How dangerous is Vladimir Putin?

Many Countries leaders would be tarred with this same brush.

Wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen .... have been instigated by countries leaders who if we take your definition, should be being tried as war criminals.

Why focus just on Putin, even if you have credible evidence that he has acted illegally - I am not sure on who decides on legality here, and not take the message to the more persistent offenders.

Currently no credible evidence has been offered of an invasion of Ukrainian territory by an external force, either soldiers, tanks, planes ......... .Similarly no evidence has been offered that Russia in controlling an armed force of Russian military in Ukrainian territory, Prussia is bombing Ukrainian territory, Russia is firing missiles into Ukrainian territory.

As opposed to what the crusader coalition is doing in Syria - weapons, soldiers, bombing, missiles, food, medical.........

But keep repeating the illusion Harry/Bsnub and some may believe you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

you don't have any proof that Putin is a war criminal or that Russian troops have invaded Ukraine.

---

You clearly need a history lesson. Ever hear of Chechnya? With regards to evidence there is a mountain of it if you care to see it much of it has been posted in this thread. Can lead a horse to water...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Does that answer your question?

---

Yes, you don't have any proof that Putin is a war criminal or that Russian troops have invaded Ukraine.

---

No proof that Russian troops have invaded Ukraine?

What are they in Crimea then, uniformed tourists?

:rofl:

"What are they in Crimea then, uniformed tourists?" Hardly- Crimea is part of Russia again, as it has been for virtually all of the last 500 years. Still griping about this? Pretty pointless if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

What are they in Crimea then, uniformed tourists?

---

They didn't cross any international borders, i.e. "INVADE".

1. They were living there under an agreement with the two governments, Russia and Ukraine.
2. They were asked by a democratically elected government of Crimea, to assist the Crimean government to protect it's borders.
3. The Crimean government request integration with Russia, Russia accepted them. They are now Russians.

Now do you know what the "agreement", the one between Russia and the Ukraine, allowed the agreed Russian troops, whilst stationed in the then Ukrainian province? of Crimea, to do?

Next "fact" you want to debate?:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhOh

democratically elected government of Crimea

---

When that becomes reality, Crimea should be allowed to choose its direction.

Heavy doubts now about Crimean govt being democratic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

...and Obama, well he's done practically fcuk all whilst in power apart from make endless hammy monotone speeches, and fails to deserve any comparison to any afro heros; oh and he's left the muslim world in a worse mess than when he found it

---

You're a bit retarded eh?

If Bush hadn't fucked the whole thing up, Obama wouldn't be fighting fires now, would he?

---

Obama is fighting nothing, milk toast is the best description of Obama.

But of course you would like to fight everything RPeter. We've seen the results of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabang

"What are they in Crimea then, uniformed tourists?" Hardly- Crimea is part of Russia again, as it has been for virtually all of the last 500 years. Still griping about this? Pretty pointless if you ask me.

---

If you (and obviously the hapless OhOh) choose to ignore the 1997 treaty in which Russia recognized Ukraine's borders, and accepted that Crimea was sovereign Ukrainian territory.

So essentially whenever Putin decides to invade a former Soviet republic, you're OK with it are you?

Russia didn't invade Harry, Crimea was already leased to Russian forces and the population was mostly ethnic Russian, they had a referendum where the population voted to secede to Russia... okay that's not entirely legit, but it's not an invasion. The world is a far more unstable place than it was in 1997. Why shouldn't Russia secure one of it most prized strategic assets in the face of Neo-con expansionism..?

You must like getting owned, because you keep coming back for more.

:chitown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

...and Obama, well he's done practically fcuk all whilst in power apart from make endless hammy monotone speeches, and fails to deserve any comparison to any afro heros; oh and he's left the muslim world in a worse mess than when he found it

---

You're a bit retarded eh?

If Bush hadn't fucked the whole thing up, Obama wouldn't be fighting fires now, would he?

---

Perhaps, but you are completely retarded, a condition for which I can apparently only empathise with a bit.

Which Bush do you mean? What fires is Obama fighting exactly? How many refugees drowned in the Mediterranean today?

On Crimea, it was undemocratically transferred to Ukraine SSR in 1954 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea), and to suggest its being part of a new invention of a Ukrainian state (a thing that has never existed before the 1991) is disingenuous at best. If you look at the referendum result (assuming you trust it), it's quite noticable that the result in Crimea is very different from the rest of the territory that formed the newly-invented Ukrainian state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrain...ferendum,_1991).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bsnub

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

for the head of the EU to call Putin a dictator is laughable.

---

You are beyond retarded.

---

That's very reassuring, coming from you.

You do know what a dictator is, don't you? I didn't vote for the head of the EU, do you even know his name without searching online and then pretending that you do know it? Putin at least went through some kind of electoral process, and if you've met many Russians, you'd find that however much you dislike it, a lot of them willingly voted for Putin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

Why shouldn't Russia secure one of it most prized strategic assets in the face of Neo-con expansionism

---

I know you read that on Pravda

:smileylaughing:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabang

But of course you would like to fight everything RPeter. We've seen the results of that.

---

Of course not just let the world be consumed by a bunch of wannabe Hitlers, makes perfect sense right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

Russia didn't invade Harry, Crimea was already leased to Russian forces and the population was mostly ethnic Russian, they had a referendum where the population voted to secede to Russia... okay that's not entirely legit, but it's not an invasion.

---

So let me understand.


You support the Russian takeover of sovereign Ukraine territory. Not by invasion, but by a "vote" that was by not sanctioned by the Ukranian Govt and that admittedly was, in your words, "...not entirely legit", and somehow this is OK anyway because...? It doesn't really matter, does it.

At least it's not one of those coy answers like, "You can't prove they were Russian Soldiers...".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

Russia didn't invade Harry, Crimea was already leased to Russian forces and the population was mostly ethnic Russian, they had a referendum where the population voted to secede to Russia... okay that's not entirely legit, but it's not an invasion. The world is a far more unstable place than it was in 1997. Why shouldn't Russia secure one of it most prized strategic assets in the face of Neo-con expansionism..?

You must like getting owned, because you keep coming back for more.

:chitown:

---

It's a lot more unstable when dictators go invading other countries when they feel like it, don't you think?

(And I include Iraq and Afghanistan before you go off on a little rant).

Russia signed a treaty. Putin broke it when he invaded a sovereign country.

Do stop trying to justify it with RT soundbites, FFS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Putin broke it when he invaded a sovereign country.

---

Bag it and bin it Harry... that bullshit is getting old

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/08/922.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Putin broke it when he invaded a sovereign country.

---

Bag it and bin it Harry... that bullshit is getting old

---

Facts do not get old. They are simply facts.

And the fact that you are too stupid to understand them is of no consequence either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

Russia didn't invade Harry, Crimea was already leased to Russian forces and the population was mostly ethnic Russian, they had a referendum where the population voted to secede to Russia... okay that's not entirely legit, but it's not an invasion.

---

So let me understand.


You support the Russian takeover of sovereign Ukraine territory. Not by invasion, but by a "vote" that was by not sanctioned by the Ukranian Govt and that admittedly was, in your words, "...not entirely legit", and somehow this is OK anyway because...? It doesn't really matter, does it.

At least it's not one of those coy answers like, "You can't prove they were Russian Soldiers...".

---

Yes I support it even though I agree that it's not entirely legit, but it has to be viewed in a wider context to do so. As an action occurring in a vacuum it can't be condoned, but clearly to anyone with a modicum of objectivity the annexation of Crimea is a reaction to external military-political hegemony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And the fact that you are too stupid to understand them is of no consequence either.

---

Stick to 'popcorn movies' Harry, that's more your level ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And the fact that you are too stupid to understand them is of no consequence either.

---

Stick to 'popcorn movies' Harry, that's more your level ;)

---

Stick to RT you gullible wanker.

You keep mentioning RT and throwing insults, pathetic really.
One fact that is apparent in this thread is that you're out of your depth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

You keep mentioning RT and throwing insults, pathetic really.
One fact that is apparent in this thread is that you're out of your depth.

---

Methinks you are the one that needs to change the well worn record, but the problem with people with cognitive bias is that they rarely do.

Not that it matters, no-one gives enough of a fuck about Crimea to do anything about it anyway.

So you can keep trying to justify the Russian invasion of Crimea if you like. It's irrelevant what you try and call it.

:chitown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Facts do not get old. They are simply facts.

---

Still waiting for you to post some. :chitown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Facts do not get old. They are simply facts.

---

Still waiting for you to post some. :chitown:

---

When you learn to read properly, you'll find them all above.

Not even joined up writing, so shouldn't take you too long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

you are the one that needs to change the well worn record, but the problem with people with cognitive bias is that they rarely do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

you can keep trying to justify the Russian invasion of Crimea if you like. It's irrelevant what you try and call it.

---

Whooosh..! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

you are the one that needs to change the well worn record, but the problem with people with cognitive bias is that they rarely do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

you can keep trying to justify the Russian invasion of Crimea if you like. It's irrelevant what you try and call it.

---

Whooosh..! :rolleyes:

---

Whoosh what?

I posted that Russian signed a treaty acknowledging that Crimea was part of soveriegn Ukraine.

I posted that Putin has invaded it.

Which of these two statements are incorrect?

Quote:

---

President Vladimir Putin and the leaders of Crimea have signed a bill to absorb the peninsula into Russia.
Mr Putin told parliament that Crimea, which was taken over by pro-Russian forces in February, had "always been part of Russia".

---

Or is it because you get so hot when you see all these topless pictures of Putin that you can't do anything but believe every word he says?

:cmn:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

Russia didn't invade Harry, Crimea was already leased to Russian forces and the population was mostly ethnic Russian, they had a referendum where the population voted to secede to Russia... okay that's not entirely legit, but it's not an invasion.

---

So let me understand.


You support the Russian takeover of sovereign Ukraine territory. Not by invasion, but by a "vote" that was by not sanctioned by the Ukranian Govt and that admittedly was, in your words, "...not entirely legit", and somehow this is OK anyway because...? It doesn't really matter, does it.

At least it's not one of those coy answers like, "You can't prove they were Russian Soldiers...".

---

Yes I support it even though I agree that it's not entirely legit, but it has to be viewed in a wider context to do so. As an action occurring in a vacuum it can't be condoned, but clearly to anyone with a modicum of objectivity the annexation of Crimea is a reaction to external military-political hegemony.

---

So Mexico can take Texas for the same reason?
How about Palestine taking Israel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

I didn't vote for the head of the EU, do you even know his name

---

I'm sorry, what is his name? I think he was changed recently and I'm quite sure there were no elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

When that becomes reality, Crimea should be allowed to choose its direction. Heavy doubts now about Crimean govt being democratic...

---

Are you implying that it somehow fell short of the global norm of elections? :)

God forbid that there was "tampering" with the result by the Judicatory, the candidates parties, the vote counting (either electronic or manual counting of ballot papers, the collection and distribution of the "sealed" ballot boxes which may have prevented a legitimate ballot tally, the payment to citizens to influence their choice of candidate........

I am sure none of the above happens in the world. :rolleyes:

The only time world opinion was asked , a vote in the UN, of the 193 countries eligible only 100 voted to pass the UN_Resolution_regarding_the_territorial_integrity_ of_Ukraine. So not a clear cut decision by any means. Do many countries subject there election to UN approval or is it generally who can threaten countries into "recognising" a particular person as President, Prime Minister etc.?

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/08/1007.jpg


Bile Green - In favor
Earth Loving Brown - Against
Yellow - Abstained (Didn't want to upset somebody)
Blue - Absent when the vote took place (Convenently playing golf no doubt)

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...=#.UzgPNqLRUdw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

Russia didn't invade Harry, Crimea was already leased to Russian forces and the population was mostly ethnic Russian, they had a referendum where the population voted to secede to Russia... okay that's not entirely legit, but it's not an invasion.

---

So let me understand.


You support the Russian takeover of sovereign Ukraine territory. Not by invasion, but by a "vote" that was by not sanctioned by the Ukranian Govt and that admittedly was, in your words, "...not entirely legit", and somehow this is OK anyway because...? It doesn't really matter, does it.

At least it's not one of those coy answers like, "You can't prove they were Russian Soldiers...".

---

Yes I support it even though I agree that it's not entirely legit, but it has to be viewed in a wider context to do so. As an action occurring in a vacuum it can't be condoned, but clearly to anyone with a modicum of objectivity the annexation of Crimea is a reaction to external military-political hegemony.

---

So Mexico can take Texas for the same reason?
How about Palestine taking Israel?

---

You wanted a considered answer and you come back with a ridiculous reply.
What's the point.? Do you really want me to answer those questions? Do you even know where Crimea is and it's historical and geographical significance? I would expect more from you Mr G as I know you're quite capable of a reasoned discussion.

