Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Objective view on Vladimir Putin?

24

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,646 ✭✭✭victor8600


    Nope, there was no chance to prevent the war in Ukraine. Putin's demands before the war amounted to Ukraine voluntarily surrendering to Russia, plus all Eastern European countries leaving NATO. It was not a real line in the sand, it was a pretext for the Russian audience back home -- "See, we told them to stay back, now they leave us with no choice but to attack".



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,580 ✭✭✭jmreire


    No more dangerous animal in the animal kingdom than one that is injured and cornered. You could say the same about present day Russia and Putin, and while it cannot be ignored , neither should it be a paralyzing factor. If Putin goes nuclear, Putin goes nuclear, and that will have to be dealt with if and when it happens. As I mentioned in another post, ( a few posts back) If Putin did not have the Nato / West meddling excuse, he would have found another one. His personal ambition is to restore the Russia of old, and having restored it, becoming the Tsar of all the Russia's, and going down in history as such. What the west / NATO did or didn't do is irrelevant.. ( except as a justification ) Putin's personal ambition is what is relevant.



  • Registered Users Posts: 478 ✭✭Run Forest Run


    If you're referring the final list of demands shortly before invasion, I think many if not most informed observers consider that list to have been designed to be rejected. It wasn't a set of serious objectives.

    I think the line was drawn long before those final moments however. I would agree there was very little chance to prevent the conflict at the point in time you are referring to.

    But the seeds of this war go back much further than this point in time. And in fact, much further than Putin or Zelensky's leadership. (although Putin was in the background for much of the earlier stages)

    That's why I don't really buy into this Putin obsession many people have. It's a personality cult. There are many Russians who share his world view, and in fact many who have even more hard line views than him. This conflict could easily have occurred under previous regimes, and could very easily be continued under future ones.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,580 ✭✭✭jmreire


    Blaaz, I lived in Russia for several years, both under the Communists and again a few years later under Putin. As for the Communist times, there was no comparison like you made between the Catholic Church and the Communists. Catholic Church power and control over the population pales into insignificance compared to the power the local Communist Committee,,,it was absolute. It was one gigantic web of control. And the source of this control? The Big Red Book, where everything was an offence against the state, or could be manufactured into an offence. I well remember after a night out with colleagues, one of them came to me, and on bended knee begged me not to report him for being drunk, that's how intrusive it was. Go into your room in the hotel, and there was the ever present Babushka in the hallway ( and every hallway at that) noting everyone's coming and goings. Having a beer in a bar /restaurant, a man wearing a suit comes in, and the room goes quiet,,,,they know instinctively who he is, they are so used to the "System" He demands ID. and he is shown ID cards,, no questions or any sign of dissent. So you might not consider this " pre-programming" but if its not, then I do not know what is. The chairman of the local Committe was THE BOSS, and that was it. There's a scene in the movie Chernobyl where the Nuclear scientist attached to Chernobyl goes to the local part boss, requesting iodine for the children, and evacuation of Pripyat, and he just laughs at her,, even when she tells him of her qualifications as a scientist, and reminds him that in his former job, he worked in a shoe factory. He agrees, but tells her he is now the Boss, curtesy of the workers party. And his power there was absolute. No iodine fir the children, much less evacuation of Pripyat. Communism in action. But human nature being what it is, this translated into mafia like behaviour,,,you need a service which is free of course under communism, but a kind of bartering system developed,, a small present got you a priority in the queue or on the list, and by the time communism collapsed, and Putin arrived, this alternative system was ripe for development, and we have seen the fruits of this " entrepreneurialism". A massive mafia state.

    I was in Grozny while it was still being bombed back into the stone age, and again later under Kadyrov. The reconstruction made it almost unrecognizable at that point. Throughout the major cities, big changes came too...gone were the massive GUM store's ( Governmental Universal Magazines) which had massive staff's ( unemployment being forbidden ) but very little in the line of good's for sale. They were replaced by modern western style supermarkets, with all that the West could offer. They allowed the west in to show them how it was done ( Air Lingus Duty free being a case in point) then when they had imparted their know how, they were unceremoniously kicked out, ( or at least until their expertise was again needed. ) So Yes, the cities thrived, but the vast rural areas, not so much. Ethnic Russians are not all that popular in the Republics.

    And yes Putin brought order to the post USSR world, and prosperity too, but not to all. The wealth of Russia he managed ( and still does) is shared out to his oligarch friends ( and here I use the term Friends advisedly) and is mainly dependent on oil / gas sales. The Rural areas are a case in point...not much has "trickled down" to them. So yes, visit Moscow, St. Petersburg etc and you will see examples of the new ( and old ) glittering Russia, but thats not all of Russia, it's what is on display. Travel throughout the republics, and you will see a different Russia. One that still has its own charm, in its own way, but a far cry from the cities. Could Putin have done it differently? I'm sure he could, but this is the path he choose. For sure, its not the majority of Russians who are benefitting from the wealth of Russia.



