Thread: How dangerous is Vladimir Putin?

Originally Posted by Looper

That link does not say anything in support of your fatuous suggestion that the Russian annexation of Crimea was some sort of legal secession.

The link shows that Russias claim to Crimea is just as valid as Ukraines... Autonomous republic mean fuck all to the msm slupring tools I guess.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

The link shows that Russias claim to Crimea is just as valid as Ukraines

Crimea was sovereign territory of the nation of Ukraine. If Russia wants it back they should enter negotiations for its repatriation in exchange for something in return. The smash and grab approach does not wash in the 21st century.

^ it was not a Smash and grab no matter how many times you repeat the utter bullshit you read in your murdoch tabloid trash shows and websites.

Meet one of the people that Looper and Snubbs think are great. This monstrosity is called The Anaconda.


The women fighting on the frontline in Ukraine | World news | The Guardian

You will note that the symbol on her van



36th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The symbol of the 36th Waffen SS. The most heinous SS division there was in may regard especially against Russians

The Number 1488

1488
White Supremacy Encryption

14 = The 14 words

"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children"

Phrase coined by George Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of the American Nazi Party

88 = H is the 8th letter of the alphabet
ergo 88 = HH = Heil Hitler

Nazis. Looper and Snubb love and wish Nazis to be successful especially Nazis that take immense pleasure in torturing and murdering Russians. this is the lot that the USA placed in charge of Ukraine, kept funding them even after that made their first law they created the banning of russian language.

Compared to the US and the Nazis that Looper seems to love so much, Putin is considerably less dangerous.

Originally Posted by Looper

Crimea was sovereign territory of the nation of Ukraine. If Russia wants it back they should enter negotiations for its repatriation in exchange for something in return. The smash and grab approach does not wash in the 21st century.

That's rather a pathetic statement seeing as you don't even take into consideration the illegal US putsch which overthrew the democratically elected government in the first place which led to it.

The US and many other countries get involved in the political processes of other countries all the time. The deposed president was no saint. In an ideal world it wouldn't happen but it is 'in the game' in 21st century world politics. Situation normal.

Lining up your tanks and grabbing chunks of land off your neigbour because you are not happy with the way things are going down went out of fashion a century ago.

The idea that you can compare these 2 things and say the one justifies the other is total pile of bollix.

it is 'in the game' in 21st century world politics. Situation normal.

Lining up your < ........ > went out of fashion a century ago.

So it's a fashion thing. Keep up with the latest fashion or else!

Fashion Nazis!

Originally Posted by Looper

The US and many other countries get involved in the political processes of other countries all the time. The deposed president was no saint. In an ideal world it wouldn't happen but it is 'in the game' in 21st century world politics. Situation normal.

Lining up your tanks and grabbing chunks of land off your neigbour because you are not happy with the way things are going down went out of fashion a century ago.

The idea that you can compare these 2 things and say the one justifies the other is total pile of bollix.

Looper - do you deny that you are supporting Nazis?

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Looper - do you deny that you are supporting Nazis?

I do not support the US getting involved in the political processes of other countries but doing that is not in the same league as forcibly annexing large regions of your neighbour's land and declaring it to be your own sovereign territory. That sort of medieval hooliganism needs to be opposed in the strongest possible terms.

Originally Posted by Neo

As opposed to 21st century hooliganism of subverting the political system of a nation state

Yes exactly. Only I would not call that hooliganism. It is underhand certainly to influence the political process of another country but so is spying which is also in the game as every political operator knows.

Putin's hooliganism is overtly violent and presents the world with a big problem because the world cannot turn a blind eye and pretend nothing happened.

Originally Posted by Neo

That is not caused by Russia annexing Crimea.

Yes it is directly attributable to Russia's overt territorial incursion. You can say 'oh but they only did that because the merkins did this' but at the end of the day the annexation of Crimea was a response out of all proportion to the merkins actions.

The situation on the ground in Ukraine is untenable, the economy is ruined, there are food and power shortages and people are fighting for survival.

That is not caused by Russia annexing Crimea.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by Neo

That is not caused by Russia annexing Crimea.

Yes it is directly attributable to Russia's overt territorial incursion.

and absolutely not attributable to the political hi-jacking that's taken place..?

You could attribute it indirectly to the US political meddling but only if you consider 'age of empires' style territorial invasion and land acquisition to be acceptable 21st century behaviour and a measured response, which I do not.

It seems that 20th century borders are changing and will do in more places yet.
I think it's acceptable, at least it has to be accepted if it happens as part of a changing political and social landscape

Personally I find it hard to argue against the logic of Russia annexing Crimea, because it's strategic importance is clear.

In the ongoing escalation, Crimea is Russia's Ace in the hole.
A deterrent, rather than a threat.

Originally Posted by Neo

It seems that 20th century borders are changing and will do in more places yet. I think it's acceptable, at least it has to be accepted if it happens as part of a changing political and social landscape

Borders might need to change sometimes but it should be a political process not a military one.

