Chrongen wrote: » An adult wouldn't spit out such an epithet as "I like Russia and I don't like the West" You had a smidgen of credibility until the childish snipes emerged.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Isis was in trouble when they took on different factions from all sides, it was inevitable they would lose all the land they gained. Russia joined helping Assad speedied up the eventual collapse. Isis is not defeated they have just moved location and now are setting up in Afghanistan and other unstable places to continue the fight against the unbelievers. Isis can easily emerge again in Syria and Iraq their movements need to be tracked closely to stop them. Regarding Putin. He is essentially is a dictator, but Russia is stable and better off day than the Soviet era. Removing Putin maybe not be the best thing for Russia and the World, it hard to tell.
Irish Praetorian wrote: » Fair points all, although I think it's a bit of a leap to suggest that taking issue with Russian foreign policy (or rather with those obsequiously fawning over it on forums like this) is anyhow related to wanting to overthrow Mr. Putin. Whatever might be said about him and how we might approach him, he does appear to have quite a standing in Russia. That being said, I feel no need as some posters do, to worship him as some kind of second coming.
Dinarius wrote: » Raising hell in North Africa was a stroke of genius on Putin’s part. Are those poor unfortunate people crossing the Mediterranean to be taken in by Russia? No, they want to be taken in by us and the rest of Europe. He is not suffering any consequences for his actions. D.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » I don't see Putin wanting to fight wars for domination. For me, US foreign policy is murky we don't often know what the agenda was they intervene militarily? The Ukrainian business was messy as a certain section of the people who wanted to change the status quo had known affiliations with fascist groups. I can understand Russia fear with this. I don't think Putin started the crisis he stepped in preventing bloodshed. We can disagree the right he had to intervene, but the fact is the majority of the population of Crimea wanted to merge with Russia. Syria, I think it better to have Assad in power and avoid giving power to people who clearly are not friendly to the west. America thinks Putin is trying to take over Europe this is a ridiculous idea they have and there is no evidence Putin has eyes on a major global war. I will agree Putin has a Russia first policy just like Trump, but I don't see him as a global threat to world peace I see him as someone who understands history. Putin invades Europe I change my opinion, but i don't see Putin sending Russian ground forces to Mexico. I understand the point you made worshipping him, but Putin to me is a good leader.
Irish Praetorian wrote: » Not fighting wars for domination? With respect have you been observing the litany of Russian foreign involvements since the end of the Cold War? Places from Moldova to Georgia play host to rather unpleasant Russian presences which emerged in the rather murky waters of the post 1990 period. If we limit ourselves just to Putin's premiership one has to consider everything from the invasion of Georgia (far beyond the borders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia) to actions in Ukraine. This is before we consider the lengthy number of 'health and safety disputes' (trade wars) which Russia has been waging on and off with those neighbouring countries it believes are ranging too far from its influence. Incidentally Ukraine is yet another example of this and was in the midst of yet another trade dispute with Russian in the months ahead of the 'Maidan'. Now part of me can see where you're coming from in regards some of the elements of Putin's foreign policy, namely it's focus on the near abroad and Russian speaking regions. Yet I cannot help but feel that in the long run simply writing off this foreign policy as simply putting Russia first and in the process consigning much of Eastern Europe to be Putin's breathing space is fundamentally an unwise policy. Now one can point quite easily to US involvements post 1990 and say that they are bad too, which many of them were, but I don't think it's asking too much for people to hold a consistent view in regards foreign policy engagements rather than simply opting to castigate one and fawn over the other.
Chrongen wrote: » Why do people keep repeating the lie that Russia invaded Georgia? Georgian troops at the instruction of NATO attacked and killed Russian peacekeepers and tried to advance into South Ossetia. Russia retaliated and beat the Georgian army back to where they came from in a week. If you attack me and I punch your lights out you can hardly accuse me of assaulting you for no reason yet that's exactly how you're trying to sell this dross.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » The way I look Putin did not deliberately start does wars. Syria conflict was happening long before Russia joined, the Ukrainian conflict had nothing to with Putin at the beginning. The Georgian conflict was a civil war a breakaway war with two factions opposed to each other started fighting. I can't point to anything that would show Putin had a hand in starting a conflict
Cheerful Spring wrote: » The way I look Putin did not deliberately start does wars. Syria conflict was happening long before Russia joined, the Ukrainian conflict had nothing to with Putin at the beginning. The Georgian conflict was a civil war a breakaway war with two factions opposed to each other started fighting. I can't point to anything that would show Putin had a hand in starting a conflict. With America, Iraq was stable, even if Saddam was an unstable and evil dictator, in 2003 it was a country not fighting America but still was invaded and taken over. Bin laden has no relations with Iraq at this time, so it was a war of aggression. And for 14 years the country has experienced non-stop war and destruction of cities and hundreds of thousands if not millions of people got killed, for what?
Irish Praetorian wrote: » Again I think we're going down the path of attempting to normalize Russian foreign policy by viewing it in the context of outrages committed by the US rather than on its own merits. The Ukraine conflict incidentally I would put almost entirely down to Russian interference.
badabing106 wrote: » No Russian government could have acquiesced in such a threat from territory that was at the heart of both Russia and the Soviet Union. Putin's absorption of Crimea and support for the rebellion in eastern Ukraine is clearly defensive, and the red line now drawn: the east of Ukraine, at least, is not going to be swallowed up by Nato or the EU.
badabing106 wrote: » The reality is that, after two decades of eastward Nato expansion, this crisis was triggered by the west's attempt to pull Ukraine decisively into its orbit and defence structure, via an explicitly anti-Moscow EU association agreement. Its rejection led to the Maidan protests and the installation of an anti-Russian administration – rejected by half the country – that went on to sign the EU and International Monetary Fund agreements regardless. No Russian government could have acquiesced in such a threat from territory that was at the heart of both Russia and the Soviet Union. Putin's absorption of Crimea and support for the rebellion in eastern Ukraine is clearly defensive, and the red line now drawn: the east of Ukraine, at least, is not going to be swallowed up by Nato or the EU.
Tea drinker wrote: » I do hope you are trolling... it was EU and NATO that destroyed Libya, and then sent ships down to take in all comers. The Irish Navy was a taxi service for this, and the "rescue ships" would just park a few miles off the libyan coast to "rescue" the migrants who came after a few flares shot off. I'm not sure of the pick up and processing costs, but the cost of return is called out as 90k here:https://euobserver.com/migration/137720 We in the EU have to pay for our masters in Brussels "grand" plans, nothing to do with Putin. It is beaucoup expensive for EU.
badabing106 wrote: » If you have interest in understanding putins point of view. Here it is, in terms of Russian and world politics. Plain, straight talking, no room for misunderstanding
cnocbui wrote: » Better to judge people by their actions than their words. Applied to Putin, he is one of the most unpleasant creeps Russia has had the misfortune to be lumbered with. That poor country seems ever benighted in the leaders it ends up with.
Kristopherus wrote: » Yep and the bollox has now started sabre-rattling with his so-called unbreakable nuclear warheads that could wipe us all out. Hopefully he'll be taken out sooner rather than later:mad:.
Chrongen wrote: » The world is moving towards a Eurasian concept. The One Belt Initiative is unstoppable. European businesses are shifting to the East. Trump has announced that he will clamp tariffs on American metal. This is talk from a man who is clueless about international trade. The moment he announced this, of which he doesn't understand, all foreign markets and commercial leaders announced counter-measures. The guy is out of his depth.
Ajsoprano wrote: » Your problem is that you think he makes decisions himself. He’s doing what any other president would be told to do.
