Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
August1991

Dealing With Putin

Recommended Posts

Russian involvement will be required for any solution to the Middle East fiasco.

So they should be, they're as responsible as any other diddler who's diddled the region.

Funny how they managed to leave the west holding the worst of the bag though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Bushes and likely Clinton would have gone Defcon + over Ukraine. So would Reagan if he'd been President after the fall of the USSR.

Obama? Nyet.

The US has been spanked pretty hard twice in the last decade.

You have GOT to be joking!

When Russia roled into Georgia they didnt just take South Obsettia... They rolled right to the edge of the Capital. You know what GWB's response was?

A statement..

We hope Russia’s leaders will recognize that a future of cooperation and peace will benefit all parties. The Cold War is over. The days of satellite states and spheres of influence are behind us. A contentious relationship with Russia is not in America’s interests, and a contentious relationship with America is not in Russia’s interests.

With its actions in recent days, Russia has damaged its credibility and its relations with the nations of the free world. Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.

Only Russia can decide whether it will now put itself back on the path of responsible nations or continue to pursue a policy that promises only confrontation and isolation.

To begin to repair its relations with the United States and Europe and other nations and to begin restoring its place in the world, Russia must respect the freedom of its neighbors.

Thank you.

Damn! That sure as hell is DEFCON + ROFLMAO. "We hope Russias leaders will recognize cooperation benefits all parties!".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, Putin hasn’t threatened to take over Europe, just irradiate it...

What good are nukes if you can't use them? But NATO has been putting weapons closer to Russia's border which has been uncomfortable for Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What good are nukes if you can't use them? But NATO has been putting weapons closer to Russia's border which has been uncomfortable for Russia.

Nuclear weapons? Not at all, quite the opposite actually........The number of NATO nations with nuclear weapons deployed on their soil has remained stagnant since the end of the Cold War, with both types and numbers of weapons reduced since. Likewise, after the British and French (with their own reduced arsenals), the NATO members with US weapons deployed on their soil (the Dutch, Belgians, Turks, Italians and Germans) will be even further reduced once the Germans retire their remaining Tornado attack aircraft fleet in a few years, and perhaps Belgium if they don’t replace their current F-16s with the F-35 (but is unlikely that they won’t).

Edited by Derek 2.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have GOT to be joking!

When Russia roled into Georgia they didnt just take South Obsettia... They rolled right to the edge of the Capital. You know what GWB's response was?

Georgia is a country without an economy. Their GDP is less than 10% of the Ukraine. Not 10% less than Ukraine, less than 10% of the total.

Nobody cares. It;s a big mistake to walk away from Ukraine, and I predict that Kazakhstan will be next. They have a much larger economy, bigger than Ukraine, and must be crapping their pants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..... It;s a big mistake to walk away from Ukraine, and I predict that Kazakhstan will be next. They have a much larger economy, bigger than Ukraine, and must be crapping their pants.

So what more should be done ? Why should "North America" act/care if Europe doesn't ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what more should be done ? Why should "North America" act/care if Europe doesn't ?

why did America lead the way in Afghianstan, Iraq(twice) and ISIS interventons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why did America lead the way in Afghianstan, Iraq(twice) and ISIS interventons?

Because it wanted to....let's see some of that Canadian soft power and peacekeeping razzle dazzle....and blankets from Justin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Georgia is a country without an economy. Their GDP is less than 10% of the Ukraine. Not 10% less than Ukraine, less than 10% of the total.

Nobody cares. It;s a big mistake to walk away from Ukraine, and I predict that Kazakhstan will be next. They have a much larger economy, bigger than Ukraine, and must be crapping their pants.

Sure but your claim that GWB would have gone to "DEFCON +" is laughable. A complete joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why did America lead the way in Afghianstan, Iraq(twice) and ISIS interventons?

Because the people in charge down there arent that bright?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should "North America" act/care if Europe doesn't ?

Because the United States promised to guarantee integrity of the Ukrainian territory for the surrender of Ukrainian 2000 (or so) nuclear warheads in 1994.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, Putin hasn’t threatened to take over Europe, just irradiate it...

Well, has Putin himself said such?

