Vladimir Putin

2456710

Comments

  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,722
    Putin has allegedly hacked the DNC and the Clinton campaign. He is making moves against US interests in Syria.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/01/as-obama-dithers-syrian-rebels-in-aleppo-brace-for-putin-s-onslaught.html

    The American foreign policy establisment seems to agree on this. Is this news relevant to the current administration or is this something just to be used to score political points against Trump? Is Obama a lame duck or does he have a plan to deal with this? If the above is true then these are the questions people should be asking. Last I checked Obama is still President and his administration has the responsibility to respond. What is his response? Does he have one? Or is he going to just ride this out for the next President to deal with? This will be his legacy.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,355
    What is the solution? This is such a Hobbsean (sp?) choice. The rebels are full of Islamic state fighters who have no interest in al-Assad directly. They know that if the regime topples, there will be a power vacuum and a new base for ISIS to operate. The real rebels likely don't have the people or infrastructure to manage the country. It will be another Libya, Iraq, etc.

    On the other hand, Assad is a butcher. There's no two ways to mince words on this one. He is a despicable human being and it's no wonder he is aligned with Russia. I really don't know the right answer, but it's certainly for this administration and Kerry to figure out how to get a cease fire in place.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 42,262
    What are the US's interests that are being threatened in Syria? Are they interests that we should get behind?
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,355
    PJ_Soul said:

    What are the US's interests that are being threatened in Syria? Are they interests that we should get behind?

    Well, we have a humanitarian interest in al-Assad being removed from office. He is a brutal dictator who tortures and gasses his own people. At the same time, if he is removed, the Iraq and Libya scenario will play out yet again. When a strongman is removed from these culturally disparate nations (nations that have no business being nations, only formed after the WWs to advance financial interests of the winners, but I digress)... the countries fall apart and devolve into chaos. That's breeding ground for ISIL and other radical terrorists groups.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 42,262
    edited August 2016
    mrussel1 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    What are the US's interests that are being threatened in Syria? Are they interests that we should get behind?

    Well, we have a humanitarian interest in al-Assad being removed from office. He is a brutal dictator who tortures and gasses his own people. At the same time, if he is removed, the Iraq and Libya scenario will play out yet again. When a strongman is removed from these culturally disparate nations (nations that have no business being nations, only formed after the WWs to advance financial interests of the winners, but I digress)... the countries fall apart and devolve into chaos. That's breeding ground for ISIL and other radical terrorists groups.
    Yes, but I'm just wondering what people think will happen if Russia deals with this shit instead of the US? I gather everyone is fully in favour of the US getting right in there and further embedding in the Middle East, and increasing it's involvement in all the stuff you just mentioned? I was under the impression that most Americans were sick of all that, and considered it to be a catalyst for all these terrorist attacks on the US. I suppose people are more in favour of more war for the US in the middle east than they are of letting Russia extend its power into the middle east? Why? If Russia does that is the US going to go to war with them or what?
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,355
    PJ_Soul said:

    mrussel1 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    What are the US's interests that are being threatened in Syria? Are they interests that we should get behind?

    Well, we have a humanitarian interest in al-Assad being removed from office. He is a brutal dictator who tortures and gasses his own people. At the same time, if he is removed, the Iraq and Libya scenario will play out yet again. When a strongman is removed from these culturally disparate nations (nations that have no business being nations, only formed after the WWs to advance financial interests of the winners, but I digress)... the countries fall apart and devolve into chaos. That's breeding ground for ISIL and other radical terrorists groups.
    Yes, but I'm just wondering what people think will happen if Russia deals with this shit instead of the US? I gather everyone is fully in favour of the US getting right in there and further embedding in the Middle East, and extending it's involvement in all the stuff you just mentioned?
    No, I'm saying it's a terrible choice with no clear answers. If we 'stay out of it', then al-Assad will crush the rebellion with brutal force. This will be done with Russia's help who has the strategic interests in that state. Crushing the rebellion will include leveling of Aleppo (ala Grozny) and massive civilian casualties. If we get involved and back the rebels, then we are just fighting another proxy war, like Afghanistan or Vietnam. And if we win? What then? Another failed state.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 42,262
    edited August 2016
    mrussel1 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mrussel1 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    What are the US's interests that are being threatened in Syria? Are they interests that we should get behind?

