You're not the first person to say that.
'Russia is seriously running out of cash'
- Thread starter Sankari
- Start date
You're not the first person to say that.
You should be glad you've been labelled a troll really the obvious alternative is a tad worse.
You're failing to see some rather problematic components of your viewpoint and the fact you can't back any of it up and then state blatantly false facts as truth is hardly helping.
You're failing to see some rather problematic components of your viewpoint and the fact you can't back any of it up and then state blatantly false facts as truth is hardly helping.
A pact does not an alliance make, true, but one followed by the joint invasion of a country does make them de facto allies.
Your argument, that Russia was a 'victim' of the WWII and that this somehow justifies its current foreign policy which mainly consists of making land grabs from its neighbours, is not sound. I corrected you, there's nothing more to it.
I don't hate you or your posts, I actually like most of them. I just don't get this, shall we say, affection towards Russia as it doesn't seem to have a foundation which consists of historical or modern facts.
Last edited:
Iraq?
Intelligence failure, too many war hawks in the cabinet, weak President, fresh Sept 11 wounds etc.
So agression
How about if you say "you invade an independant country form the east and I'll do it from the west - they wont stand a chance"?
Don't bother, he's a paid putinoid... You can't reason with him.
Saudi (and quite possibly UAE for the same reason) doesn't have a particularly bright future at the moment either, for the same reasons as Russia.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/09/investing/betting-against-saudi-arabia-cheap-oil/
They are burning through their slush fund at an a alarming rate too, and having to make large cutbacks because of the low oil prices as well.
That said they started off better than Russia and have a higher slush fund PP but are probably still only a couple of years behind Russia in all this.
Soldato
Russia without that moron in charge wouldn't be a bad thing but I have a feeling their attitude of belligerence and aggression is more a general national trait which had been exacerbated rather than created by Putin so they probably wouldn't differ too much.
Sorry, I didn't mean you might hate my posts (although you are welcome to whenever you want! or shall we say disagree with as here) - was just an example.
I don't think they would ever be classed as allies. Yes, it may seem so if one were to not really examine what went on. Antony Beevor covers this extensively in either his Second World War or Stalingrad books - can't remember which one off the top of my head likely both. Enemy of my enemy is my friend would apply to the 'proper' allies and Russia but let's face it they quite clearly had a competitive nature and Churchill saw Russia as the next step after Germany. However, Germany and Russia never had that relationship.
I never said Russia's history justified its foreign policy what I said was a proportion of the population would have personal or near personal knowledge of it. That facilitates leaders to be more oppressive than normal because they can then play on that which Putin does.
I am not a fan of Russia I spent most of my working career presuming and expecting them to come steaming through the Fulda Gap. And let's get this straight right off if they had wanted to they could have and the only reason they didn't was lack of inclination and realisation that the US nicely free of direct consequences could make actions very muddy if they too did not inflict direct consequences on Russia.
I think Putin is excellent at what he does but then so was Hitler to start of with and Stalin and Mao. That doesn't mean I agree with them. Sometimes people are very good at being *****. It's their specialty. The bloke obviously has some personal inferiority complex with his constant portrayals of machoism. I think he then projects that out in policy. In essence he has littleman syndrome and unfortunately carries that then onto geopolitics. But make no mistake he has made Russia a power again and made her relevant. He has proven to be the far better and skilled politician in getting what Russia wants in Syria than what the Western leaders have achieved.
Just because I condemn the Western countries doesn't then mean I am a fan of Russia. The two can be quite exclusive. This is like the Trump thread because if I bash Clinton then that means I love Trump - well no I think they are both incredibly dangerous for very different reasons.
In the context of what is being said though Russia has largely been a non-belligerent country throughout history compared to the USA with its short history and Britain, France, Spain, etc. Russia and China bore the brunt of WW2 and that was never really portrayed until recently and let's face it people will still have more of a knowledge of the Eastern front than know the horrors that went on in China. Now that doesn't excuse belligerence but it makes you damn certain your country will never face that again and the best military strategy to ensure that never happens again to your country is to extend your boundaries so that any attacks are not absorbed on your territory. Russian belligerence has largely been in the communist years as part of the Cold War and recently with expansions into former territory. These actions are very different from the Western actions but there are similarities: both are largely in defence of people. For the West we've always seen it as the wrong people eg removing onerous leadership that hold down the free common people (quite ironically that's quite Marxist in a way); whereas for Russia it's never about who is the leader or the common man it is about who has common stock. Essentially they are looking at things the same as we look at the Falklands: yep maybe not always our land but our people live their now so it becomes theirs.
So the long and short of it is just because I condemn (and I believe rightly) the Western governments and the structure of NATO for being belligerent doesn't mean I approve of Russian actions. Likewise one has to have empathy for the Russians to understand why they do what they do however empathy doesn't mean approval. If you want to defeat an enemy (not saying this should be a goal) then unless you know what makes him tick how are you going to target a weak point.
Fair enough. 
I'll just add that Russia's actions inside and outside its borders are meant to preserve the power of the current leaders and that the well being and prosperity of its people do not represent a priority. I do feel empathy for the people, they are opressed, they lack freedom, they have few sources of correct information , they are increasingly poor. I feel none of it for the leaders.
I'll just add that Russia's actions inside and outside its borders are meant to preserve the power of the current leaders and that the well being and prosperity of its people do not represent a priority. I do feel empathy for the people, they are opressed, they lack freedom, they have few sources of correct information , they are increasingly poor. I feel none of it for the leaders.
Neither do I but Russian leaders will be aware of their history. Their people will and have rebelled. Not like this country where people are pacified with not so cheap SKY football and reality TV. It's the old communist double-speak do one thing say another.
Incidentally if you haven't read Beevor do so he's is excellent in his research and presentations for that period.
Caporegime
Meanwhile Russia is now conducting joint military exercises with one of the biggest supporters of Al-Queda/Islamic State - Pakistan.
Soldato
http://tribune.com.pk/story/1182092/pak-us-joint-counter-terrorism-exercise-concludes/
Meanwhile The US is now conducting joint military exercises with one of the biggest supporters of Al-Queda/Islamic State - Pakistan
Nate
Meanwhile The US is now conducting joint military exercises with one of the biggest supporters of Al-Queda/Islamic State - Pakistan
Nate
Soldato
Someone insisted it was silly for Russia to regard a large build up of NATO forces on their border as a threat because NATO was never an aggressor. I just listed off a number of cases where they were (as did Tefal who also remembered Pakistan). Just because I refuted the idea of NATO as some kind of pacifist organization doesn't mean anything else. I don't know what "Classical whataboutery" is, but if it's shifting topic to something else when convenient, I'd say you were the one guilty of that. Someone said something false, people corrected it, and now you're asking "what about" Russian troops in Moldova. Doesn't mean my correcting someone's whitewashing of NATO was wrong.
Also, just to note that the Russians are only in the Crimean peninsula which is a region dominated by Russian speakers who want to be part of Russia and the region was only taken from Russia in war historically recently. So it's a little like if the French had occupied Cornwall a hundred years ago and the Cornish demanded they get to be part of England again. Annexation isn't the best way to settle things but if you respect the right to self-determination then you have to accept that the people there actually want to be part of Russia. I don't know much about any troops stationed in Moldova or Georgia and "occupying" those countries. Is it anything like how the US has troops stationed in many countries in the region?
Last edited:
Soldato
I think they're saying the Americans were acting in self-defence against Afghanistan because some Saudi Arabians carried out an attack in New York.
Last edited: