anything to isis ..

billyhead

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119590585#Comment_119590585

Agree. It's inevitable that Ukraine will win this war which could be another year away but will happen. The public in Russia will turn on him then.

jmreire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119596935#Comment_119596935

In Syria, Putin supported Assad only the extent of keeping the noose around his ( Assad's) neck from tightening. And removing isis from the Syrian equation was not in Putin's best interests. Everything he did for Assad had a price, and Putin played the game 100%. In one instance, at a time when Assad forces were suffering catastrophic setbacks due to a shortage of fuel, (of which Putin had plenty of..) he refused to share it with Assad until he was desperate, and then, after he had extracted more concessions he gave him the fuel. Neither did he place his troops at Assads disposal in any major ground attacks on isis / Free Syrian Army/ Al-Quaeda etc.as he did not want Russian's arriving back in Moscow in body bags. His Wagner group was operating ( but they were deniable ) with Hisbollah, and units of Assads army, but that was that. They attacked a US / Yazidi position in superior nrs, and got decimated, which put a stop to that. He bombed hospitals, schools, civilian targets,, apartment blocks etc indiscriminately but played no major role in the defeat of isis. That was left to the Yazidi's on the ground, with US support, plus the support of Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the Unted Arab Emirates. Putin did not play a major part in the defeat of isis. The only real Russian attacks they carried out on isis was when a Russian passenger jet was blown up after taking off from Sharm-El -Sheik airport in Egypt. The plane was bombed by a Jihadi in response to Putins attacking Muslims in Syria. In revenge, Putin targeted fuel convoys leaving isis controlled ( but Syrian ) oilfields, bound for Turkey. This in turn, triggered Turkey into shooting down a Russian warplane. And it was touch and go for a while as to how that would turn out. He did however drive Assads Syrian enemies out if their strongholds, and in doing that, finished the civil war in Syria. But to this day, the remnants of the opposition are holed up in Idlib, which is still not under the full control of the regime, and even recently it was bombed again. So yes, In Syria, Putin was a winner,,,,he now has a base in the Mediterranean, and use of an airport, and very few Russian troops lost their lives. How he fares now in Ukraine will play a major part in what happens in Syria now going forward. And for sure he will be well remembered there, but for all the wrong reasons.

If Russia didn't take out Isis then America and the Syrian army did.

Who cares, they all helped to get rid of that scourge Isis. Maybe Russia was the main attacker? Maybe they acted as a decoy for the yanks? Doesn't matter.

Run Forest Run

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119596325#Comment_119596325

It's got nothing to do with me, so I really don't see what you're getting at regarding whether I have a problem with it or not.

It's Russia's position, not mine.

But we could say the same about any region of the world that contains a powerful geo-political force. Nations in the USA's sphere of influence do not have complete freedom to choose their policies and alliances independent of US control. The only reason people think they do have this freedom, is because these countries are not inclined to test the boundaries of their independence. If Canada or Mexico suddenly decided to become very close politically to China, for example, you can be damn sure the US would not tolerate this. And they would likely act hostile to these changes in their geo-political landscape.

Presumably you think Ukraine should be free to join NATO, and have their weapon systems on their territory? So why was Cuba not allowed to be communist, and have soviet missiles on their territory? Cuba is still being punished by the US to this very day for that decision, and their chosen political system.

This thread is about trying to take an objective view, rather than a partisan one. This doesn't mean I like or agree with Russia's actions in Ukraine. But I do understand that there are different perspectives on these things. And obviously also quite a lot of double standards and hypocrisy at play too.

Larbre34

No person is evil. There is only degrees of mental disorder, sometimes it was always, or almost always, present. Sometimes it develops environmentally or is acquired due to illness or injury.

There was footage last night on the Queen's memorials of Putin on a State Visit to London, probably around 2000, and he was fresh faced, smiling and joking, sociable etc. Also, his policies of that era were somewhat progressive and internationalist and Russia treaded a respectable influence as a major power.

I don't know what changed, where the paranoia started or grew, where the megalomania and the foreign aggression came from, but Putin is a different man today in most ways that its possible to be different and the whole World is feeling the effect.

jmreire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119598563#Comment_119598563

The point is that another poster was claiming wrongly that Putin was responsible for driving out isis, meaning that it was one of the "good " things he did. The Kurdish Yazidi's were the main on the ground forces that drove isis out. There were others of course, but the Kurds were the main ones, even their women fought. And easy to see why, when you hear about what isis did to them. Russian atrocities committed so far in Ukraine do not even come near what the isis monsters did in Syria / Iraq.

Gatling

@run_Forrest_run Presumably you think Ukraine should be free to join NATO, and have their weapon systems on their territory?

There is no nato weapons, each country has their own weapons, Ukraine would have Ukrainian weapons on it territory

patnor1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119596325#Comment_119596325

You are right however it is happening all over the planet. Sure, Saudis are no longer meddling in Yemen they went for other solutions. Turks are not "meddling" in Syria or Iraq and Albanian/Serb "meddling" in Kosovo ended up well, we all know how.

Cuba too was independent state and their attempt to choose policies and alliances brought them quite a lot of "meddling" and decades of sanctions.

No difference in regard to current "meddling".

Strumms

He’s a nutjob.

and when he’s long gone, the greatest legacy he’ll leave is that if a subsequent Russian leader ever attempts to attack another country without provocation…ive a feeling the west might not be so back on its heals…

Run Forest Run

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119599199#Comment_119599199

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

"As of November 2009, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey are hosting U.S. nuclear weapons as part of NATO's nuclear sharing policy."

"In peacetime, the nuclear weapons stored in non-nuclear countries are guarded by United States Air Force (USAF) personnel and previously, some nuclear artillery and missile systems were guarded by United States Army (USA) personnel; the Permissive Action Link codes required for arming them remain under American control."

So, if Ukraine was ever to become a candidate for something like the above arrangement, they would not own those weapons.

jmreire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119599427#Comment_119599427

They for sure will not tolerate a repetition of Putins actions in Georgia, Abkhazia, Crimea and the poisonings in the UK.

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119599475#Comment_119599475

None of the above situations impacted the EU on the scale of what’s transpiring now. I believe “the EU will cease to exist” was the threat from his mate Viacheslav Volodin, the head of the Duma and ally of Putin…this was regarding direct EU military intervention in this crisis.

so that has to be taken seriously.

jmreire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119599472#Comment_119599472

If down the road, Ukraine applies for and obtains NATO Member ship, then whatever weapon's protocol applies to member states, will also apply to them. And if that means access to nuclear weapons, then that's it. It's the standard. Good for them

jmreire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119599502#Comment_119599502

Yes, and that was the straw that ultimately will break the Russian back. But with hind sight, given Putins previous history. had he been stopped earlier, the Ukraine invasion might not happened. But basically did as he wished without hindrance, and each time he did do something and git away with it, he became more and more emboldened and went on to do more and worse things.

Run Forest Run

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119599505#Comment_119599505

Apparently Russia disagrees, so not good for them. You liked Gatling's post regarding there being no NATO weapons, so presumably you must be of the same opinion?

Whether we like it or not, the world doesn't revolve completely around what NATO members want. There are other players in the geopolitical game.

We can debate just how much power or influence these other players have (particularly Russia), but there is no doubt that the traditional power base post WW2 is shifting and has been for quite some time now.

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119599614#Comment_119599614

American weapons ,and not everyone in the 28 currently members have nuclear weapons stored in the country

Soon to be 30 members.

Russia has nuclear weapons so why shouldn't all of its neighbors

Run Forest Run

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119599944#Comment_119599944

American weapons, NATO weapons, American weapons as part of a NATO nuclear weapons sharing policy... 🙄

You can debate the semantics of it if you wish Gatling, but it's clearly not just potentially Ukrainian weapons as you suggested earlier.

There was the previous plans for the long range missile defence interceptors in Poland and Czechia, which was later shelved after Russia made counter threats. From Russia's perspective, why would Ukraine be seen as any less strategically important than those countries?

None of us really have the full picture, because we're not privy to the the intelligence that these countries will no doubt be gathering on each other over many years.

jmreire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119599614#Comment_119599614

NATO cannot accept applications to join from any Country currently in conflict, so by the time Ukraine request's NATO membership, the Russian invasion of Ukraine ( or war if you refer) will be long finished, and Russia's input / opinion / influence ( or what's left of it,,,) re Ukrainian NATO membership , ( or anything else either,) will not matter.

As for geo-political changes since WW2, and on-going, there is one irrefutable metric that cannot be denied, and Mr. Putin has not only proved it, but in the present time, reinforced it. A Country's first and foremost objective MUST be its security. And what NATO members want will play a very important part in worldwide decision making. And rightly so. We have seen just what happens when a strong Country just walks into its weaker neighbor unopposed. That cannot be allowed to happen again, at the very least in this part of the world. How far would Putin have gone if the other ex USSR Country's had not joined NATO? Maybe rolled all the way to Berlin? or Alaska? ( because this is what he planned,) Restoration of Imperial Russia.

Run Forest Run

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119600225#Comment_119600225

Quite a lot of big assumptions being made here. Predicting the end of a war is particularly dodgy territory.

The problem with regard to the topic of security, is that the western view of security is not necessarily shared by other major players elsewhere in the world. Particularly emerging powers. Russia's actions in Ukraine don't appear to have shifted this paradigm.

It may have gone unnoticed to the average person in the west, but Putin and Russia have not struggled to maintain their pre-war relationships with emerging Eurasian powers for example. And Eurasia is really where the next big geopolitical battle is taking place.

I can't see any of these guys running away in fear from the big bad Russians, and into the arms of the west for protection. They don't seem to be buying into the western narrative.

The rest of your post is hyperbole.

jmreire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119600495#Comment_119600495

Some facts to back up your statements would be helpful. As for predicting the end of the war being dodgy territory, whatever merit there is in that statement, as like every other poster on here, I'm neither a seer or a prophet, but to my mind anyway, the outcome, is a fore gone conclusion. Russia loses, Ukraine wins. Now back to checking latest gains by Ukraine. You are following , I presume?