Poo tin... Put@in...
Comments
-
Whilst I am not contradicting anything of the above, I don't think that there is much historical precedence in Putin's actions. He rigs elections, has complete control of the media and suppresses opposition. (refer to the Newsnight report I mentioned - even Russians themselves mentioned 'media spin') I think you're affording him far too much sophistication.
Ukrainians on the whole want to be Ukrainians. I am sure there are plenty of those in Crimea who are pretty disgruntled.
His actions in Chechnya and Georgia had little to do with the west - it was an act of pure authoritarianism and jack boots, nothing less.
His popularity wanes and so he finds excuses and blame then seeks retribution.
Gorbachev was a sophisticated man and a peacemaker. Putin is everything but.
Yes, lift all sanctions. Give him a bit of room. Then what will he do? He will hold on to power regardless.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I don't see why you're blaming Putin for Chechnya - that conflict mainly happened under the Yeltsin administration. Nobody's arguing that he's some lovely liberal type, I would just say that the West cannot keep acting as if we were still living in a unipolar world in which everyone will fall into line with our demands. Those days are gone, they're never coming back and we need to recognise that simple fact.
Just one question, Pinno - given the situation that Russia finds itself in, and the way that the Russians view the West, what would you do if you were in charge of Russia?0 -
finchy wrote:I don't see why you're blaming Putin for Chechnya - that conflict mainly happened under the Yeltsin administration. Nobody's arguing that he's some lovely liberal type, I would just say that the West cannot keep acting as if we were still living in a unipolar world in which everyone will fall into line with our demands. Those days are gone, they're never coming back and we need to recognise that simple fact.
Putin continued the Chechnya conflict. I do not know what strategic purpose that had.
I don't disagree with you Finchy. I don't quite know why you're taking this line.
I don't like his current postulating, simple. The Western Unipolar world to which you speak of has long gone - I doubt there are too many in higher positions that still think that way.
I would be brokering the end of sanctions, engaging positively with the West and trying to stabilise the Russian economy. Not possible of course as Russia has returned to an autocracy, echoes of the Tsars.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Putin holds russia together by hollowing out state insitutions and placing a network of allies. the regions of russia are run by allied strongmen. Russia state companies are run by allies. if anyone with power appears they fall foul of the law.
Foreign adventures are another way used by many governments of deflrcting attention from problems at home. It is not in our interests to oust putin russia coukd fall apart. however putin and his allies are so paranoid about the west read u.s and britain that they think we are trying to oust his team and neuter russia. So they talk about first use of nukes. The problem is the more you talk about something the more you mentally prepare yourself for doing that thing.
There is no solution to the tensions with russia, the russian leadership actually needs them to survive. Our governments just have to continue talking which is why boris was neglegant (sacking language in my book for our foerign secterary) when he called for demonstrations outside russia embassy. He should be on the phine every week as should may just to talk. They can disagree on everything but the relationship where you are open to talking is how we avoid conflict. Saddly i dont think britain is doing this, i could be wrong though. I am not sure what can de escalate tensions but the current governments policy of sactions is not working to change the poltics in russia for the better. FIne to deploy armed forces i actually think the russians respect that even if with there paronia they find it threatening.
I mean when putin tells his advisors to watch house of cards because he thinks that is how politics in the west really works you know you have some hurdles to climb.http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.0 -
Pinno wrote:finchy wrote:I don't see why you're blaming Putin for Chechnya - that conflict mainly happened under the Yeltsin administration. Nobody's arguing that he's some lovely liberal type, I would just say that the West cannot keep acting as if we were still living in a unipolar world in which everyone will fall into line with our demands. Those days are gone, they're never coming back and we need to recognise that simple fact.
Putin continued the Chechnya conflict. I do not know what strategic purpose that had.
I don't disagree with you Finchy. I don't quite know why you're taking this line.
I don't like his current postulating, simple. The Western Unipolar world to which you speak of has long gone - I doubt there are too many in higher positions that still think that way.
The Chechen conflicted ended about a year after Putin ended office. There were atrocities carried out by both sides, but violent conflicts between Chechens and Russians have existed since the 18th century. There was no strategic aspect to the conflict, it was just a bog standard civil war.
