Thread: How dangerous is Vladimir Putin?

Originally Posted by Looper

The trajectory of world politics and rules of engagement has been consistently in the direction of violence reduction for decades and centuries.

We take baby steps but slowly over time those steps add up and the statistical measure of violence and war goes down.

Progress is cemented by putting in place frameworks of engagement which reduce violence and war.

Any country that is accepted into the elite groups like the G20 are tacitly agreeing to abide by those frameworks.

Russia's illegal 19th century style land grab is not just selfish. It is slap in the face to the progress in violence reduction that the world is slowly but steadily working its way towards and a terrible example to set to developing countries who aspire for membership of the elite.

Vladimir Putin must be made to pay for dragging the world backwards with his thuggish brutality.

The trajectory of world politics and rules of engagement has been consistently in the direction of violence reduction for decades and centuries.

We take baby steps but slowly over time those steps add up and the statistical measure of violence and war goes down.

Progress is cemented by putting in place frameworks of engagement which reduce violence and war.

Can you put that into the context of the Vietnam war where there where there were more bombs dropped on the Ho Chi Min Trail than in the entire second world war.

Or the invasion of Iraq

The destruction of Libya

The present arming of rebels and bombing in Syria the bombing in Afghanistan and the 20 other counties the US has bombed since WW2 killing an estimated 20 million people.

Add to that the Mother of All Bombs.

Any country that is accepted into the elite groups like the G20 are tacitly agreeing to abide by those frameworks.

A

tacit agreement

then the US does not have to abide by it for we have just been told they only recognise singed agreements.

Tell us about the US land grab in their invasion of Granada in contravention to a UN resolution.

Tell us how many bases the US has in other countries that they refuse to give up since they defeated Hitler in WW2, (we all saw the Hollywood movies)

Originally Posted by birding

Originally Posted by Looper

The trajectory of world politics and rules of engagement has been consistently in the direction of violence reduction for decades and centuries.

We take baby steps but slowly over time those steps add up and the statistical measure of violence and war goes down.

Progress is cemented by putting in place frameworks of engagement which reduce violence and war.

Any country that is accepted into the elite groups like the G20 are tacitly agreeing to abide by those frameworks.

Russia's illegal 19th century style land grab is not just selfish. It is slap in the face to the progress in violence reduction that the world is slowly but steadily working its way towards and a terrible example to set to developing countries who aspire for membership of the elite.

Vladimir Putin must be made to pay for dragging the world backwards with his thuggish brutality.

Can you put that into the context of the Vietnam war where there where there were more bombs dropped on the Ho Chi Min Trail than in the entire second world war.

Or the invasion of Iraq

The destruction of Libya

The present arming of rebels and bombing in Syria the bombing in Afghanistan and the 20 other counties the US has bombed since WW2 killing an estimated 20 million people.

Add to that the Mother of All Bombs.

Plucking a few examples of war out of the air is not refuting my argument of a trajectory of progress w.r.t. violence in the human species.

By any statistical measure the species is on a trajectory of violence reduction which has been ongoing for centuries.

War is one type of violence and it bears out the statistics.

Reduction of violence is a good thing.

Any nation that takes a seat at the leadership table has a moral responsibility to safeguard the future of that trajectory.

Russia needs either a dunce cap or expulsion from the table.

Originally Posted by Looper

Russia needs either a dunce cap or expulsion from the table.

But of course, America doesn't.
How many countries has Russia invaded this century?
How many casualties have been caused by Russian armed aggression, vs. American?

Sabang, I do not know the answers to these questions.

If you want to dig out the answers then we can pick through the details.

But I do know that Russia using force to grab land from a neighbouring country for selfish territorial advantage is a behavioural anomaly in the context of 21st century tier 1 international relations and accepted conduct, and would look more at home about 100 years ago.

Originally Posted by Looper

Playing games with other countries political processes (like the US were accused of in Ukraine)

(surely unjustified...)

Phone Tap: US Asst Sec. State Nuland Scheming in Ukraine with Ambassador Pyatt. "F*CK EU"


Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call - BBC
Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call - BBC News


The Mess that Nuland Made
July 13, 2015
Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland engineered Ukraine’s “regime change” in early 2014 without weighing the likely chaos and consequences. Now, as neo-Nazis turn their guns on the government, it’s hard to see how anyone can clean up the mess that Nuland made, writes Robert Parry.
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/1...t-nuland-made/

Journalist Can't Contain Laughter As State Dept Claims US Doesn't Back Coups

Originally Posted by Looper

Sabang, I do not know the answers to these questions.

If you want to dig out the answers then we can pick through the details.

But I do know that Russia using force to grab land from a neighbouring country for selfish territorial advantage is a behavioural anomaly in the context of 21st century tier 1 international relations and accepted conduct, and would look more at home about 100 years ago.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over even when you have been shown by links to the truth that what you are writing it is not true.

Tell us where the invasion bombing and killing by the US fits in as acceptable conduct.

Tell us where the 'force' was when Russia accepted the return of Crimea, how many were killed, injured how many refugees fled Crimea ?