Why doesn't Russia offer Ukraine 10 years free gas supply in exchange for accepting the unnegotiated loss of their territory? Should 21st century countries have to put up with such caveman aggression without compensation?

Their belligerence is not going to fly in the modern world. Global politics are too sophisticated nowadays. A price will have to be paid. The world will not forget Russia's oafish and clumsy strategy.

Originally Posted by Neo

Personally I find it hard to argue against the logic of Russia annexing Crimea, because it's strategic importance is clear.

Its strategic importance is just as valuable to Ukraine as to Russia. Why does this justify its daylight theft?

Originally Posted by Neo

In the ongoing escalation, Crimea is Russia's Ace in the hole. A deterrent, rather than a threat.

Invasion and theft of foreign land is not deterrence. It is bare faced and unacceptable aggression.

Originally Posted by Looper

Global politics are too sophisticated nowadays. A price will have to be paid. The world will not forget Russia's oafish and clumsy strategy.

Global politics are far more sophisticated than that and history written is written and erased on a day to day basis.

It is easy to demonize Putin, he's a ruthless oligarch with his fortune from the vast resources of his country.
He has a formidable army, and will probably win an outright conflict.. eventually.
But he's not pushing for war.

Aren't you sick of the constant war and destruction rained down by the US administration for the last 15 or more years..?

Global politics are sophisticated, and this dangerous situation is the preliminary of a surreptitious sales pitch by the same people that brought you Gulf War 1, and 2, and 3, and Afghanistan, because it's not like they won't do it you know. The more carnage there is, the more money they make.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by Neo

Personally I find it hard to argue against the logic of Russia annexing Crimea, because it's strategic importance is clear.

Its strategic importance is just as valuable to Ukraine as to Russia. Why does this justify its daylight theft?

Clearly more so to Russia.

If you're going to pontificate, you should at least look at a map of the region.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by Neo

In the ongoing escalation, Crimea is Russia's Ace in the hole. A deterrent, rather than a threat.

Invasion and theft of foreign land is not deterrence. It is bare faced and unacceptable aggression.

But if you were to attack Russia it would present a formidable deterrent

Originally Posted by Neo

He has a formidable army, and will probably win an outright conflict.. eventually.

Against Ukraine certainly (not against the USA) but they will have to pay the piper down the line for dragging the world backwards in its progress away from 19th century belligerent imperialism.

Originally Posted by Neo

Clearly more so to Russia.

Russia has plenty of Black sea coastline. This was not a savvy and intelligent move by Putin, it was a blundering and bad-tempered reaction to coming off second best in the battle for political influence in Ukraine.

Irrelevant anyway since it does not justify the aggressive nature of the acquisition. There are plenty of other ways to open negotiations to obtain control of land you believe to be historically yours.

Originally Posted by Neo

But if you were to attack Russia it would present a formidable deterrent

Who was planning to attack Russia? What century do you think this is?

Originally Posted by Looper

Who was planning to attack Russia? What century do you think this is?

*scratches head*


Looks like you won that discussion Looper.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Looper - do you deny that you are supporting Nazis?

I do not support the US getting involved in the political processes of other countries but doing that is not in the same league as forcibly annexing large regions of your neighbour's land and declaring it to be your own sovereign territory. That sort of medieval hooliganism needs to be opposed in the strongest possible terms.

So there you go Looper does indeed support Nazis, not least by continuing the lies about russia annexing Crimea.

Imagine that a greek only political party, full of greek nutters who were mostly convicted criminals and a long record of attacking non Greek Australians, did a coup in Australia kicking your democratically elected politicians out, and the first thing these bunch of bastards did was ban the English language, written and spoken, in Australia. How would you feel? You keep pumping out Washingtons "talking points", as in the little one liners they rely on to dupe fools, but you seem to have little or no understanding of what really happens.

Originally Posted by Neo

*scratches head*

The only 'attack' that has been launched on Russia is trade sanctions. That is how civilised countries respond to regressive belligerents in the 21st century.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

not least by continuing the lies about Russia annexing Crimea.

They are not lies it is a fact as plain as day.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

How would you feel?

International political meddling is a common if undesirable activity in the 21st century. Military invasion for land acquisition is not.

Originally Posted by OhOh

I am amazed that the NATO generals have not "planned" a/many military attack on Russia. I am amazed that the NATO countries have not "planned" a financial warfare attack on Russia. I am amazed that the NATO countries have not "planned" a propaganda warfare attack on Russia.

Any 'attack' on Russia was in response to their neanderthal approach to foreign relationships. The only 'attack's have been financial which is a civilised response when compared to the original provocation.

Originally Posted by robuzo

Amusingly ahistorical view you have there, Looper. Crimea as a "foreign land" vis-a-vis Russia?

I don't deny that Russia may have a historical claim to Crimea being Russian and may want to re-acquire it. They should have approached such an end through political engagement with the country they want the land back from. Crimea was sovereign Ukrainian territory. No other country has the right to take it off them without a negotiation and some offer of recompense.