Don't worry, I'm not pinning the blame for Western foreign policy on you personally, Pinno (well, not entirely). Even though the West recognises that China is a growing power, I would argue that our governments have been reckless and arrogant with regards to Russia over the past couple of decades. Even if Putin were to lose power, that damage is not going to be repaired easily. I imagine that Obama would have preferred a more constructive relationship, but had he abandoned the missile shield, the Republicans would have been all over him, accusing him of weakness. If Clinton gets to be President, I expect a further deterioration. That's why I'm in 2 minds over the US election. Trump is a complete a---hole, but his rhetoric on China and Mexico will probably remain rhetoric, as he finds himself completely isolated in power with no support from any other political institution. Clinton on the other hand would be a continuation of hawkish, neocon foreign policy, and Putin would find it even easier to stay in power if the Russian people see the West as an aggressive force.
The problem is that, as is the case in Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary, you've got a fairly nasty piece of work in power in Russia, but the opposition have had their credibility destroyed. The tough, socially conservative, xenophobic governments that have swept into power in the region have also implemented economic policies which sought to protect the very large numbers of people whose lives were devastated when free markets swept the region. Throughout the 90s and 2000s, the governments were generally respectful of political rights, but paid little attention to economic rights. So there is no real challenge to the likes of Putin, Orban or Fico. Just a seemingly trivial example (to Westerners) - cheap sleeper trains are a big part of Russian culture, and a chance for the country's poorest to travel. When the Russian railway was considering whether or not to scrap the trains and not replace them, the leader of Russia's Liberal Democrats (the main opposition party) called for the abolition of the service because they were "a proletarian form of travel". Like I say, this doesn't sound like a massive deal to us, but given the choice between Putin and people like that, who should the Russian people choose? Same goes for the Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Hungarians. The governments they have in power now are absolute gobshites, real divide-and-rule nutjobs (the PM of Poland called cyclists "vegetarian terrorists", for example), but there is no alternative for the working and lower middle class. So like it or not, the region is probably going to be stuck with bellicose populists for quite some time now.0 -
Someone said if we supported Assad from the start there wouldn't have been as bad a conflict. Opposite view is if Assad has been toppled before the moderate opposition had been destroyed the could have been a government of unity putting the country to rights.
Basically a load of could haves and should haves. The only solid facts are the massive migration out of the area (refugees) and the bombing to almost complete destruction of Aleppo. Neither side is.helping the situation. It's a proxy war where both sides are propping up unpalatable players in Syria. The only thing is Assad has got rid of anyone who's opposing him of standing in Syria and wider area. Russia is basically the only side in this proxy war with a power proxy to use.
The term rebels is used by the likes of mambo on here and it's used in the news too. That is a sure sign that there is a huge imbalance in Syria between the sides. Why call Assad's opposition rebels and not the opposition? Bias that's why.
Personally my opinion is that there's no winners in Syria. There's no group to hang a unified nation on. Assad's side is deeply flawed and it's widely talked about as the true power in Assad's Syria is supposed to be an Iranian who's running the.military campaign. It's part of the Iranian attempt to create a Shia crescent ultimately with a Mediterranean port. Well if you believe the western experts on that area and it's peoples. Although Syrian power has traditionally been with the Alawites there is a Shia element there with links to the Alawites so I kind of suspect that's what's locally in play.
Whichever way you look at it Syria and the wider area has so many layers going on that we're all being very simplistic in our Putin/Assad comments. Motives hiding motives I guess.0 -
-
Interesting speculation that Germany hasn't allowed UK planes to use their airspace to fly equipment to Ukraine - apparently they are also opposing the US idea of taking Russia out of the international banking system.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Ukraine has also complained about Germany refusing to supply them military equipment.0
-
I'm assuming this is to do with the gas supply from Russia?
It's worrying that the West is divided on this - it may just give the encouragement Putin needs. That said the troop build up suggests it's already more a matter of time.
If he takes Ukraine where does it stop - they already occupy part of Georgia.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Exactly that.DeVlaeminck said:I'm assuming this is to do with the gas supply from Russia?
