He really has been though. Russia had to reinvent itself in the 1990s. There was no recipe for how to do it. Putin did a great job. — frank

The question is, though, is he popular (approval rating) and has he broken any laws internationally?

The question is, though, is he popular (approval rating — FreeEmotion

He can't lose an election. They're rigged.

and has he broken any laws internationally? — FreeEmotion

A political realist would say there aren't any international laws. I lean in that direction.

Day 5 ...

The rat cornered in the Kremlin with an economy collapsing will crater Kviv soon (and maybe damage one or more of Ukraine's active nuclear power plants until there's a meltdown) and then pullback his forces into a semi-permanent cordon at Ukraine's borders with Russia (& Belarus) in order to create an ungovernable wasteland buffer zone and overwelming refugee catastrophe for Europe. Russia (with or without Putin) will then become China's gas station and, thereby, its high-tech nuclear armed client-state. (And Taiwan will remain sovereign for at least another decade or two.) Just my 2 rubles. :mask:

It was the Mongols last time. China this go around? Could be. :up:

I'm in no position to assess this but it is well worth being skeptical about the triumphalism over just how seemingly bad the war is going for Russia right now:

Full thread is worth a gander.

The heavy airplanes fly above relentlessly, one about every 10 to 15 minutes, day and night.



What American president would pass up the opportunity to destroy the country they've been hyping themselves up to hate for 80 years (and more, actually).
This will guarantee Biden a reelection, the Democrats will gain more pover, and the American economy will get a boost, not to mention the American self-image.
Boris Johnson, too, stands to profit from this, with his covid indiscretions firmly forgotten, he's guaranteed a reelection.

This is another hint at his mental problems. There's no contingency plan for retreat, it almost seems to be "do or die". — Christoffer

The same thing the West planned to do anyway.

It's strange how so many people think that this is somehow a "one-man show", as if a president is somehow so powerful that he can command everything and everyone under him.

On the one hand, you claim to be looking for solutions, on the other you focus on attributing blame. Let's suppose, for arguments sake, this is 100% Putin's fault. Now we are precisely zero steps closer to finding a way to deescalate the situation. — Baden

What could we as observers do?

It's not like we can actually reach the decision makers and share our ideas with them. So our efforts are doomed from the onset.


The Ukraine could have a nice life as a neutral state and enjoy the benefits from being on good terms with both sides. Like Switzerland. But no. They don't want to profit from their strategic geopolitical position. They don't want to care who one of their neighbors is. They want to do their own thing. They want to be free to threaten their neighbor.
And the Americans don't want to pass up this opportunity either.
And after two years of covid, people are stressed out and need to relieve themselves somehow.

So it's not clear how realistic it is to even consider that the situation could be deescalated.

The way it looks to someone from the outside is, this one country is willing to bring the whole world down for some piece of land few people care about? And you just won't get enough people caring about the history, even if it helps elucidate why this is happening. — Manuel

Well, this really only shows that people aren't interested in the facts, not just in history. NATO control of the Black Sea, for example, would be an existing threat to Russian security, not some forgotten event in the past.

Moreover, we are being constantly reminded of history, with never-ending lectures on WW2, the Holocaust, Black History, slavery, etc., etc. The reality is that people are simply listening to what they're being told by the mass media and react exactly as they've been conditioned to do.

As for "one country being willing to bring the whole world down", I think the situation is being blown out of proportion by the West who has the better propaganda machine and the international financial institutions to pull the economic strings in any direction it pleases. In other words, money rules the world.

But I agree that this could have been avoided if NATO (and the EU) had not been constantly expanding. Unfortunately, they have to expand because world domination is their ultimate objective. So, IMO Latin Americans and Indians should care, after all ... :smile:

Cheers, this guy has some good info.

I'll try to make it clear. There are some facts about which it seems we agree... — Isaac

Thanks for your answer, you have made your point clear. OK, It's an interesting topic, I agree, but I think one main question to you is the following: What is the link to the present situation in Ukraine?

But anyway, let's go to your main points:

2. Some of these were Neo-Nazis and far-right activists unhappy with the governments recent favouring of Russian over US aid. — Isaac

4. The US supported the far right factions. There's a suspicion, grounded on some evidence, that they lent more than just 'support'. — Isaac

First thing to notice: when there is a revolution or political turmoil, the radicals and normally the so-called "fringe" are active and play a very major part in the events. Yet the fact is that the majority of people actually aren't radicals and extremists, hence in ordinary elections they don't do so well. Hence only in severe crisis can extremists take power, which can happen in revolutions (like the Russian Revolution).

To take examples:

What was the opposition in East Germany when the Berlin Wall came down? Hippies and various artists called the "Neues Forum". Who did the East Germans vote for in the first elections of unified Germany? West German parties, not the Neues Forum.

The Svoboda-party had enjoyed the largest support during the Yanukovich era prior to 2014:

As part of the wave of protests against Yanukovych government, the ultra right-wing party, “Svoboda,” won the parliamentary elections in 2012 with 10.5% support. This is tantamount to a “landslide” result, considering the results of the parliamentary elections in 2006 and 2007, of which they won a modest 0.36% and 0.76% of the votes, respectively.

And why is this? Yuriyv Shveda writes the following:

"Svoboda” became the first radical nationalist party to enter the Ukrainian Parliament. However, the success of Svoboda does not signify popular support for the radical Ukrainian nationalist ideology. The support for Svoboda was because of tactical reasons rather than ideological. First, as a protest against the anti-Ukrainian policy of Yanukovych, the voters had chosen the most defiant nationalist party in Ukraine. Second, in essence, Svoboda supporters ensured the fiercest opposition against the government. This was necessary as the national-democratic forces had discredited themselves – many of the deputies after the victory of Yanukovych in the 2010 presidential election turned traitor and joined the government coalition. Given the situation, Svoboda, with a clear position and rigid discipline, would keep its deputies in the opposition coalition, thereby firmly and vigorously opposing the government.

So note here that this happened in 2012. Now, the real question (I don't know) is just how active in this period the US was with Svoboda. Let's first think why Svoboda (and the Right Sector) were so important here.

The Maidan revolution can be put into three parts: 1) The Student Euromaidan, 2) The Maidan Camp and finally 3) The Maidan Sich (Struggle). At the shortest,the Student Euromaidan was dispersed in November 31 and then protest became more of ousting Yanukovich government. And in the "Maidan Sich" phase, the Svoboda and the Right Sector took prominance, because it was a huge violent riot. And skinheads and riots mix together quite well.

The role of Svoboda is explained by Volodymyr Ishchenko in the following way:

Svoboda had indeed played an indispensable role in Maidan mobilization and coordination processes and this was not an accident. The party possessed a unique combination of resources among Maidan participants: ideologically committed activists, resources of a parliamentary party, and dominant positions in the local authorities in Western regions. First, unlike other major opposition parties in Ukraine (hardly more than electoral machines) Svoboda possessed thousands ideological activists organized in a nation-wide party cells network. Even if Svoboda activists were a minority among all Maidan supporters, there were still more of them than of any other single opposition party or NGO coalition. They were regularly and intensively participating in activities of Kiev Maidan camp, particularly, helping to maintain them in the periods of downturn mobilization (like in the end of December 2013 – the first half of January 2014).

So obviously the extreme-right had played a major role in the riots. And it had gotten a major victory in the 2012 elections. Now when the regime collapsed, the question likely was what to do with the extreme right that just had played such a role in the events. One idea would be to give them something and hope they loose in the next elections. That just is something that would politically be one option. This could come from considerations of Ukrainian internal politics, not from the US wanting it to happen.

So now to the real question: Was the US be OK with Svoboda because a) they liked the party and had helped it to be what it was, or b) they didn't care about it's roots and ideology, but went with it because it was such an important part of the Maidan and in the Ukrainian opposition? If you say option a), then I guess you have to explain why and when this collaboration started, because I don't know that. Especially when the Interim government was formed after Yanukovich had fled the country. Let's just remember that John McCain (R) and Chris Murphy (D) went to Ukraine (alongside Victoria Nuland) in December 2013, when already the Maidan was well underway.

I think a real question, which is very conspirational, are the shootings at the Maidan. So, where the right-wing extremists also taking shots at their fellow protestors? Was the US behind that? The last thing is a bit of a stretch, as the people in charge (Nuland, Pyatt, etc) were already so well tracked by the Russian intelligence that their phonecalls were bugged (and likely they didn't care so much before the tapes surfaced).

