Russia repositions border taking over more of Georgia overnight
..and you claim not be be parochial? Whatever the "Special Relationship" might or might not stand for, it's certainly something greater than that pathetic self justifying person. There at least we hold something in common contempt, RF!
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Neverland
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knowing Ukrainians who are rather less than keen to be welcomed back to the bosom of mother russia the idea expressed by certain folk that putain should be allowed to take what he wants because he won't take any more is rather stupid, not to say callous. I do wonder exactly how those who express such views would feel if it was their country that was being given away by persons in a far distant land?
Knowing Poles who are rather less keen than certain folk to see putains expansion I also wonder if perhaps certain folk should try seeing events from the perspective of the countries actually being impacted by putains actions rather than bleat that the west must understand things from putains perspective.
Frankly **** putain, bullies only ever understand one thing, a good hard punch on the nose. Then you can start giving them all the love they so clearly need. Although in putains case that probably involves little children so perhaps not.
Knowing Poles who are rather less keen than certain folk to see putains expansion I also wonder if perhaps certain folk should try seeing events from the perspective of the countries actually being impacted by putains actions rather than bleat that the west must understand things from putains perspective.
Frankly **** putain, bullies only ever understand one thing, a good hard punch on the nose. Then you can start giving them all the love they so clearly need. Although in putains case that probably involves little children so perhaps not.
Snafu, while I empathise with the Ukrainians (and indeed with your viewpoint) one should only go to war (which you seem to suggest that "we" should be prepared to do) either for one's own security or for those that we are obliged to by treaty. AFAIK no such treaty exists in Ukraine's case, though evidently a "promise" was made. That would equate to the worthless bit of paper that Chamberlain famously read from, I'm afraid.
I agree that we should stand firm against Russian expansion, but where and when should be defined by my first paragraph rather than by a sense that we should do something, anything. If that coincides with Ukraine then we need to make such a Treaty with it now, so that there is no doubt about our intentions, for doubts and misunderstandings start wars more surely than legal obligations do. If Putin wants war he will get his way I'm afraid, just as was the case with Hitler.
BTW, I see far more in common between Putin and Hitler than Putin and Stalin . The former two both bent on pursuing aggressive expansion, the latter only after beating back the aggressors to their own territory.
I agree that we should stand firm against Russian expansion, but where and when should be defined by my first paragraph rather than by a sense that we should do something, anything. If that coincides with Ukraine then we need to make such a Treaty with it now, so that there is no doubt about our intentions, for doubts and misunderstandings start wars more surely than legal obligations do. If Putin wants war he will get his way I'm afraid, just as was the case with Hitler.
BTW, I see far more in common between Putin and Hitler than Putin and Stalin . The former two both bent on pursuing aggressive expansion, the latter only after beating back the aggressors to their own territory.
Royalistflyer
Is your point that you think Putin's over reach regarding Ukraine and Georgia is acceptable or that you dislike the US having an active role in opposing it?
Which do you dislike more?
Is your point that you think Putin's over reach regarding Ukraine and Georgia is acceptable or that you dislike the US having an active role in opposing it?
Which do you dislike more?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that Russia's actions in the Ukraine are understandable and insofar as all they want is east Ukraine up to the Dneiper, yes its acceptable. East Ukraine is largely populated with Russian speaking ethnic Russians, and historically it was Russian territory.
As far as Georgia is concerned, I have doubts about the tactics, but I believe that Russia is not keen to take over Georgia. I think it is trying to warn Georgia off aligning with the west. I think that it is somewhat heavy-handed and anyway - I very much doubt that any western country could do anything if Russia did move into Georgia.
I think I've said before - if we leave Russia alone and stop imagining that it is somehow the USSR revisited, we will have no trouble. What I fear most is being dragged into a macho American confrontation - which America does not have the capacity to win.
As far as Georgia is concerned, I have doubts about the tactics, but I believe that Russia is not keen to take over Georgia. I think it is trying to warn Georgia off aligning with the west. I think that it is somewhat heavy-handed and anyway - I very much doubt that any western country could do anything if Russia did move into Georgia.
I think I've said before - if we leave Russia alone and stop imagining that it is somehow the USSR revisited, we will have no trouble. What I fear most is being dragged into a macho American confrontation - which America does not have the capacity to win.
You're operating theory is based on a lot of uncertain opinion of what Putin's ultimate goal is yet somehow you are certain enough to condemn the US despite it being but one voice in the opposition.
I do believe you're right about the West's actions if Georgia was taken over by Putin. Europe has a long history of appeasement. The question is, where does the level of apathy end, with a NATO country under his dominion?
I do believe you're right about the West's actions if Georgia was taken over by Putin. Europe has a long history of appeasement. The question is, where does the level of apathy end, with a NATO country under his dominion?
Thanks for sharing.