It's worrying that the West is divided on this - it may just give the encouragement Putin needs. That said the troop build up suggests it's already more a matter of time.
If he takes Ukraine where does it stop - they already occupy part of Georgia.
It's not as though the Germans have no history of getting together with Russia to shaft Eastern Europe is it?0 -
They also have a history of invading them with no warning and committing heinous war crimes on a scale still unmatched today.ballysmate said:
Exactly that.DeVlaeminck said:I'm assuming this is to do with the gas supply from Russia?
It's worrying that the West is divided on this - it may just give the encouragement Putin needs. That said the troop build up suggests it's already more a matter of time.
If he takes Ukraine where does it stop - they already occupy part of Georgia.
It's not as though the Germans have no history of getting together with Russia to shaft Eastern Europe is it?
Without US support any European western troop support will be steamrolled. Unless they commit the majority of their forces and it would have to involve most of Europe declaring war on Russia.
I’m all for defending Ukraine, but then it’s not my neck on the line.0 -
Can't disagree with any of that. That's why any Western military alliance without the US would be a paper tiger.rick_chasey said:
They also have a history of invading them with no warning and committing heinous war crimes on a scale still unmatched today.ballysmate said:
Exactly that.DeVlaeminck said:I'm assuming this is to do with the gas supply from Russia?
It's worrying that the West is divided on this - it may just give the encouragement Putin needs. That said the troop build up suggests it's already more a matter of time.
If he takes Ukraine where does it stop - they already occupy part of Georgia.
It's not as though the Germans have no history of getting together with Russia to shaft Eastern Europe is it?
Without US support any European western troop support will be steamrolled. Unless they commit the majority of their forces and it would have to involve most of Europe declaring war on Russia.
I’m all for defending Ukraine, but then it’s not my neck on the line.
0 -
Given the US is dwindling in importance (albeit from the spectacular high of being utterly dominant for over half a century), it's not unreasonable for Europe to expect that the US will eventually stop being the security backstop for the richest continent on the planet.ballysmate said:
Can't disagree with any of that. That's why any Western military alliance without the US would be a paper tiger.rick_chasey said:
They also have a history of invading them with no warning and committing heinous war crimes on a scale still unmatched today.ballysmate said:
Exactly that.DeVlaeminck said:I'm assuming this is to do with the gas supply from Russia?
It's worrying that the West is divided on this - it may just give the encouragement Putin needs. That said the troop build up suggests it's already more a matter of time.
If he takes Ukraine where does it stop - they already occupy part of Georgia.
It's not as though the Germans have no history of getting together with Russia to shaft Eastern Europe is it?
Without US support any European western troop support will be steamrolled. Unless they commit the majority of their forces and it would have to involve most of Europe declaring war on Russia.
I’m all for defending Ukraine, but then it’s not my neck on the line.
So Europe ought to bolster its security across the continent.
My own view is that Europe is better together and stronger together, so some fairly close collaboration to creating a pan-European force seems sensible (even if it sits alongside national forces to appease the nationalists), as the individual nations just don't have the scale anymore.
I find the German reticence to spend anything on the armed forces understandable, but ultimately their neighbours, especially France, Italy and the UK need to find ways to persuade Germany to rebuild; perhaps as part of a coalition force would help water down some of the obvious concerns.0 -
If there wasn’t a big fat gas pipeline coming out of Russia being used to heat German homes, I’m sure German politicians would view this differently. Weaning them off that power source won’t be easy, but they need to find a way to do it over time.1
-
The analysis I read suggests it would hurt Russia more than Germany as they are such a big customer and though Germany relies on it a lot it still has a pretty diversified energy base. Moldova it ain't.kingstonian said:If there wasn’t a big fat gas pipeline coming out of Russia being used to heat German homes, I’m sure German politicians would view this differently. Weaning them off that power source won’t be easy, but they need to find a way to do it over time.
0 -
Why is it understandable? It has been argued on here that the war was a long time ago and people should let it go when anti German feeling was expressed in other threads. Likewise, the Germans can no longer use it as an excuse to not pay their way.