And how seriously do you take these nuclear threats? From the article:

Russia’s Zvezda TV channel, owned by the defence ministry, has also been preparing its audience for the worst. “Russia and the US are on the verge of nuclear war,” read a headline on its website last week.

You really believe that? More likely it's this:

“I wouldn’t take these statements about nuclear war literally,” said Pomerantsev, whose book, Nothing is True and Everything is Possible, dissects the Kremlin’s media manipulation tactics. Talk of impending nuclear conflict is “one of Putin’s mind-benders”, part of what he called an attempt to convince the West that the former KGB officer is this “crazy, unpredictable” leader whom it would be advisable not to push too far.

Also, to drum up fear and anti-west support at home in Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, has Putin himself said such?

And how seriously do you take these nuclear threats? From the article:

Yes he has......And of course, in my opinion, his threats should be heeded. Unlike the Cold War, where public talk of the usage of nuclear weapons (from both sides) was subtle at best, Putin has made his position quite clear publicly. If pushed, I’ve no doubt he’d make use of his strategic nuclear weapons.

You really believe that? More likely it's this:

To a degree, but then it’s a realization that within the time it takes to cook a frozen lasagne, 1/3rd of the World’s population could be vaporized……..as a telling litmus, several weeks ago, the Science and Security board of Atomic scientists moved forward their iconic Doomsday clock to 11:57pm

Also, to drum up fear and anti-west support at home in Russia.

Without a doubt, but then that was also done, to great effect, by this guy:

1398732709405.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the United States promised to guarantee integrity of the Ukrainian territory for the surrender of Ukrainian 2000 (or so) nuclear warheads in 1994.

The U.S. has done nothing to threaten the integrity of Ukrainian territory. It is Ukrainian insurgents doing that, with help from the Russian Federation. The Budapest Memorandum is directed specifically at territorial threats from outside Ukraine, nuclear weapons attack, and economic actions.

It is ludicrous to suggest that Ukraine would have "gone nuclear" over Crimea and current fighting in the east if it had kept its Soviet/Russian controlled nuclear weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is ludicrous to suggest that Ukraine would have "gone nuclear" over Crimea and current fighting in the east if it had kept its Soviet/Russian controlled nuclear weapons.

No doubt, because Putin wouldn't be screwing around with a nuclear armed Ukraine.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt, because Putin wouldn't be screwing around with a nuclear armed Ukraine.....

I'm not convinced of that....Ukraine can certainly come up with a nuclear weapon if it wants too...hell...has probably started already !

Putin has something far better than nukes...complicit rebels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced of that....Ukraine can certainly come up with a nuclear weapon if it wants too...hell...has probably started already !

Putin has something far better than nukes...complicit rebels.

I'd question how successful the rebels would have been without Russian support though.......likewise, I'd also question how easy it would be for the (broke)Ukraine to come up with its own viable nuclear arsenal, as there was little to no nuclear weapons production infrastructure built in the Ukraine by the Soviets (as all design, production and servicing took place in central Russia), and though they did design and produce ICBMs in Dnipropetrovsk Ukraine, the city of course, is in the contested Eastern portion of the country...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you get a chance, check this article. It's reported that U.S. is behind Saudi's lowering of oil prices. It is to put pressure on Russia and Iran, who rely heavily on oil exports. It makes sense.

Zomg! You mean the U.S. prefers lower oil prices! What a scoop!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zomg! You mean the U.S. prefers lower oil prices! What a scoop!

The people love the low prices, the oil companies, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's fascist about Russia? Chances are whatever you are going to say can be applied to most western nations.

No that's not true at all. Keep defending your boy though. Be prepared to defend him for a while. I'm sure he'll keep "winning" elections!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No that's not true at all. Keep defending your boy though. Be prepared to defend him for a while. I'm sure he'll keep "winning" elections!

Too big to fail, remember that Shady? If capitalism really worked, the bail outs would have never happened. So what is it then if not capitalism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too big to fail, remember that Shady? If capitalism really worked, the bail outs would have never happened. So what is it then if not capitalism?

Captialism is fine. It's politicians that provide the bailouts, to ease the pain of business failures. Anyways, what does this have to do with Putin? You think a bailout is equal to his anti-democratic, ultra crony capitalist system? Keep defending hims. He's likely to continue to "win" elections. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...