Back to Russia: I'd like to believe that the Dniepr is the limit of Putin's security concern. Won't pretend to know. Regarding the Georgia buffer concept, IIRC that goes back to old imperial Russian policy.
Turkey and Russia cutting some new deals ... I'd be surprised if they don't.
Wooing Turkey away from NATO: how is that in Turkey's interest?
@West Coast:
The question is, where does the level of apathy end, with a NATO country under his dominion?
(I may have misunderstood what you were saying there ... )
Here is a copy of the Budapest Memorandum, it fairly ties the UK/USA into the situation.
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publi...34-35_4108.pdf
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publi...34-35_4108.pdf
Yes LW, you misunderstood, Georgia isn't but there are plenty others nearby that are and are understandably nervous. Funny enough, they seem to welcome the US involvement, those with a geographic comfort zone see it otherwise.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seriously doubt that Putin would be silly enough to take on a NATO member - that would be stupid.
I think he wants his western borders secured so that he can turn east - that is far more concerning for him.
He has real worries about moslem extremists in the south and about Chinese intentions in Siberia. Siberia is where much of Russia's future wealth lies.
What seems to be unrecognised by many people is that the last thing that Russia wants is a big scale shooting war - it has far too much work to do in the east exploiting its resources there. If it does that right, Russia's people will become very prosperous.
Russia has more than enough territory for its people right now. It is at the point that America was in the 1850s - it needs to send its young men to the wild east to make their fortunes there.
Of course Putin portrays himself in a certain macho way - he knows his own people and he plays to that - just as American politicians do. But it is a mistake to follow the media portrayal. Any intelligence operation will tell you that his private life is very different and that it belies the appearance of aggressive behaviour. Yes Putin attends church officially and one can dismiss that. But he also attends privately his own local church without an entourage or press. The man is not what so many people think he is.
(If I could put a picture in I would - but I can't for the life of me see how to get a picture from my desktop into a post here - if anyone can tell me how I would be grateful.)
I think he wants his western borders secured so that he can turn east - that is far more concerning for him.
He has real worries about moslem extremists in the south and about Chinese intentions in Siberia. Siberia is where much of Russia's future wealth lies.
What seems to be unrecognised by many people is that the last thing that Russia wants is a big scale shooting war - it has far too much work to do in the east exploiting its resources there. If it does that right, Russia's people will become very prosperous.
Russia has more than enough territory for its people right now. It is at the point that America was in the 1850s - it needs to send its young men to the wild east to make their fortunes there.
Of course Putin portrays himself in a certain macho way - he knows his own people and he plays to that - just as American politicians do. But it is a mistake to follow the media portrayal. Any intelligence operation will tell you that his private life is very different and that it belies the appearance of aggressive behaviour. Yes Putin attends church officially and one can dismiss that. But he also attends privately his own local church without an entourage or press. The man is not what so many people think he is.
(If I could put a picture in I would - but I can't for the life of me see how to get a picture from my desktop into a post here - if anyone can tell me how I would be grateful.)
RF, you have to open an account with the likes of photobucket.com etc, there your pic acquires a URL which you can then download onto your post, by using the icon that looks like an envelope (but is supposed to represent a photograph). Persist and your patience will be rewarded!
The US and Russia seemed to have a common cause on that score, for a brief while after 9-11. The opportunity to use that as a "something we have in common" and build bridges has been either let go, or wasn't strong enough to overcome whatever else it is that we grate on each other about.
I don't know if Putin is that stupid or not. I assume till proven otherwise that you plan for a worst case scenario. Bluster or not, he has made it known he could take on Poland, Romania and the Baltic states in short order. You cannot discount his words, especially given his road trips into other former Soviet satellites. He has threatened the Swedes. The Finns are nervous. About the only ones with the time and safety in terms of distance to spin this into a US slagging are in old Europe, living under the nuclear umbrella. If you can simply write it off as Vlad banging the drums for effect, well you better be right.
I'd rather be prepared and happy to admit I was wrong, than not to be and say I got it wrong.
Do you not find it curious that those in places such as Poland and others looking across the border at Putin's army are quite happy that the US and others are doing at least something and yet you have the luxury of reletive safety to complain about the guy who didn't invade the Ukraine or Georgia? Who has it right, you or them?
I'd rather be prepared and happy to admit I was wrong, than not to be and say I got it wrong.
Do you not find it curious that those in places such as Poland and others looking across the border at Putin's army are quite happy that the US and others are doing at least something and yet you have the luxury of reletive safety to complain about the guy who didn't invade the Ukraine or Georgia? Who has it right, you or them?
West Coast, I agree in the main with your riposte to Royalflyer. Given his background and his arbitrary way of disposing of those who seek to oppose him or merely stand in his way, I wouldn't trust Putin to see me across the road.
The mystery of the "real" leader is as old as the world. Hitler was supposedly above all the horrors perpetrated by his regime. "If only The Fuhrer knew!", was heard often in Germany. He knew all right, and directed most of it. So it is with Putin. Certainly church attendance can be of no reassurance. It was in his own Catholic church as a choirboy that Hitler discovered the swastika motif that was to be daubed by his brutish regime from the Atlantic Coast to (nearly!) Moscow.
Putin has an agenda, and only he really knows what it includes, but it will be bad news for us all unless we head it off at the pass.
What I do cavil at though is your swipe at "Old Europe", by which I guess you mean Western Europe. You rightly complain of RF's sweeping condemnation of "Americans" and respond in similar vein against "Old Europeans". If you include the UK in that condemnation I am doubly offended, because I for one do not consider myself European, let alone an old one! Famously approximately 3.9M voters (13% of the votes) seemed to share my Eurosceptic views, by voting UKIP in the UK General Election (not that it got us anywhere). Europe is not a country but a con-trick in its guise as the EU. Rail against that and you will have my blessing. Depend upon it (as your government appears to) and you will end up wishing that you had not.
The mystery of the "real" leader is as old as the world. Hitler was supposedly above all the horrors perpetrated by his regime. "If only The Fuhrer knew!", was heard often in Germany. He knew all right, and directed most of it. So it is with Putin. Certainly church attendance can be of no reassurance. It was in his own Catholic church as a choirboy that Hitler discovered the swastika motif that was to be daubed by his brutish regime from the Atlantic Coast to (nearly!) Moscow.
Putin has an agenda, and only he really knows what it includes, but it will be bad news for us all unless we head it off at the pass.
What I do cavil at though is your swipe at "Old Europe", by which I guess you mean Western Europe. You rightly complain of RF's sweeping condemnation of "Americans" and respond in similar vein against "Old Europeans". If you include the UK in that condemnation I am doubly offended, because I for one do not consider myself European, let alone an old one! Famously approximately 3.9M voters (13% of the votes) seemed to share my Eurosceptic views, by voting UKIP in the UK General Election (not that it got us anywhere). Europe is not a country but a con-trick in its guise as the EU. Rail against that and you will have my blessing. Depend upon it (as your government appears to) and you will end up wishing that you had not.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,047
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
I always thought Georgia was his toe dipping time, and we failed miserably in our response, Perhaps if the response had been more robust, putting NATO troops on the ground at the same time as returning their peace keeping troops and confronting Putin, things might well have been different now, I do feel sorry for them and feel the west who encouraged them let them down big time.
It would have shown Putin that invading his neighbours was a no no and would have hopefully have put paid to his future plans, having allowed him to get away with Georgia he was confident that even though accords had been signed to protect the Ukraine, the west would do squat, there was a lot of rhetoric and talk of ramping up sanctions, but what it needed in those early days was Nato troops on the ground in the Ukraine...
Just my view...
It would have shown Putin that invading his neighbours was a no no and would have hopefully have put paid to his future plans, having allowed him to get away with Georgia he was confident that even though accords had been signed to protect the Ukraine, the west would do squat, there was a lot of rhetoric and talk of ramping up sanctions, but what it needed in those early days was Nato troops on the ground in the Ukraine...
Just my view...
Not that dissimilar to the treaty we had with Ukraine, but Russia went in anyway and the other signatories did not intervene militarily.
So do we have an agreed list of treaties that we really mean and those that are just optional? If so, is this list shared with Russia so there is no chance of a misunderstanding?
Perhaps the idea would be to station peacekeeping troops under the guise of NATO in eastern Ukraine.
This would be in the hope that it would not be in Russia's best interest to aggregate the situation and kill western peacekeepers.
I would't like to be those guinea pigs though!!
If something were to happen, what would be the next step? We are war weary after Iraq, Afghanistan and now ISIL.
This would be in the hope that it would not be in Russia's best interest to aggregate the situation and kill western peacekeepers.
I would't like to be those guinea pigs though!!
If something were to happen, what would be the next step? We are war weary after Iraq, Afghanistan and now ISIL.
Well nor I, Toadstool! Thanks to Air Pig we can see the "solemn and binding" undertaking that Russia, USA, and UK made with the Ukraine. We (ie the signatories) will not invade, blockade, or lay sanctions on Ukraine providing it keeps to the terms laid down. If there is any infringement of this agreement it is to be referred by the signatories to the UN Security Council. Can anyone spot the slight flaw (from Ukraine's p.o.v.) with this arrangement?
They were sold a pup, I'm afraid, and unless we (NATO, "the West", the USA, the EU?) enter into a real treaty with them, they are on their own and probably know that already.
Certain other Eastern European countries are more fortunate, sheltering under the protection of NATO membership. That is where push will come to shove. That is when the British ambassador will no doubt deliver that final note, with war following with the mid-day pips, if indeed Putin turns out to be "that stupid".
They were sold a pup, I'm afraid, and unless we (NATO, "the West", the USA, the EU?) enter into a real treaty with them, they are on their own and probably know that already.
Certain other Eastern European countries are more fortunate, sheltering under the protection of NATO membership. That is where push will come to shove. That is when the British ambassador will no doubt deliver that final note, with war following with the mid-day pips, if indeed Putin turns out to be "that stupid".
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that Putin will let the eastern Ukrainians (with lots of relatively indirect help) do the heavy lifting to get away from the Ukraine. Certainly he will put lots of special forces in and anti-aircraft systems. 90% of Ukraine's heavy industry, metal production is east of the Dnieper - that's what he wants back because it was largely Russian-developed. It was a fair percentage of Russia's industrial base. THat's why I say that once he gets to the natural border of the Dnieper, he will stop because there's no point in going further.
If Georgia tones down its squeals to the west, I suspect that he will stop where he is there.
Wooing Turkey away from NATO may be considered as a good idea by some of the elements coming to the fore in Turkey. Turkey is facing the likelihood of much domestic turmoil unless the government changes its ways. Anti-western elements, quiet for so long are now coming out and indeed inside the government. NATO needs Turkey more than Turkey needs NATO - it took us an effort to get a base there and Turkey has never been entirely in favour.
History definitely counts. ALL of this area has long history and long memories. I think that American planners simply ignore/don't understand that. Turkey and Russia actually have more in common than you might think, and Russia understands the Turks better that the US does. I said that their efforts in Turkey may have nothing to do with defence, and I think I am right. There are lots of things about Russia (and Turkey for that matter) that westerners simply do not understand and discount.
Western secularists may laugh at my next statements as much as they like. They may counter with their secularist views, but they would be wrong to do so:
The Orthodox Church in Russia was for centuries the deeply ingrained core of Russia - more than anything else. That Church survived 80 years of communist rule - and bounced back incredibly from 3,000 parishes in 1989 to 30,675 parishes today.
You doubt that Putin could be KGB and a Christian? But he is, we even know who his private confessor is, we know his local parish and we know his private attendance there and his part in mending ecclesiastical disputes. Consider Dmitry Medvedev, he converted to Orthodox Christianity while a student in communist Russia - hardly a good career move, but it does indicate genuineness.
Do not underestimate the ingrainedness of Orthodoxy in Russians - its there and the west would be stupid indeed to discount it. It would also be stupid to try to liken Putin and Medvedev to Hitler or anyone else. Unless you understand his real motivation, you will miscalculate. He is definitely not a "USSR Expansionist" there will be no new "Cold War" what Putin is - is a deeply religious, passionate nationalist who wants his country behind secure borders in the west and in the east. His methods may not suit western secularists or effete politicians, but you would do well to understand that his passion is Russian-ness in Russia. It is most definitely not world or European domination.
If Georgia tones down its squeals to the west, I suspect that he will stop where he is there.
Wooing Turkey away from NATO may be considered as a good idea by some of the elements coming to the fore in Turkey. Turkey is facing the likelihood of much domestic turmoil unless the government changes its ways. Anti-western elements, quiet for so long are now coming out and indeed inside the government. NATO needs Turkey more than Turkey needs NATO - it took us an effort to get a base there and Turkey has never been entirely in favour.
History definitely counts. ALL of this area has long history and long memories. I think that American planners simply ignore/don't understand that. Turkey and Russia actually have more in common than you might think, and Russia understands the Turks better that the US does. I said that their efforts in Turkey may have nothing to do with defence, and I think I am right. There are lots of things about Russia (and Turkey for that matter) that westerners simply do not understand and discount.
Western secularists may laugh at my next statements as much as they like. They may counter with their secularist views, but they would be wrong to do so:
The Orthodox Church in Russia was for centuries the deeply ingrained core of Russia - more than anything else. That Church survived 80 years of communist rule - and bounced back incredibly from 3,000 parishes in 1989 to 30,675 parishes today.
You doubt that Putin could be KGB and a Christian? But he is, we even know who his private confessor is, we know his local parish and we know his private attendance there and his part in mending ecclesiastical disputes. Consider Dmitry Medvedev, he converted to Orthodox Christianity while a student in communist Russia - hardly a good career move, but it does indicate genuineness.
Do not underestimate the ingrainedness of Orthodoxy in Russians - its there and the west would be stupid indeed to discount it. It would also be stupid to try to liken Putin and Medvedev to Hitler or anyone else. Unless you understand his real motivation, you will miscalculate. He is definitely not a "USSR Expansionist" there will be no new "Cold War" what Putin is - is a deeply religious, passionate nationalist who wants his country behind secure borders in the west and in the east. His methods may not suit western secularists or effete politicians, but you would do well to understand that his passion is Russian-ness in Russia. It is most definitely not world or European domination.