Unless of course they are afraid that they will wake up one morning and be unable to supress their irrational urge to march on Poland.0 -
I think Brits under-estimate the level of trauma and destruction the whole experience wrought on Germans, both literally and on their collective psychology.ballysmate said:Why is it understandable? It has been argued on here that the war was a long time ago and people should let it go when anti German feeling was expressed in other threads. Likewise, the Germans can no longer use it as an excuse to not pay their way.
Unless of course they are afraid that they will wake up one morning and be unable to supress their irrational urge to march on Poland.
You're right that it was a long time ago, but I think the collective response (aside from letting a lot of Nazis off the hook of course) from Germany has been very effective in instilling an attitude that is the antithesis of their early 20th C past.
Since the late 90s there has been a growing movement to reject the "guilt" behaviours, since, as you say Bally, it is a long time ago and it wasn't their fault; but they are still a minority.
I think, given that context, the reticence to pony up for a passable military is entirely understandable. Not least as until very recently thousands of non-German NATO troops were based there.
I think it's probably in all of Europe's interest to have a self sufficient military, but it's all in vain unless they combine together on big key strategic (defence!) objectives. There is a reason "divide and conquer" is a recognised strategy and I would suggest in the 21st Century Europe needs to combine together for scale.
It is however expensive. Yanks still pay a lot of tax and they need to pay for things like healthcare, because their tax dollars go on a big ol' military. There is an associated cost, but I guess in the world of effective deterrence (which I guess I ultimately believe in) it is a bit of a hedge as it reduces risks elsewhere.0 -
Where is the central control and message from the EU in this? It sounds very independent at the moment. Hardly a sign of a united front.0
-
You say the US is dwindling in importance, but militarily, Europe is light years behind. For instance, the US has the largest air force in the world and the US navy has the 3rd largest. It would take decades of eyewatering spending before Europe could begin to catch up.
The EU wasn't even invited to the talks concerning Ukraine, a country right on its border.. Russia dealt solely with the US in Geneva and with Nato in Brussels. And the only reason that Nato got a look in was because of the huge contribution made by the US.0 -
Gerhard Shroder made the decision to phase out nuclear and fossil fuel energy in 2002.kingstonian said:If there wasn’t a big fat gas pipeline coming out of Russia being used to heat German homes, I’m sure German politicians would view this differently. Weaning them off that power source won’t be easy, but they need to find a way to do it over time.
Have a guess who chairs the boards of Russian state oil firm Rosneft and the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline firm.0 -
Well yes one follows the other.ballysmate said:You say the US is dwindling in importance, but militarily, Europe is light years behind. For instance, the US has the largest air force in the world and the US navy has the 3rd largest. It would take decades of eyewatering spending before Europe could begin to catch up.
The EU wasn't even invited to the talks concerning Ukraine, a country right on its border.. Russia dealt solely with the US in Geneva and with Nato in Brussels. And the only reason that Nato got a look in was because of the huge contribution made by the US.
Europe (collectively) is not a military superpower so no, why would it be invited? What about the Afgan withdrawal would make anyone think European powers have a say at the global table. The caveat is that all the main European powers are part of NATO which is led by the US but we both get that.
My point is Europe probably should and both Trump and Putin ought to be catalysts for changing that.
It is expensive, but security is, right? I'm open to alternative arguments.
(I'd also point out that most people would say the US Navy is the #1 naval power with few challengers - China is coming up the curve but is not there yet),0 -
I agree with Rick that Europe needs to build a force to deter Russian aggression but if they/we are going to pull together for the collective good then why not allow the Germans to largely fund it without building up their own military.
Whilst I do not believe that Russia can launch an attack of 175,000 troops we would still need battle groups tens of thousands strong to act as an effective deterrent. If we stacked them all up in Ukraine what is to stop him driving over the Baltics in a couple of hours? Maybe the solution is centred around a massively powerful airforce.
Whilst Putin is power hungry it is also worth understanding the Russian psyche. They have never invaded the West whereas the West has regularly invaded them.
I doubt Putin has the funding and the Russian people the resolve to invade and hold Ukraine which is why he is bvggering around with separatists.0 -
I don't see military aggression as a direct issue for the EU or UK, the biggest problem surely remains cyber attacks and interference in the democratic process.0
-
You say Europe probably should be a military superpower. Given that, that must include nuclear weapons. Perhaps not popular across Europe. Even in the UK, a nuclear power, we have a political party, SNP, who have it in their manifesto to get rid.
