Thread: How dangerous is Vladimir Putin?

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?

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

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

You are beyond retarded.

Yeah.. but it's not about numbers eh Harry

Originally Posted by Neo

Yeah.. but it's not about numbers eh Harry

You quote five words out of context from any one of hundreds of posts and expect me to know what the fuck you are talking about?

You are a fucking retard.

Originally Posted by Neo

you're the fucking retard on this one Harry...
that you're fighting the same corner as bsnub pretty much says it all

how many deaths does it take to be a war criminal..?
how many soldiers does it take to be an invasion..?

got any of that 'real evidence' that Putin is guilty of either..?

nope... didn't think so

Ah now you've clarified I can respond.

If a political leader orders an illegal act of war which results in the death of even one civilian, he is a war criminal.

Do you dispute that?

As for Putin, let's just wait for the Dutch to confirm that it was a Russian-supplied Buk missile that killed the MH17 passengers and crew, and then no doubt you'll be flapping on about how Putin knew nothing about it being in Ukraine.

So how many Russian soldiers does it take to be an invasion..?

Originally Posted by Neo

So how many Russian soldiers does it take to be an invasion..?

If one Russian soldier enters sovereign territory against the wishes of that country, technically it is an invasion, isn't it?

But it would normally be called an incursion; the difference between that and an invasion is somewhat subjective.

To me an invasion implies some sort of permanence.

E.g., the Argentinians did not initially "invade" the Falklands. But eventually they did.

(Not that permanently, obviously).

Does that answer your question?

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.

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.

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...

Originally Posted by Neo

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?

"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.

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...

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

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.

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?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

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).

Originally Posted by bsnub

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.

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

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.

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...".

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.

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.