    Well, we have a humanitarian interest in al-Assad being removed from office. He is a brutal dictator who tortures and gasses his own people. At the same time, if he is removed, the Iraq and Libya scenario will play out yet again. When a strongman is removed from these culturally disparate nations (nations that have no business being nations, only formed after the WWs to advance financial interests of the winners, but I digress)... the countries fall apart and devolve into chaos. That's breeding ground for ISIL and other radical terrorists groups.
    Yes, but I'm just wondering what people think will happen if Russia deals with this shit instead of the US? I gather everyone is fully in favour of the US getting right in there and further embedding in the Middle East, and extending it's involvement in all the stuff you just mentioned?
    No, I'm saying it's a terrible choice with no clear answers. If we 'stay out of it', then al-Assad will crush the rebellion with brutal force. This will be done with Russia's help who has the strategic interests in that state. Crushing the rebellion will include leveling of Aleppo (ala Grozny) and massive civilian casualties. If we get involved and back the rebels, then we are just fighting another proxy war, like Afghanistan or Vietnam. And if we win? What then? Another failed state.
    Kay, well where no option really wins, I'm just wondering why people wouldn't go with the one that lessens US involvement and doesn't place them in another middle eastern war that probably can't be won any more than it could be before. I think this is more me wondering about the US/Russia issue, since that seems to more be what this is about.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,355
    PJ_Soul said:

    mrussel1 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mrussel1 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    What are the US's interests that are being threatened in Syria? Are they interests that we should get behind?

    Well, we have a humanitarian interest in al-Assad being removed from office. He is a brutal dictator who tortures and gasses his own people. At the same time, if he is removed, the Iraq and Libya scenario will play out yet again. When a strongman is removed from these culturally disparate nations (nations that have no business being nations, only formed after the WWs to advance financial interests of the winners, but I digress)... the countries fall apart and devolve into chaos. That's breeding ground for ISIL and other radical terrorists groups.
    Yes, but I'm just wondering what people think will happen if Russia deals with this shit instead of the US? I gather everyone is fully in favour of the US getting right in there and further embedding in the Middle East, and extending it's involvement in all the stuff you just mentioned?
    No, I'm saying it's a terrible choice with no clear answers. If we 'stay out of it', then al-Assad will crush the rebellion with brutal force. This will be done with Russia's help who has the strategic interests in that state. Crushing the rebellion will include leveling of Aleppo (ala Grozny) and massive civilian casualties. If we get involved and back the rebels, then we are just fighting another proxy war, like Afghanistan or Vietnam. And if we win? What then? Another failed state.
    Kay, well where no option really wins, I'm just wondering why people wouldn't go with the one that lessens US involvement and doesn't place them in another middle eastern war that probably can't be won any more than it could be before. I think this is more me wondering about the US/Russia issue, since that seems to more be what this is about.
    I actually don't think it's a proxy war exactly. But I don't pretend to know what the right answer is on such a difficult subject. Are we the world's police? Do we have a moral obligation to provide military support to rebels fighting a brutal dictator?
    From a coldly analytical perspective, ignoring the human casualties, the play is to let Russia and Syria crush the rebellion which eliminates a front on the war against ISIL. al-Assad won't let them operate in Syria. But to do this would be a death sentence to tens of thousands, certainly a big chunk of the 250k holed up in Aleppo.
  • mrussel1 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mrussel1 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mrussel1 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    What are the US's interests that are being threatened in Syria? Are they interests that we should get behind?