  • Registered Users Posts: 737 ✭✭✭foxsake


    surely that is Ursula Von Leydens etc... fault , our indian friends have no such issues with their bills...

    not really putins fault that



  • Registered Users Posts: 737 ✭✭✭foxsake


    I like how putin explains things in his media dealings - well to be precise how his translator does.

    he gave very comprehensive explainers on russia's position on Iraq , Syria, western Fiat money system and social issues.

    very view politicians (if any ) in Europe or USA do that type of thing. which I think is lacking.

    His macho PR stuff was great in the day put him streets ahead in PR than other leaders.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,719 ✭✭✭Gusser09


    Oh yeh wait ill just call punjab my best mate and ask him about his latest bord gais bill. Ffs.



  • Registered Users Posts: 737 ✭✭✭foxsake


    a bizarre statement , considering how many indians are in ireland and also working with Irish people in so many sectors it wouldn't be any trouble to ask one.

    But i was referring the indian minister on cnn - who said he was tasked with suppling india with gas/oil not worrying about other stuff. it was widely reported.I didn't mean to actually ring an indian - it's on youtube if you don't know any indians.

    similar with other countries I just picked india cos of the minister.

    Other places don't have europes strange fascination with destroying itself. weird tbh



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,494 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Russia has territory extending from the border with Norway to the border with North Korea. Why do they need more? Nobody from NATO has designs on any Russian Federation land.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,771 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,771 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


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

    Scrap the cap!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,771 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    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.

    Scrap the cap!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,276 ✭✭✭✭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)?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,771 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Scrap the cap!



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,580 ✭✭✭jmreire


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Oh look Elmer is back



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭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.



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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....





  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭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 ..



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,996 ✭✭✭billyhead


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,580 ✭✭✭jmreire



    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.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 478 ✭✭Run Forest Run


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,444 ✭✭✭✭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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,580 ✭✭✭jmreire


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    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".



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,966 ✭✭✭✭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…



  • Registered Users Posts: 478 ✭✭Run Forest Run


    "As of November 2009, BelgiumGermanyItaly, 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.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,580 ✭✭✭jmreire


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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,966 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,580 ✭✭✭jmreire


    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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,580 ✭✭✭jmreire


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 478 ✭✭Run Forest Run


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    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

    Post edited by Gatling on


  • Registered Users Posts: 478 ✭✭Run Forest Run


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,580 ✭✭✭jmreire


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 478 ✭✭Run Forest Run


    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.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,580 ✭✭✭jmreire


    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?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Just another low level recently registered poster , looking at Wikipedia too much



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,436 ✭✭✭nigeldaniel


    The problem with Putin and those similar types who spend so long on their thrones, they become institutionalised in their own hubris. Putin truly believes in his own delusions and madness.

    Dan.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,447 ✭✭✭run_Forrest_run




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling




  • Registered Users Posts: 478 ✭✭Run Forest Run


    A quick glace through Wikipedia might have given you a greater depth of knowledge on NATO weapons policies. So I wouldn't be so dismissive.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,945 ✭✭✭growleaves


    In an amoral sense, there are some positives from a Russian nationalist pov because Russia is more able to act as an independent country than it was pre-Putin. He is of course more genuinely popular than Yelstin and clueless Westerners should not praise or defend Yelstin.

    However it seems he is ruining the standard of living in Russia through pursuing this war. Though its hard to get accurate information, some sources say the Russian economy is adapting to separation from the West. Perhaps this is partly true, I don't know.

    The country is a dictatorship and e.g. protestors against Covid restrictions have gotten 15 years in prison. Its isn't just anti-war people who get locked up but anyone with a strongly independent view

    Putin himself was sorry that the Soviet Union collapsed yet he also criticises Marxism and sometimes presents himself as a Christian (and the Western media interprets him as a 'right-wing nationalist' exclusively). My conclusion is that he doesn't have any strong feelings about left-right ideologies and is only interested in power.

    He was a senior secret police figure in a Communist regime but now sees that Communism is no longer a useful vehicle for power.

    Note: I'm not sympathetic to Putin, this is just my attempt to give a balanced view rather than seeing it from 'our' (Western Europeans') perspective.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Your Wikipedia user more than obvious.


    Don't worry it won't Last long



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,793 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Putin wants a return to Russia as a premier world power and him as a dictator. He only uses communism if it facilitates his objectives. He accumulates power, influence and wealth as a dictator would.

    The problem with his world view, is the military is mostly obsolete and thus far only has the resources to modernize only a very modest amount of the military. It's a shadow of it's former self. But still big enough to be a nuisance.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Let's hope when the Ukrainans take back dobass and then Crimea ,that they then return the favor to the Georgians and moldvans too , retake their lands and expell the Russians



  • Registered Users Posts: 478 ✭✭Run Forest Run


    Right... now can we have that in English please? 😆



  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement