Thread: How dangerous is Vladimir Putin?

Originally Posted by Looper

In the big picture Russia is economically small enough that economic exclusion is going to hurt them more than it hurts us. Sanctions are better than war. War is so uncivilised.

It seems the only region to be hurt, substantially, is the EU.



Sanctions or Sieges have been part of warfare for centuries.

Originally Posted by Looper

Sanctions are not sieges. Sanctions are a ciivilised way of making the dunce nation go and stand in the corner facing the wall. Until relatively recently in history civilised nations would go to war with other civilised nations at the drop of a hat. We don't do that anymore. Now we go abroad to have wars in 3rd world countries.

Siege

"military action

A prolonged military assault or a blockade of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by force or attrition."

siege - Wiktionary

Attrition
attrition (countable and uncountable, plural attritions)

1. wearing or grinding down by friction
2. the gradual reduction in a tangible or intangible resource due to causes that are passive and do not involve productive use of the resource.

The "west" is, and has been for some time, trying to influence Russia's and anybody who "is not with us" actions by financial warfare (WWIII). The affect of these sanctions or financial siege has been to reduce people's movements and restrict Russia's ability to buy and sell it's products. Unfortunately they have not worked. The response by Russia to the EU and the US on placing this financial siege has boomeranged and now the EU is squealing like a stuck pig. The US who buys and sells a very limited amount to Russia has not be adversely affected. Hence the US is all for them. GDP in Russia has increased, GDP in the EU and US has decreased, who is winning this war?



In some ways the siege has made Russia look to alternatives. They have approached other countries who do not agree with these illegal sieges/sanctions. Many countries have accepted Russia requests and products previously purchased by Russia from the EU and US have been or can be resourced. They agree that they are illegal under the World Trade agreements. They have not been agreed by the UNSC, which is the only body which can authorise these types of measures. Alternative supplies, alternative methods of payments and alternative currency usage has in fact weakened the prime reason for these ongoing global interferences, the petro$.



You may wish to ask the Iraqi's if they agreed to the killing of hundreds of thousands of their citizens due to UN imposed "sanctions".


The crusader coalition only goes war, as you say, with "third world countries" that only have:
1. an angry population
2. sticks of dynamite
3. Kalashnikovs



But they, the third world countries, still kick them out with their tails between their legs. Russia of course has the means to defend it's country, it has the means to cause global mayhem. That is why you will not see any use of NATO military forces in the Ukraine. Just mercenary forces paid from the crusader coalition illegal slush funds or other third world countries which have, up to now, relied on NATO's "promise" to defend them. As we have seen, only last week in Libya, even those are taking things into their own hands

Putin is dangerous, because he used force to obtain what could have been achieved peacefully. No one in the west would have said much had the Crimean crisis been approached diplomatically. Historically, the Crimea was a part of the Russian sphere, albeit initially gained by force. There was minimal sympathy for the right wing factions of the Ukraine. However, the Russian support of an obscenely corrupt puppet government was too much. Ukraine was about to achieve Belarus status fast.

The continued reliance upon a Ukrainian coup as justification has now been rendered moot as the Ukraine will be having its general election shortly. Unlike the previous general election that was subject to criticism, this one will be run under international supervision, by the same groups whom Russia has previously supported.
It's 2014 and the Russian tactics of invading countries when it disagrees with those countries' internal political choices as it did with Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia 40-50 years ago are no longer acceptable. Putin is making the same mistake Russia did in Serbia. It's support of the Serbians facilitated the genocide in Bosnia and prevented a peaceful settlement for many years. The west had historically been sympathetic to Serbia, as it was Serbia who had fought the Germans, while the Croatians and much of the Bosnian population had been allied with the Nazis. Instead, the Russian pigheadedness cost the Serbians dearly. Putin missed an opportunity to bring Russia closer to Europe and to take on a true leadership role for Europe. Instead, he succumbed to the Russian inferiority complex and saw the west as an enemy.
Putin has a lot of things right, particularly when it comes to handling terrorists. He has nearly wiped out the Chechnyan Islamic jihadists, and ISIS hasn't gone near any Russian economic interest yet. They know what will happen if they do. They are afraid of him and Russia.

Putin did not invade Crimea. The fact he did the right thing by allowing Crimea to recombine with Russia (on the basis of Referendum) you can call me an 'apologist' for if you like, but it does not change the fact that neither he or the Russian armed forces invaded Crimea.

The Crimean peninsula houses the Russian Black sea fleet (Sevastopol) and has done so since 1783, a couple of air force bases and at least one Army base. These troops were there before the Ukrainian coup, during the secession crisis, and of course are still there now. I rather doubt Ukraine will be rash enough to invade Crimea.

The contrast to their behaviour in eastern Ukraine could not be starker. All of two people have been killed in Crimea, to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps we should nominate Vladimir for the Nobel peace prize? There have certainly been less deserving winners.

This is a link to the OSCE web site. They were the referee for the recent historic ceasefire meeting and agreement.

Protocol on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group, signed in Minsk, 5 September 2014 | OSCE

The original is in Russian.

This is allegedly a translation into English:

PROTOCOL

on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group
with respect to the joint steps aimed at
the implementation of the Peace Plan
of the President of Ukraine, P. Poroshenko,
and the initiatives of the President of Russia, V. Putin

Upon consideration and discussion of the proposals put forward by the participants of the consultations in Minsk on September 1, 2014, the Trilateral Contact Group, consisting of the representatives of Ukraine, the Russian Federation and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe [OSCE], reached an understanding with respect to the need to implement the following steps:

1. Ensure the immediate bilateral cessation of the use of weapons.
2. Ensure monitoring and verification by the OSCE of the regime of non-use of weapons.
3. Implement decentralization of power, including by means of enacting the Law of Ukraine “With respect to the temporary status of local self-government in certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions” (Law on Special Status).
4. Ensure permanent monitoring on the Ukrainian-Russian state border and verification by the OSCE, together with the creation of a security area in the border regions of Ukraine and the Russian Federation.
5. Immediately release all hostages and unlawfully detained persons.
6. Enact a law prohibiting the prosecution and punishment of persons in connection with the events that took place in certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions of Ukraine.
7. Conduct an inclusive national dialogue.
8. Adopt measures aimed at improving the humanitarian situation in Donbass.
9. Ensure the holding of early local elections in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “With respect to the temporary status of local self-government in certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions” (Law on Special Status).
10. Remove unlawful military formations, military hardware, as well as militants and mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine.
11. Adopt a program for the economic revival of Donbass and the recovery of economic activity in the region.
12. Provide personal security guarantees for the participants of the consultations.

Participants of the Trilateral Contact Group:

Ambassador Heidi Talyavini (signed)
Second President of Ukraine, L.D. Kuchma (signed)
Ambassador of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, M.Y. Zurabov (signed)
A.V. Zakharchenko (signed)
I.V. Plotnitskiy (signed)

Not very clear and too many weasel phrases. I have seen better UNSC resolutions which have been twisted. A poor show by all, especially the separatists and the Russians. Maybe they need a constitutional lawyer.

NATO countries to send weapons was the Reuters headline.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...ustrialsSector

UPDATE 2-Four NATO allies deny Ukraine statement on providing arms

"(Reuters) - A senior aide to Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko said on Sunday that Kiev had agreed at the NATO summit in Wales on the provision of weapons and military advisers from five NATO member states, but four of the five swiftly denied any such deal had been reached.

NATO officials have previously said the alliance will not send arms to non-member Ukraine, but have also said individual allies may do so if they wish. A NATO official contacted by Reuters on Sunday on the Lytsenko comment reiterated this policy.

"At the NATO summit agreements were reached on the provision of military advisers and supplies of modern armaments from the United States, France, Italy, Poland and Norway," Poroshenko aide Yuri Lytsenko said on his Facebook page."

But there has been some disagreement:

"In France, an aide at the Elysee palace declined to comment."

"This news is incorrect. Italy, along with other EU and NATO countries, is preparing a package of non-lethal military aid such as bullet-proof vests and helmets for Ukraine," an Italian defence ministry official told Reuters.

Norwegian Defence Ministry spokesman Lars Gjemble, speaking to the NTB news agency, said, "We're participating with staff officers in two military exercises in Ukraine, but it's not correct that we're delivering weapons to Ukraine."

A Polish defence ministry spokesman, Lieutenant Colonel Jacek Sonta, said by email, "There (was) no agreement concerning supply of modern arms from Poland to Ukraine at the NATO summit."

"NATO officials have said the alliance will not send weapons to Ukraine, which is not a member state, but they have also said individual allies may choose to do so."

Obama's promises, given at the NATO conference, are falling apart after 3 days. You wonder why countries are disbelieving anything that emanates from his mouth.