    Well, we have a humanitarian interest in al-Assad being removed from office. He is a brutal dictator who tortures and gasses his own people. At the same time, if he is removed, the Iraq and Libya scenario will play out yet again. When a strongman is removed from these culturally disparate nations (nations that have no business being nations, only formed after the WWs to advance financial interests of the winners, but I digress)... the countries fall apart and devolve into chaos. That's breeding ground for ISIL and other radical terrorists groups.
    Yes, but I'm just wondering what people think will happen if Russia deals with this shit instead of the US? I gather everyone is fully in favour of the US getting right in there and further embedding in the Middle East, and extending it's involvement in all the stuff you just mentioned?
    No, I'm saying it's a terrible choice with no clear answers. If we 'stay out of it', then al-Assad will crush the rebellion with brutal force. This will be done with Russia's help who has the strategic interests in that state. Crushing the rebellion will include leveling of Aleppo (ala Grozny) and massive civilian casualties. If we get involved and back the rebels, then we are just fighting another proxy war, like Afghanistan or Vietnam. And if we win? What then? Another failed state.
    Kay, well where no option really wins, I'm just wondering why people wouldn't go with the one that lessens US involvement and doesn't place them in another middle eastern war that probably can't be won any more than it could be before. I think this is more me wondering about the US/Russia issue, since that seems to more be what this is about.
    I actually don't think it's a proxy war exactly. But I don't pretend to know what the right answer is on such a difficult subject. Are we the world's police? Do we have a moral obligation to provide military support to rebels fighting a brutal dictator?
    From a coldly analytical perspective, ignoring the human casualties, the play is to let Russia and Syria crush the rebellion which eliminates a front on the war against ISIL. al-Assad won't let them operate in Syria. But to do this would be a death sentence to tens of thousands, certainly a big chunk of the 250k holed up in Aleppo.
    Oh those Russians.
    Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not. Both ideas are overwhelming. AE
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,132
    edited August 2016
    BS44325 said:

    Putin has allegedly hacked the DNC and the Clinton campaign. He is making moves against US interests in Syria.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/01/as-obama-dithers-syrian-rebels-in-aleppo-brace-for-putin-s-onslaught.html

    The American foreign policy establisment seems to agree on this. Is this news relevant to the current administration or is this something just to be used to score political points against Trump? Is Obama a lame duck or does he have a plan to deal with this? If the above is true then these are the questions people should be asking. Last I checked Obama is still President and his administration has the responsibility to respond. What is his response? Does he have one? Or is he going to just ride this out for the next President to deal with? This will be his legacy.

    Putin is moving against ISIS in Syria?
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,023
    PJ_Soul said:

    What are the US's interests that are being threatened in Syria? Are they interests that we should get behind?

    First question: Pipelines. Second: Depends on your opinion of capitalist imperialism, and economic hegemony, I guess.


    Seeing the word 'humanitarian' in this thread, but not the word 'pipeline', is disappointing...but not surprising.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,355

    PJ_Soul said:

    What are the US's interests that are being threatened in Syria? Are they interests that we should get behind?

    First question: Pipelines. Second: Depends on your opinion of capitalist imperialism, and economic hegemony, I guess.


    Seeing the word 'humanitarian' in this thread, but not the word 'pipeline', is disappointing...but not surprising.
    You are missing the phrases that are synonyms for what you seek. But good job judging everyone.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 42,262

    PJ_Soul said:

    What are the US's interests that are being threatened in Syria? Are they interests that we should get behind?

    First question: Pipelines. Second: Depends on your opinion of capitalist imperialism, and economic hegemony, I guess.


    Seeing the word 'humanitarian' in this thread, but not the word 'pipeline', is disappointing...but not surprising.
    I ALWAYS assume that anything the US does in the Middle East has a connection to oil.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,023
    mrussel1 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    What are the US's interests that are being threatened in Syria? Are they interests that we should get behind?

    First question: Pipelines. Second: Depends on your opinion of capitalist imperialism, and economic hegemony, I guess.


    Seeing the word 'humanitarian' in this thread, but not the word 'pipeline', is disappointing...but not surprising.
    You are missing the phrases that are synonyms for what you seek. But good job judging everyone.
    you feel judged by my disappointment?

    Point me to a synonym for 'pipeline'?....or any discussion of natural resources or energy in this thread? Maybe I'm missing it...
    The Syrian and Yemeni conflicts have everything to do with competing pipeline proposals that will determine whether US-allied, or Russia-allied countries will control the flow of natural gas into Europe.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,355

    mrussel1 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    What are the US's interests that are being threatened in Syria? Are they interests that we should get behind?

    First question: Pipelines. Second: Depends on your opinion of capitalist imperialism, and economic hegemony, I guess.


    Seeing the word 'humanitarian' in this thread, but not the word 'pipeline', is disappointing...but not surprising.
    You are missing the phrases that are synonyms for what you seek. But good job judging everyone.
    you feel judged by my disappointment?

    Point me to a synonym for 'pipeline'?....or any discussion of natural resources or energy in this thread? Maybe I'm missing it...
    The Syrian and Yemeni conflicts have everything to do with competing pipeline proposals that will determine whether US-allied, or Russia-allied countries will control the flow of natural gas into Europe.
    I pointed out that Putin's desire for Crimea was about the vast oil resources likely within the maritime borders of the Crimea.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,355
    mrussel1 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    What are the US's interests that are being threatened in Syria? Are they interests that we should get behind?

    First question: Pipelines. Second: Depends on your opinion of capitalist imperialism, and economic hegemony, I guess.


    Seeing the word 'humanitarian' in this thread, but not the word 'pipeline', is disappointing...but not surprising.
    You are missing the phrases that are synonyms for what you seek. But good job judging everyone.
    you feel judged by my disappointment?

    Point me to a synonym for 'pipeline'?....or any discussion of natural resources or energy in this thread? Maybe I'm missing it...
    The Syrian and Yemeni conflicts have everything to do with competing pipeline proposals that will determine whether US-allied, or Russia-allied countries will control the flow of natural gas into Europe.
    I pointed out that Putin's desire for Crimea was about the vast oil resources likely within the maritime borders of the Crimea.
    My bad, that was in the Trump thread where I talked about Putin and his desire for more oil. However I discussed the humanitarian issue related to al Assad above.
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,023
    edited August 2016
    mrussel1 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    What are the US's interests that are being threatened in Syria? Are they interests that we should get behind?

    First question: Pipelines. Second: Depends on your opinion of capitalist imperialism, and economic hegemony, I guess.


    Seeing the word 'humanitarian' in this thread, but not the word 'pipeline', is disappointing...but not surprising.
    You are missing the phrases that are synonyms for what you seek. But good job judging everyone.
    you feel judged by my disappointment?

    Point me to a synonym for 'pipeline'?....or any discussion of natural resources or energy in this thread? Maybe I'm missing it...
    The Syrian and Yemeni conflicts have everything to do with competing pipeline proposals that will determine whether US-allied, or Russia-allied countries will control the flow of natural gas into Europe.
    I pointed out that Putin's desire for Crimea was about the vast oil resources likely within the maritime borders of the Crimea.
    So Russia should have acquiesced the entire region: the 'breadbasket' of Russia, a major energy corridor, and its entire Black Sea fleet (which btw, is THE supply line between Russia and Syria), to an insurgency propped up by hostile states? Just let Ukraine become the feather in NATO's cap without a fight? Are you aware of the increase in scope and scale of NATO military deployments and war games around Russia's borders? Putin would not have had the opportunity to annex Crimea if not for the US orchestrated overthrow of the government of Ukraine (and subsequent installation of neo-nazis in key cabinet postings). Does it matter what the people of the region want? Say what you will about the legitimacy of the referendum, but over 90% voted to become part of Russia...and the Russian 'invasion' of Crimea happened with little-to-no violence. Not exactly what you'd expect to happen in a 'foreign occupation'.
    mrussel1 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    What are the US's interests that are being threatened in Syria? Are they interests that we should get behind?

    First question: Pipelines. Second: Depends on your opinion of capitalist imperialism, and economic hegemony, I guess.


    Seeing the word 'humanitarian' in this thread, but not the word 'pipeline', is disappointing...but not surprising.
    You are missing the phrases that are synonyms for what you seek. But good job judging everyone.
    you feel judged by my disappointment?

    Point me to a synonym for 'pipeline'?....or any discussion of natural resources or energy in this thread? Maybe I'm missing it...
    The Syrian and Yemeni conflicts have everything to do with competing pipeline proposals that will determine whether US-allied, or Russia-allied countries will control the flow of natural gas into Europe.
    I pointed out that Putin's desire for Crimea was about the vast oil resources likely within the maritime borders of the Crimea.
    My bad, that was in the Trump thread where I talked about Putin and his desire for more oil. However I discussed the humanitarian issue related to al Assad above.
    All good.

    But the talk of humanitarian issues is what I took umbrage with in the first place. We could use the media to build a case for military intervention in every nation in the world based on humanitarian issues - the US included. 'Humanitarian concerns', valid as they may be, are always window dressing for imperialist aggression. You stated that you're concerned/conflicted on the world police aspect of this approach....glad to hear that
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,023
    I just clicked on the Hilary thread and noticed that I had a long unposted draft continuing the exact same convo about Crimea with you :lol:
    I wish I had more time for this place these days. Always good banter with you, mrussel.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,355
    To Drowned Out

    So this is a decidedly pro-Russian angle, so let me share with you the Ukrainian national perspective. And for full disclosure, my father was a Ukrainian immigrant and I grew up in a Ukrainian neighborhood in Cleveland. My last name, before Americanized, was Rosul.

    1. The Ukraine is NOT the breadbasket of Russia. It is the breadbasket of Europe, blessed with some of the best soil in Europe and an export that was integral to the survival of the Ukrainian people. Russia has been raiding our lands for 500 years, raping and pillaging the land for its own benefit. This culminated, as you know, with Holodomor, which was a systemic genocide of proportions likely greater than Nazi Germany's destruction of the Jews. I'll capitalize this for emphasis...THE UKRAINE IS A NOT A VASSAL STATE OF RUSSIA.

    2. The Crimea is sovereign Ukraine territory. The Ukes have allowed the Russian nationals to enter the country and obtain citizenship over the past 30 years. This does not make Crimea a Russian province. So no, it doesn't fucking matter what the citizens of that region want. As a parallel, would it matter if the Cuban-Americans wanted to split off Miami and join Cuba? Of course it wouldn't. We would not allow that. Why should the opinions of the people of Crimea supersede those of the rest of the Ukraine, costing the Ukrainian people valuable natural resources like a critical port city and the likely hydrocarbons?

    The Ukes want to be closer to the West and become part of the EU. They see their future in the West, not back with the fucking Russian Bear who has done nothing but hurt the Ukrainians. There is no trust or love for the East. Yes, the West was instrumental and supportive of the revolution that sent Yanukovych packing for Russia, but the Russians were just as instrumental in putting him in office and of course thet deal that tanked the EU AA. The Ukraine has been a puppet of greater powers since early in the 20th century.

    Fuck Russia and fuck Putin. He is nothing but the most current incarnation of the Russian government seeking to exploit the Ukraine for its own benefit. It's time for the Ukraine to succeed for Ukrainians.
  • lukin2006lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    Putin deploys Russia’s most advanced air-defence missiles in Crimea as alarm grows war is imminent

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/putin-deploys-russias-most-advanced-air-defence-missiles-in-crimea-as-alarm-grows-war-is-imminent
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,722
    I'm just hoping that during all this election nonsense somebody is keeping their eye on the ball...

    https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/10/07/little-ducks/?singlepage=true

    Pray that this administration has a plan.
  • CH156378CH156378 Posts: 1,539
    Instead of talking about pussy grabbing and drapery cutting the candidates could talk about these developments tonight. Lol. Not going to happen.
  • CH156378CH156378 Posts: 1,539
    I bet Putin agrees with Trump on "grab them by the pussy"
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,722
    CH156378 said:

    I bet Putin agrees with Trump on "grab them by the pussy"

    He's grabbing the world by the pussy while the rest of us are just standing around.
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,722
    Russia vetoed the Security Council yesterday and the genocide in Aleppo will continue

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-vetoes-un-resolution-save-aleppo-200223018.html
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,722
    And just so we don't lose focus...

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37606114

    I hope somebody in the administration is minding the store.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,355
    BS44325 said:

    And just so we don't lose focus...

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37606114

    I hope somebody in the administration is minding the store.

    Curious if you support the Trump position on Russia or the Clinton/Pence/Kaine?
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,722
    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    And just so we don't lose focus...

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37606114

    I hope somebody in the administration is minding the store.

    Curious if you support the Trump position on Russia or the Clinton/Pence/Kaine?
    I don't know what the Trump position is on Russia but I believe he has positioned himself to be the most effective in checking Putin.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,355
    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    And just so we don't lose focus...

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37606114

    I hope somebody in the administration is minding the store.

    Curious if you support the Trump position on Russia or the Clinton/Pence/Kaine?
    I don't know what the Trump position is on Russia but I believe he has positioned himself to be the most effective in checking Putin.
    How can you not know but then make that statement?
Sign In or Register to comment.