But even if this is an interesting historical discussion, does this really have something to do with the present war?

Unfortunately, they have to expand because world domination is their ultimate objective — Apollodorus

>Instructions for use: Attach said meaningless cliche to enemy of choice, so serious people can ignore you.

I'm not so confident this nuclear threat is a bluff. It better be, but, things look complex no matter what source you look at.

Historical context can help people understand the why, but that in itself is not a justification.

I think an essential step toward a real and lasting solution would be to understand that the root cause of the problem is not Russian aggression but Western imperialism.

Russia was fighting the Mongols (Tatars) and the Turks who had invaded the region from Central Asia (see Russo-Turkish a.k.a. Russo-Ottoman Wars 1568-1918).

Russia was winning and wanted to rebuild the Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire centered on Constantinople to keep the Turks out of the region (see the Greek Plan).

Unfortunately, Britain and France wanted to contain Russia and they sided with the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire in the Crimean War (1853-1856).

Russia lost the war and Britain has aimed to contain Russia ever since.

It’s a well-known fact that Britain had a “balance-of-power” policy that aimed to prevent any rival power from dominating the European continent, as well as suppress all colonial rivals outside Europe.

This is why Britain sided with Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 and together with America it backed the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and February 1917.

In addition to Russia, Britain also aimed to contain Germany which it saw as a colonial rival in Africa and the Pacific.

In 1898 Britain entered into a naval arms race with Germany and started a propaganda campaign claiming that a German invasion of Britain was imminent.

Britain also formed an alliance with Japan (Anglo-Japanese Alliance 1902) that enabled it to move its fleet from the Pacific to European waters, and with France and Russia (Triple Entente 1905-1907).

Russia, which had Europe’s largest army, was expected to crush Germany from the east, with France attacking from the west, while Britain would go in with a small expeditionary force.

In 1914 after Russian-German hostilities had started, Britain declared war on Germany for allegedly “violating Belgian neutrality”, and America was persuaded to join Britain in 1917. In November 1917 Lenin and Trotsky staged their Bolshevik Revolution and later signed a peace treaty with Germany.

As explained already, Britain and America backed the earlier Russian Revolution of February 1917 that led to Ukraine declaring “independence” from Russia and is the root cause of the current Ukraine conflict.

It goes without saying that foreign powers were involved from the start. As Ukraine was under German occupation, Germany naturally backed Ukrainian independence from Russia. In fact, Russia was forced to cede Ukraine to Germany in the Brest-Litovsk Treaty (along with Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) and the Ukrainian State of 1918 was a client state of the German Empire with a government installed by the German military authorities.

Once America had intervened and Germany had been defeated, Britain and France planned to establish protectorates in South Russia from Ukraine to the Caucasus. The Franco-British Agreement stated:

The zones of influence assigned to each government shall be as follows: The English zone: The Cossack territories, the territory of the Caucasus, Armenia, Georgia, Kurdistan. The French zone: Bessarabia, the Ukraine, the Crimea … ‘

France briefly intervened in Ukraine in 1918-1919. However, as Churchill explains, though the French seized Kiev, the project was terminated when French troops mutinied and Russia took back control. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic became part of the USSR which it remained until 1991.

W. Churchill, The World Crisis: The Aftermath, p. 166

Moreover, the USSR was formally recognized by Britain, France, and America. Any Western interest in Ukraine had been purely part of the West’s wider agenda in Russia which revolved on control of natural resources like coal, iron, gold, petroleum, etc. And after more than a century of oblivion, they now suddenly remember Ukraine! :grin:

In any case, it is clear what the truth about “Ukrainian independence” is and whose interests it served, but some people just prefer pro-Western propaganda to facts ….

Yeah, we know that. But I think the question remains of where unlimited expansion logically leads to ....

Historical context can help people understand the why, but that in itself is not a justification. — Manuel

Sure. Justification is a separate issue. And as Iraq shows, the West is not immune to acting on dodgy "justifications". So, I think a measure of objectivity wouldn't be entirely bad.

There is no doubt that a state's actions can be deliberately blown out of proportion by its enemies. Are we seriously expected to believe that Russia is about to take over Europe and America just because it has annexed bits of Ukraine that used to be Russian anyway?

