There's some serious amount of whataboutery and false equivalency in this thread. I would absolutely hate to live in the USA but I'd be 100 times happier to live there than in Putin's Russia.
Vlads getting on in years, he might want to go out with a bang over the next decade, who knows.
I wouldn't be surprised if it stayed all rhetoric and no action but equally wouldn't be surprised if he invaded Ukraine proper.
How do you explain the largest country in world within last 10 years annexing two areas in neighbouring Ukraine and two areas in neighbouring Georgia?
I'm truly wondering if posters bother to read previous posts.
Russia is a state run by mafia/kgb (same thing over there) combo for benefit of an oligarchic elite, while keeping 140 million people in poverty. Now that Covid killed over a million of these peasants they are getting restless, a good doze of nationalism and war would be a distraction that Putin needs, it worked well in Crimea before
And>? They have plenty of options to choose from, without needing to tackle Europe. Anyway, the nationalism/war has been going on before covid came along.
He gave a TV interview and press interviews which he said it
Same question -- when and where -- who was the interviewer, what media org. was it for?
It's unlikely to happen. There's a rather clear line with regards to tackling Western Europe, and with the inclusion of Poland and others into the EU, that makes them untouchable. Putin can regain the other territories, without serious pushback from Europe/the West.
Russia doesn't want a war with the West. They're too vulnerable with their wide borders, and the Russian leadership knows this. They haven't the military to protect Russia itself while also dealing with NATO. I know that many posters here seem to believe that Russia is some kind of rabid beast.. but they're not suicidal.
He gave a TV interview and press interviews which he said it ,
None of these sovereign states want to be Russian , Finland especially made that quite clear during WW2,
What would be the point of even trying to take several other countries by force ,we could end up with ww3 in Europe and if anything russia could end up losing territory if they actually tried because they might get so far before pushed back and then the EU or other states decide they want a buffer zone between us and them,I think it would be a grave mistake on his part to even suggest even trying ,
When did he say this?
I don't recall him ever saying it, but I've heard people talk when I've been in Russia. The expectation would be the return to the borders pre-WW2 (prior to the invasion by Germany), since many Russians see this area as being central to their core territories. So, Poland,, or the Baltic States wouldn't be part of it.
Oh, I imagine Russia would like to take all of these States, especially Finland and Poland, but time has moved on too much. Those countries have been accepted into the EU, and that's a line which would be quite dangerous to cross. However, the core territories, are still isolated and so, up for grabs.
Russia just before WW1 encompassed Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine in Europe, roughly speaking. Kaliningrad, in contrast, was German territory - Konigsberg. I doubt he'd want to let that go, though its existence is highly problematic, just as the existence of the Polish Corridor was problematic in the 30s.
When one ponders the boundary changes in central and eastern Europe, the sheer chaos of it all - the slaughter, forced relocations of millions of people; entire villages, towns and cities changing hands with mass forced movements of ethnicities; for me it has always highlighted the relatively mild nature of the Irish experience over the past 300 years in contrast.
Open to correction but everything east of Norway and Germany , putin previously stated he wanted to return to the 1917 borders of russsia
Please expand on what on Earth qualifies as "historical Russia"
Those who complain Russia is under constant threat maybe need to spend time in the Baltic states or Ukraine or Hungary...all these countries are under constant never ending harassment and threat by Russia to their very existence.
What's your point? I've spent time in many of the Baltic states, and a few of those in Eastern Europe. I've also spent time in Israel, Taiwan, S.Korea and visited a number of African countries who were in conflict with their neighbors or experiencing civil wars. Does that qualify me to be able to say something on the subject?
The reference to Russia being under threat remains true. The existence of US military bases around it's borders, sometimes with nuclear weapons being stored there, is a constant reminder of the threat that the US and their Allies provide. To suggest that isn't the case shows a severe sense of double standards, considering how many wars the US has been involved in over the last fifty years... and the regular rhetoric/propaganda that has come from US based media over the last few decades.
I always find it interesting the way that people point to propaganda in other countries such as Russia or China, but ignore the similar programming that goes on in the US... sure, Hollywood would never portray Russians in an unflattering light, or those of mainstream media (who we've all established are very... flexible with the truth and their own agendas to play with). What? Russians or the Chinese won't see all this western propaganda within the worlds superpower, a superpower who is particularly active militarily, and not be threatened? Seriously?