I agree, security is vital and expensive. Can't see the appetite for that across Europe.0 -
Not sure who has said Europe needs to be a superpower but my idea is to build a purely defensive force to operate in Europe so no need or desire to project power. ie no need for aircraft carriers.ballysmate said:You say Europe probably should be a military superpower. Given that, that must include nuclear weapons. Perhaps not popular across Europe. Even in the UK, a nuclear power, we have a political party, SNP, who have it in their manifesto to get rid.
I agree, security is vital and expensive. Can't see the appetite for that across Europe.
SNP will never be in power so irreevant.
People may be happier to chip in when the tanks have reached Kaliningrad.
If everybody redirects their current spending and Germany ups their game then you could achieve something at little extra cost.0 -
Unless I misread Rick's post, I thought he said they probably should be a superpower.surrey_commuter said:
Not sure who has said Europe needs to be a superpower but my idea is to build a purely defensive force to operate in Europe so no need or desire to project power. ie no need for aircraft carriers.ballysmate said:You say Europe probably should be a military superpower. Given that, that must include nuclear weapons. Perhaps not popular across Europe. Even in the UK, a nuclear power, we have a political party, SNP, who have it in their manifesto to get rid.
I agree, security is vital and expensive. Can't see the appetite for that across Europe.
SNP will never be in power so irreevant.
People may be happier to chip in when the tanks have reached Kaliningrad.
If everybody redirects their current spending and Germany ups their game then you could achieve something at little extra cost.
The SNP were an example of anti nuclear feeling and to show that there is not overwhelming support of nuclear weapons. I would also point out that they would become less irrelevant if they managed to secure 51% in any referendum.0 -
why would they not be more irrelevant? could we not just move the boats?ballysmate said:
Unless I misread Rick's post, I thought he said they probably should be a superpower.surrey_commuter said:
Not sure who has said Europe needs to be a superpower but my idea is to build a purely defensive force to operate in Europe so no need or desire to project power. ie no need for aircraft carriers.ballysmate said:You say Europe probably should be a military superpower. Given that, that must include nuclear weapons. Perhaps not popular across Europe. Even in the UK, a nuclear power, we have a political party, SNP, who have it in their manifesto to get rid.
I agree, security is vital and expensive. Can't see the appetite for that across Europe.
SNP will never be in power so irreevant.
People may be happier to chip in when the tanks have reached Kaliningrad.
If everybody redirects their current spending and Germany ups their game then you could achieve something at little extra cost.
The SNP were an example of anti nuclear feeling and to show that there is not overwhelming support of nuclear weapons. I would also point out that they would become less irrelevant if they managed to secure 51% in any referendum.0 -
Yes. That is what we would have to do.surrey_commuter said:
why would they not be more irrelevant? could we not just move the boats?ballysmate said:
Unless I misread Rick's post, I thought he said they probably should be a superpower.surrey_commuter said:
Not sure who has said Europe needs to be a superpower but my idea is to build a purely defensive force to operate in Europe so no need or desire to project power. ie no need for aircraft carriers.ballysmate said:You say Europe probably should be a military superpower. Given that, that must include nuclear weapons. Perhaps not popular across Europe. Even in the UK, a nuclear power, we have a political party, SNP, who have it in their manifesto to get rid.
I agree, security is vital and expensive. Can't see the appetite for that across Europe.
SNP will never be in power so irreevant.
People may be happier to chip in when the tanks have reached Kaliningrad.
If everybody redirects their current spending and Germany ups their game then you could achieve something at little extra cost.
The SNP were an example of anti nuclear feeling and to show that there is not overwhelming support of nuclear weapons. I would also point out that they would become less irrelevant if they managed to secure 51% in any referendum.
Makes them more relevant though doesn't t? You would have a member of your alliance who fundamentally disagreed with the way the alliance operated.
Please don't get bogged down focusing on SDP. As I said I only used them to show that support for nuclear is not pan European.0