Of course not. The problem is not giving room for diplomacy as these sanctions begin to cripple Russia.

It's now an issue of how quickly things play out.

It's now an issue of how quickly things play out. — Manuel

I think mass hysteria has become something of a growing trend since the pandemic. People should just relax and not make things worse than they already are.

But to see that international finance has more power than a country with a huge nuclear arsenal, does raise some interesting questions ... :smile:

Boris Johnson, too, stands to profit from this, with his covid indiscretions firmly forgotten, he's guaranteed a reelection. — baker

Things can happen, but listening to Johnson speak in the Parliament and then listening to the reply of the Labor opposition leader Keir Starmer to him, being in unison and giving solid support was very telling of the present attitudes. It seemed to surprise and truly impress Boris and shows indeed that can be possible. The British are united. At least now.

And I think that others here will agree, those who stand to profit is also the Western defense industry (as will the Russian arms industry). Thanks all to Putin! Rarely if ever a country like Germany doubles it's defence budget and EU will send arms to Ukraine. Germany is sending 500 Stingers and 1000 anti-tank weapons. Poland is sending anti-aircraft guns and mortars. Estonia is finally permitted to send the field howitzers it wanted to send to Ukraine along with US the Javelins.

The Netherlands is sending arms:

The Dutch government will supply 50 Panzerfaust-3 anti-tank weapons and 400 rockets, the ministry said in a letter to parliament.

Even Sweden will send arms:

The decision to send 135,000 field rations, 5,000 helmets, 5,000 pieces of body armour and 5,000 single use anti-tank launchers is the first time Sweden has sent weapons to a country in armed conflict since the Soviet Union invaded Finland in 1939, Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson tells reporters.

Of course Sweden has sold weapons to countries, but in just sending them to another country Andersson speaks the historical truth.

And few hours ago, so has my country too:

On the proposal of the Government, the President of the Republic decided today that Finland will deliver 2,500 assault rifles, 150,000 cartridges for the attack rifles, 1,500 single-shot anti-tank weapons and 70,000 combat ration packages to Ukraine as material aid.

Such arms support from so many countries has hardly happened for a long time if ever. Putin surely is unifying the West.

I think an essential step toward a real and lasting solution would be to understand that the root cause of the problem is not Russian aggression but Western imperialism. — Apollodorus

Our thread troll, informing us of the official Russian view :smile:

Instructions for use: Attach said meaningless cliche to enemy of choice — Baden

Exactly what the West is doing.

I think an essential step toward a real and lasting solution would be to understand that the root cause of the problem is not Russian aggression but Western imperialism. — Apollodorus

I agree. But it seems the West will rather destroy Russia than admit to this.

Our thread troll, informing us of the official Russian view — ssu

The West has indeed shown a remarkable commitment to never looking at itself.

So you set up hardcore weapons along the border with your neighbor, the weapons directed at your neighbor, but you insist that your neighbor is irrational for thinking that you have the intention of using those weapons?

You have some really interesting ideas about good neighborly relations.

Napoleon and Hitler have been the real threats to Russia from the West. Neither of them is around, even if one is buried in a Mausoleum.

The real problem is that Russia has always had this border issue: there aren't any obvious geographical borders, but flatland from Europe to Asia. And hence they've always been insisting on having more territory for defense and see springboards everywhere where they are threatened. And of course, the threat of the enemy serve authoritarian regimes well.

The Ukraine could have a nice life as a neutral state and enjoy the benefits from being on good terms with both sides. Like Switzerland. But no. They don't want to profit from their strategic geopolitical position. They don't want to care who one of their neighbors is. They want to do their own thing. They want to be free to threaten their neighbor.
And the Americans don't want to pass up this opportunity either.
And after two years of covid, people are stressed out and need to relieve themselves somehow.

So it's not clear how realistic it is to even consider that the situation could be deescalated. — baker

I agree. Ukraine could have had it all, but they have been open to overt and covert foreign interference, which has upset the internal balance. I am not also sure about the Ukranian government, both Russian and the NATO powers claim that there is widespread corruption, maybe the one thing they agree on.

Russia is going to come out of this worse for wear, Ukraine has a window of opportunity as a neutral state, but it needs the correct leadership, not sure their young president Zelensky can handle it. He was naive enough to expect NATO to help prevent the invasion.