Russia can be under threat... that doesn't take away from the threat Russia represents to it's neighbors. There's never been any confusion about the aims of Russia. Reclamation of Soviet held territories, especially those who were part of the Russian Empire. Poland and the satellite nations that were taken during/after WW2 might be disregarded, if they manage to get their hands on their traditional territories. Which is what I suspect will happen... with NATO/Europe defending those who weren't part of historical Russia, and leaving the remainder isolated for Russia to take.
Just look all the airstrikes Israel carry out inside of Syria despite repeated threat's not to do by Putin ,even leading to a russian military intelligence aircraft getting shot down by their Syrian allies after they thought it was Israeli
Israel and Russia have a complex 'frenemies' lik relationship. About 20 percent of the Israeli population are Russian speakers in the home.
Were it not for Russia's relationship with Iran, the two countries would be a lot closer. Putin and Netanyahu predictably had a very warm working relationship.
Crimea being the prime example of the threat they face when Russia sent in a merry band of faceless thugs to give the locals a hiding in Eastern Ukraine and destabilise the whole country, before just taking Crimea for themselves.
The novichok incident happened in 2018, not sure which journalists were murdered before that. The Syria situation all depends on which side you take - Assad and the gang or the West/US/Israelies. Not sure you could hold it against the russians for not taking the side of the Israelis
You will find that's that's not true at all there have been Putin threads well before US elections ,from the attack on Georgia and Ukraine ,novichok ,pulonium poisoning , journalists being murdered ,sham trials, shooting down of flight MH 17 ,and then there's syria .
The ground is being laid for war right along several borders next to Russia. This article is published by Russia Today - there is no definite information that this was the cause and the article does state that, yet they allow it to be published, to what end I ask? It does sow seeds of distrust and in the context of background events maybe laying groundwork for something more serious on multiple fronts of the Russian border.
NATO submarine caused Kursk sinking that killed 118 Russian sailors, ex-admiral claims
Popov claimed he knew the name of the sub belonging to the US-military led bloc “with a 90% probability.” However, he admitted he did not have sufficient available evidence to make the case publicly at present.
According to the former naval chief, who served until 2001, the vessel was in the region where it collided with ‘Kursk’. He also noted that SOS signals were sent from special equipment that Russian boats were not equipped with, implying another submarine must have been present.
Viktor Kravchenko, a former chief of staff of the Russian Navy, later agreed with Popov’s theory, remarking he was “also inclined to believe this version” of the demise of the Kursk, based on circumstantial evidence.
Three NATO vessels, the British ‘Splendid’ and American subs ‘Toledo’ and ‘Memphis’, were reportedly in the vicinity of Russian military exercises in the Barents Sea at the time. Neither Washington nor London provided documents on the condition of their vessels after Moscow requested the information.
In Turkey there is a serious economic problem manifesting itself in the currency. Can this issue be treated in isolation or will it extend further into both Syria and the Armenia Azerbaijan war?
Turkish companies and government have to repay $13 billion in external debt in the final two months of the year, according to official data. More than half -- $8 billion -- is set to mature in November, the biggest amount due over the next 10 months, according to the latest available data.
There is much activity in Ukraine.
There is much activity in Belarus on their Polish and Lithuanian borders. From today alone these are headlines from TASS.
That's quite a bit of activity on the Russian Western and Southern borders and has been since the beginning of the year. The military build-up in Eastern Ukraine early this year was countered by a massive Russian scale up on the other side, that seemed to put fright on NATO. IMHO Sergey Lavrov has probably been the best foreign minister internationally over the past number of years, managing to advance Russia's interests (whether you agree with them or not) with minimum cost while keeping all out hot war from exploding due to the Americans and Europeans (EU specifically) missteps. I see the problem in the US Biden administration currently in that there are several factions competing with each other on the foreign stage, they have no unified strategy, making them extremely untrustworthy for any medium or long term stability agreement.
Will the upcoming Putin-Biden summit defuse the situation?
Since a Presidential summit is only organized once both sides have already come to a general agreement, at least in principle, on at least some issues, if Putin and Biden do meet, that means that both sides have worked out at least the outlines of some kind important deal (not just empty statements, as was the case the first time around, at least officially).
I expect that should a direct military conflict in Ukraine happen, Russia would quickly annex everything east of the Dnieper river and even all the way along the Black sea coast to Odessa, most of which are dominant Russian speaking areas. The would draw Poland and Romania in to protect Western Ukraine and Moldova respectively. EU states are in no position for a protracted war as a significant portion of their energy is gas sourced from Russia. It also exposes the rot caused by years of negative interest rates (sovereign debt default) and the the more recent Covid lockdowns.
I think Ukraine would be better to follow a policy of Finlandization and deal internally with the corruption that sparked the Maidan protests. Russia will always be their major trading partner and for the most part they have a common heritage, especially in the East of that country. Looking at threats from a Russian point of view, they have had invasions from the Golden Horde, the Ottomans, the French (Napolean) and the Germans (Hitler) that have been very destructive on the population, militarily it's idea post World war II was to have a buffer zone in Eastern and central Europe against invasion. Western Russia subsidises the populations that live east of the Urals. A neutral policy by the Ukraine would mean Russia does not have to tie up so many resources protecting its borders on Western Russia and can work on containing the Chinese economic expansion into its client states like Kazakhstan and Mongolia.
I said that he had "tried, with mixed success, to revitalize the Russian economy". This is what happens when you take parts of sentences out, ignoring the remainder. He had some successes with the economy during his first term, and has had very mixed results since then.
And yes, he has sought to return Russia to the old USSR borders... I actually said that, more than once, before you posted any objections to what I wrote.
I will concede that you didn't specifically say rebuild in your posts.
I didn't even suggest that he had rebuilt Russia.. (I'm still wondering what Russia was being rebuilt into.. since that would suggest that they were successful economically before, which they weren't)
And I could have pinned you down on other claims you've made about my posts... but what's the point? Even when you acknowledge a mistake, you're still trying to hedge around it. Didn't specifically say.. That's funny.. In any case, I'm finished doing the rounds with you.
Funny how nobody noticed any of this until he stole the 2016 election from poor Hillary...
You mentioned him keeping Russia together, and "Revitalizing" the country. He's looked to reestablish the reach of the country to what it was under the USSR (my opinion).
There is absolutely nothing “great” about Vladimir Putin.
He is a tyrant in all but name, a bully boy, a deeply corrupt kleptocrat who has amassed an obscene level of personal wealth based on siphoning off revenue from Russia’s oil and gas cash cow. Xenophobic, racist and a complete homophobe.
He’s a scumbag who has the Russians under his thumb.
No... it wouldn't be, since I didn't make any such claim. Wonder will you acknowledge that, or simply deflect or double down.
I've been to Russia many times, and while there is obvious prosperity in some very specific areas, the vast majority of the country (including the primary cities) can't make any such claim "to being rebuilt". Rebuilt into what? They've never been particularly prosperous, and there's always been serious inequalities. Hell, their military was never as powerful as the propaganda made them out to be.
Would it be fair to say the jist of your statement here could be catagorised as Russia being rebuilt?
You said Putin rebuilt Russia into a power
where did I say that? Care to quote me?
What points have you made? You said Putin rebuilt Russia into a power, I made the point that this isn't the case. You nicely sidestepped talking about all the horrible things Putin's reign has brought the Russian people, instead throwing out some whataboutery re: the US.
By all means, please provide something of substance to your claim of greatness. Can you define that at least?
S.Korea are also facing serious problems with their economy, and society... in addition to the wealth inequalities, and problems with corruption in their legal system. They've simply presented a much better face to the world.
Russians should be doing well... if they hadn't the history that they do have. Still, I agree that it could have been a lot better for them, but at the same time, I wonder whether it would be actually possible to remove the layers of corruption within Russian society, the influence of the criminals and oligarchs, etc. Russia and China have a lot in common with relation to the cultural corruption that exists throughout their societies, and in all aspects of government.
You haven't countered any of my posts/statements. You've simply talked over them, repeatedly ignoring the points directed towards you (or to the thread in general), so that you can repeat the same opinion that Putin is a bad man. Just as you've ignored the points I made earlier about the negative aspects of Russia.
It boils down to you standing on your soapbox, roaring out your opinion, while ignoring anything anyone else has to say on the matter.
Russians should be among the wealthiest citizens on earth. Huge resources, unlimited living space, educated population and sophisticated culture.
For what they have at their disposal, the quality of life they enjoy really is a bit of a joke.
South Korea's economy - a country with a third of the population and none of the natural advantages Russia enjoys - recently overtook Russia's in absolute size.
Could you point to all the journalists and politicians that the US has assassinated or jailed of late?
You came in the false equivalences and whataboutery. You want to claim Putin is a great man, that he's rebuilt Russia, when in reality, he's lined his pockets and those of his fellow kleptocrats. Russia survives entirely on its oil and gas exports. The US is a bit of shithouse at the moment, but I know which country I'd live in.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/3694d3d768784d2dd89108859b666f01.svg)