Let's just face it, they all, on every side, are corrupt lot. Yes I can see Russian side of the story and history but Putin chose wrong way to go with it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhOh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

When that becomes reality, Crimea should be allowed to choose its direction. Heavy doubts now about Crimean govt being democratic...

---

Are you implying that it somehow fell short of the global norm of elections? :)

God forbid that there was "tampering" with the result by the Judicatory, the candidates parties, the vote counting (either electronic or manual counting of ballot papers, the collection and distribution of the "sealed" ballot boxes which may have prevented a legitimate ballot tally, the payment to citizens to influence their choice of candidate........

I am sure none of the above happens in the world. :rolleyes:

The only time world opinion was asked , a vote in the UN, of the 193 countries eligible only 100 voted to pass the UN_Resolution_regarding_the_territorial_integrity_ of_Ukraine. So not a clear cut decision by any means. Do many countries subject there election to UN approval or is it generally who can threaten countries into "recognising" a particular person as President, Prime Minister etc.?

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/08/1007.jpg


Bile Green - In favor
Earth Loving Brown - Against
Yellow - Abstained (Didn't want to upset somebody)
Blue - Absent when the vote took place (Convenently playing golf no doubt)

United Nations News Centre - Backing Ukraine?s territorial integrity, UN Assembly declares Crimea referendum invalid

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

but Putin chose wrong way to go with it all.

---

You have no idea of the political and military assets he was handed by the Crimean parliament.

If you thought he would allow the Ukrainian coup leaders to bomb the Crimea "back to the dark ages" you were wrong. If you thought Putin would allow the crusader coalition take over Crimea you were mistaken.

Lets face it the sanctions have not affected the "exeptional one" 1%, the sanctions were designed to frighten the sheep in the EU, they are the ones paying for this war.

With respect to Crimea, I think Putin chose absolutely the right way- the secession referendum was conclusive. As obviously he knew it would be- although the result may have surprised even him (I suspect the anti's just didn't bother turning up to vote, because they knew the outcome as well as any other sentient being). Thus, Crimea avoided the bloodshed and economic collapse in the Ukraine. And Russia retained the HQ of it's Black Sea Fleet, as well as a coupla Air Force bases. And one of it's major tourist destinations (it is bewdiful, apparently, and the climate good enough to give the average russki a suntan just thinking about it). History, too- Russian history. Kudos Vladimir. The value of the Crimean peninsula to the US sponsored coupists was indirect anyway. Yeh great, in cold war thinking, to eject the evil russians from a naval base they had held since the 15th century- that will really put one up them, ehh? Inconveniently, Crimea is and has always been Russian- ethically, linguistically, militarily, culturally, economically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

Russia didn't invade Harry, Crimea was already leased to Russian forces and the population was mostly ethnic Russian, they had a referendum where the population voted to secede to Russia... okay that's not entirely legit, but it's not an invasion.

---

So let me understand.


You support the Russian takeover of sovereign Ukraine territory. Not by invasion, but by a "vote" that was by not sanctioned by the Ukranian Govt and that admittedly was, in your words, "...not entirely legit", and somehow this is OK anyway because...? It doesn't really matter, does it.

At least it's not one of those coy answers like, "You can't prove they were Russian Soldiers...".

---

Yes I support it even though I agree that it's not entirely legit, but it has to be viewed in a wider context to do so. As an action occurring in a vacuum it can't be condoned, but clearly to anyone with a modicum of objectivity the annexation of Crimea is a reaction to external military-political hegemony.

---

So Mexico can take Texas for the same reason?
How about Palestine taking Israel?

---

You wanted a considered answer and you come back with a ridiculous reply.
What's the point.? Do you really want me to answer those questions? Do you even know where Crimea is and it's historical and geographical significance? I would expect more from you Mr G as I know you're quite capable of a reasoned discussion.

---

Rhetorical questions, and not ridiculous at all. I simply want to put a perspective vis-a-vis Putin's Russia and the one that signed the agreement recognizing Ukrain sovereignty. Texas may not be the best example, but it is an apt one as it was territory both valuable and long in Spanish, then Mexican possesion that was taken because some land speculators from the US wanted it.
Crimea has a long and storied history for well known historic, geographic, military reasons ad-infanitum. So they walked away with it.
Then they went for Eastern Ukrain using a "referendum" (wink...nod) which you admit was questionable, and a lot of guys in camo with Russian accents and long rifles on holiday to "enforce stuff" while there was an unauthorized and highly suspect vote going on by--and it turns out for--"their" ethnic group.
To be honest, I don't have a dog in this fight. But I don't trust big countries strong arming little ones.

If the Russians supplied arms etc.. to the Mexican government who passed them onto any Texan who wanted to leave the Union and join a Russian sponsored political party, you would be happy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabang

With respect to Crimea, I think Putin chose absolutely the right way- the secession referendum was conclusive. As obviously he knew it would be- although the result may have surprised even him (I suspect the anti's just didn't bother turning up to vote, because they knew the outcome as well as any other sentient being). Thus, Crimea avoided the bloodshed and economic collapse in the Ukraine. And Russia retained the HQ of it's Black Sea Fleet, as well as a coupla Air Force bases. And one of it's major tourist destinations (it is bewdiful, apparently, and the climate good enough to give the average russki a suntan just thinking about it). History, too- Russian history. Kudos Vladimir. The value of the Crimean peninsula to the US sponsored coupists was indirect anyway. Yeh great, in cold war thinking, to eject the evil russians from a naval base they had held since the 15th century- that will really put one up them, ehh? Inconveniently, Crimea is and has always been Russian- ethically, linguistically, militarily, culturally, economically.

---

But not legally.

You could have a secession referendum in spots in half of the countries of the world and break them up.

Which is a fundamentally stupid and ultimately destabilising idea.

There was no problem in Ukraine at all until Putin intervened to stop them getting cosy with Europe.

You just don't seem to be able to accept that fact.

I'm sure it's just peachy for the majority of ethnic russians in Crimea. I wonder if Putin will allow similar referendums to take place in other parts of Russia where perhaps the opinion would be to break away.

Yeah, fucking right.

:chitown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

You could have a secession referendum in spots in half of the countries of the world and break them up.

---

Already a strategy adopted by the crusader coalition, haven't you noticed a string of failed states created, recently and historically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Which is a fundamentally stupid and ultimately
destabilising idea.

---

As practiced by the crusader coalition, yes. But then the idea that they ultimately want peace is laughable. There are no weapons to sell the world if it's at peace Harry. The Russian way is to await the request and then act, if it's in it's own interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

There was no problem in Ukraine at all until Putin intervened to stop them getting cosy with Europe.

---

There was no problem, in Australia, until the English arrived, there was no problem, in the ME, until the English and French partitioned it up. There was no problem, for the locals in the middle of North America, until the 7th cavalry arrived. There was no problem, in the Ukraine, until the US instigated a illegal coup to illegally expand NATO territory, to stop the Ukrainians continuing there beneficial relationship with Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhOh

There was no problem, in the Ukraine, until the US instigated a illegal coup to illegally expand NATO territory, to stop the Ukrainians continuing there beneficial relationship with Russia.

---

You appear to have the horses and the cart somewhat mixed up.

The coup was when President Putinsbitch decided to ignore parliament and the people and go ahead and do a deal with his paymaster.

I'll put bits in bold so you know what to read more slowly:

Quote:

---

"Since 2004 Ukraine sought to establish closer relations with the European Union (EU) and Russia. One of these measures was an association agreement with the European Union which would provide Ukraine with funds contingent on reforms.

Yanukovych ultimately refused to sign the agreement at the urging of Russia.

Thereafter, Yanukovych signed a treaty and multi-billion dollar loan with Russia instead, which sparked civil unrest in Kiev that ultimately led to violent clashes as law enforcement troops cracked down on protesters.

As tensions rose, Yanukovych fled the country to Russia and has not returned.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Not that it matters, no-one gives enough of a fuck about Crimea to do anything about it anyway.

---

It's a done deal and despite all the sabre rattling Putin has what he wants.
All the US and Nato have achieved is to create division and another failed state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Not that it matters, no-one gives enough of a fuck about Crimea to do anything about it anyway.

---

It's a done deal and despite all the sabre rattling Putin has what he wants.
All the US and Nato have achieved is to create division and another failed state.

---

All Putin is doing is destabilising Ukraine and rattling his sabre at his other neighbours.

What feeble excuses will you find when he nicks part of another country?