Is Ukraine being 'used'? Anyone can say anything, but I personally feel the statement by Medvedev his highly plausible.

Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman, Dmitry Medvedev claimed that Ukraine is being used as a "geopolitical pressure tool" against Russia and China as it has turned into a "toy" in the hands of the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Medvedev also anticipated that Volodymyr Zelensky's acts as President of Ukraine would most likely result in the country's destruction. "I am not disappointed by Zelensky in any way. I believe he is doing exactly what a person with his level of training and professional qualification for the position of President of Ukraine should be doing. And, sadly for him, this will almost certainly lead to Ukraine's destruction," Medvedev remarked, as per Sputnik. — Sputnik - Jan 22, 2022

But to see that international finance has more power than a country with a huge nuclear arsenal, does raise some interesting questions ... — Apollodorus

Financial measures work for sure, and are relatively benign and reversible, unlike a nuclear option.

For those like myself who want to respect all nations and all leaders of those nations, including Vladimir Putin, any such regard will crumble to nothing if a nuclear first strike is launched. We all know what Putin's enemies think, but for those who broadly support Russia, China know that it will be impossible to have any connections - trade, tourism, and so on - for me at least - with peoples of a country that launched a nuclear first strike. This is why China has a no first strike policy. I think people underestimate the moral revulsion among friends and enemies alike if such a thing happens. We all know what happened with Covid 19.

Putin can always call it off, after weighing the concessions he can gain versus the cost of continuing.
What troubles me is that is simply not between two nations, there are substantial undercurrents it seems that upset the ability of Russia and Ukraine to come to terms with each other: you don't negotiate with a 'toy' but with its owner, an exaggeration to be sure, but there it is.

Our thread troll — ssu

Talking about yourself again ... :rofl:

The real problem is that Russia has always had this border issue: there aren't any obvious geographical borders, but flatland from Europe to Asia. And hence they've always been insisting on having more territory for defense — ssu

Yeah, right. England has very obvious geographical borders and still they've always been insisting on having more and more colonies: India, America, Australia, Africa, and still not enough... :lol:

Survival? By taking Ukraine? In what way is that survival? Please explain what the actual threat is? All those nations, including Ukraine, want is to be their own nation. Putin and Russia is huge, no one has any interest in obliterating Russia, even many Russians themselves don't want any of this. So if it's not survival, what is it then? I really want some strong argument for the survival angle, like, actual threats to Russia's existence. And how they cannot exist in the normal nuclear superpower as it is right now. — Christoffer

What would you do if you were put in (pun intended) as President of Russia? Would you be any different? Since the rise of Nazi Germany's illegal arms build up to the point where they had military superiority the name of the game is to prevent your adversary from gaining a military advantage even before any war starts. That's deterrent. Military inequality is the goal.

The constant rhetoric from the United States in particularly is aimed at diminishing Russia. Lets see a search for Russia on CNN, for example. Russia is still the enemy. Those nuclear missiles are not aimed at sunny Spain, for example.

CNN —. Now that Russian President Vladimir Putin has embarked on his crusade to eradicate a neighboring democracy and subdue its proud and fearless people, the goal of the rest of the democratic ...

No one wins if Russia's economy falls apart.
Its trading partners -- countries and businesses -- are watching with concern as Russia scrambles to tackle a deepening economic crisis, sparked by plunging oil prices and punishing international sanctions.

The ruble has been in free fall and is already hurting earnings at global companies with operations in Russia.

CNN -2014 — CNN

I hate to be that guy, but with Russia's history, both past and present, why wouldn't NATO be set up at its borders to defend against exactly what is happening now? And why is an alliance of republics such anathema to Russia?

Couldn't Putin have just, simply, not invaded Ukraine and just have tried to make his country better? Or was someone going to invade Russia, which, after Iraq and Afghanistan...

At the very least I disagree there's an innocent side in this scenario. I mean, Putin is KGB for cripes sakes.

I think people underestimate the moral revulsion among friends and enemies alike if such a thing happens. — FreeEmotion

Well, America did it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it did it no harm. So, judging from history, that shouldn't be a big deterrent.

The only lesson to draw from it is that in addition to your nuclear arsenal you also need international finance and the global media on your side.

I don't know about Russia, but China sure is watching and learning a few lessons to put into practice when the time is right ....