Contrast that with the refugees fleeing the Ukraine....to Russia :

The Great Exodus: Ukraine's Refugees Flee to Russia | The National Interest

^^Thanks Klondyke. I had never heard the actual recording before. Having listened to it my reaction is...

What is the big deal? the fact that she said 'fuck the eu?'

So they were scheming and wheeling and dealing and pulling strings... Yeah... Big news...

Not very politic with the f-word, sure, but she did not know the line was tapped.

So what is your actual point?



Scheming and wheeling and dealing are part of the game in the 21st century.

The last time that openly grabbing chunks of land for personal use using military force was 'in the game' was about 100 years ago.

Russia has to be made to pay for their vulgarity in dragging the world back in history.

Originally Posted by birding

accepted the return of Crimea

Oh they passively accepted it did they?

Originally Posted by Looper

The rules of engagement in the 21st century prohibit overt land-grabbing. Everybody knows this.

The rules of engagement in the 21st century...

laughed my fucking arse off

who needs to grab land when you can drone strike from 60,000 ft.?

rules of engagement...

Originally Posted by Looper

Reduction of violence is a good thing.

So by your own measure the non violent retaking of Crimea by Russia is good thing.

Originally Posted by Neo

who needs to grab land when you can drone strike from 60,000 ft.?

What is the connection or comparison between the tactical use of drones for whatever purpose and annexation of land?



In the 21st century is it acceptable to take chunks of land off neighbouring countries and declare them to be your own sovereign territory just because you want that piece of land and your military is bigger than theirs?

Originally Posted by Neo

So by your own measure the non violent retaking of Crimea by Russia is good thing.

Originally Posted by Looper

a behavioural anomaly in the context of 21st century tier 1 international relations and accepted conduct

too funny...

Originally Posted by Neo

but when Sabang asks you to consider the objective reality of US v Russia casualties of conflict post WW2 you claim to have no knowledge of the subject to make a comparison...

If you or Sabang want to come up with some numbers then we can debate it.

I am not your google monkey Neo!

Originally Posted by Neo

land grabs are apparently not the done thing old chap, but can't seem to make the connection to rules of engagement without territorial possession..

You compared US drone strikes (a technological air power tactic for achieving some military objective) with Russia's land grab of the Crimea.

No I don't get the connection. What is it?

Originally Posted by Looper

^Thanks Klondyke. I had never heard the actual recording before. Having listened to it my reaction is...

What is the big deal? the fact that she said 'fuck the eu?'

So they were scheming and wheeling and dealing and pulling strings... Yeah... Big news...

Not very politic with the f-word, sure, but she did not know the line was tapped.

So what is your actual point?

Cannot help you when you haven't got the point.

I try again: It's not about f-word, it's about who is in control. Or do you still truly believe that the Majdan was a spontaneous action of the Ukraine people unhappy with their legitimate president?

BTW: Do you know the riddle - why an Orange Revolution can never happen in USA?
(I help again: there is no US Embassy in USA)

He gets the point.. he's just pretending to be stupid

Like this...

Originally Posted by Looper

No I don't get the connection. What is it?

The connection is the argument that he raised... rules of engagement.. although the argument is so facile he could be forgiven for forgetting it.

He can go on like this for days, weeks, literally years... he has plenty of time

Originally Posted by Klondyke

I try again: It's not about f-word, it's about who is in control. Or do you still truly believe that the Majdan was a spontaneous action of the Ukraine people unhappy with their legitimate president?

I don't know. Maybe. Or maybe the US was stirring some shit. Either way who gives a fuck. Stirring up shit is in the game.

Grabbing land from neighbours using military might is not in the game. Not only is it ridiculously outdated but it sets an appalling example to the rest of the world from a supposedly top tier 21st century G20 world leader nation.

You are still dancing around the main point of the argument.

Originally Posted by Looper

In the 21st century is it acceptable to take chunks of land off neighbouring countries and declare them to be your own sovereign territory just because you want that piece of land and your military is bigger than theirs?

This is the central question.

I would say that this kind of caveman behaviour is so anachronistic in this day and age that it deserves exceptional exemplary punishment.

Originally Posted by Neo

The connection is the argument that he raised... rules of engagement..

So you are saying that using drones is outside the rules of engagement?



Or what are you saying?

Originally Posted by Looper

You are still dancing around the main point of the argument.

The elephant in the room...

Hello Albert

Originally Posted by Looper

In the 21st century is it acceptable to take chunks of land off neighbouring countries and declare them to be your own sovereign territory just because you want that piece of land and your military is bigger than theirs?

What say ye khun Shagnasty?

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnasty2017

The US political and military arms have done more damage to the world than the rest of the world combined. Of that there is clear evidence and no doubt whatsoever.

The irony being that the topic is Putin 'annexing' the Ukraine.

Nope.. the topic is 'how dangerous is Vladimir Putin?'

Originally Posted by Neo

Nope.. the topic is 'how dangerous is Vladimir Putin?'

That's right and what he's doing in the Ukraine and Syria is what you're accusing the US of doing....irony innit