Putin:- Playtime is over.....
Discussion
There's been a large buildup of Russian armoured vehicles in the Donetsk/Luhansk rebel held area's.
Ukrainians getting twitchy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29905014
And RT getting ahead of itself again regarding elections in "rebel" held areas.
Ukrainians getting twitchy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29905014
And RT getting ahead of itself again regarding elections in "rebel" held areas.
Edited by skyrover on Tuesday 4th November 17:45
ATG said:
Octoposse said:
Yes. Abso-bloomin-lutely. (Which bit in particular do you question?).
The whole lot I'm afraid.Octoposse said:
Writing from Moscow - well, Putin's undoubtedly genuine popularity (approval ratings that any EU leader would flog their babushka for) is based on two factors - the perception that he doesn't let himself be humiliated by the West like his immediate predecessors, and paying pensions on time. Neither of these is likely to change, and of course 'we' chose to re-inforce the first by picking a fight over Ukraine . . . a bizarre move in any event, playing chicken with someone who cannot afford to lose.
Don’t think much of the above is contentious? The gratuitous humiliations of Russia when it was at its lowest ebb, for example the bombing campaign against its traditional ally and co-religionist Serbia, the hectoring and lecturing by the West, are not forgotten. One of the bases of Putin’s domestic popularity is the perception that he can’t be pushed around like his immediate predecessors – ergo a ‘whatever it takes’ pushback to the overthrow of the elected government in Kiev was inevitable.
Not reacting would be the beginning of the end for Putin . . . . the folly of our policy makers in expecting anything else is inexplicable.
Octoposse said:
ATG said:
Putin views international relations from the perspective of someone stuck in the 19th century. The rest of the world had moved on.
But Putin is right . . . international relations work exactly as in the nineteenth century. How else?We can’t even consistently apply the principles of the Charter. Take Article 1 “ . . . . self-determination of peoples . . .” Kosovo and Scotland – Good; Crimea and South Ossetia – Bad, Palestine – Indifferent. Our political leaders can even claim that it is entirely up to the people of Syria to choose their government, but that Assad can’t be on their list of choices, without irony.
Nineteenth century? Yanukovich refuses to sign a trade deal with the EU! He must be deposed and replaced with someone who will sign! It’s more eighteenth century East India Company . . . . . . . we’ll be insisting on paying the Chinese in opium next . .
Octoposse said:
Braindead newspaper articles talk about 'goodwill' and 'allies', but actually there is a deal to be done on everything, and bygones are always bygones. Thus - as I recall - Tony Blair gave up some of the UK's EU rebate in exchange for France agreeing to bomb Serbia. Thus there was a deal with Putin over Crimea and Ukraine on the table seven months ago, but we chose condemnation instead as a policy.
Factually correct IMHO . . ..Bluebarge said:
FredClogs said:
I forwarded this link to a pal who actually read the speech and suggested that none of the "10 salient points" that appear in the bloggers summary actually appear in the speech in anywhere near the suggestion that the summary makes out.
You have a man who does the reading for you? That's very PH 
My butler only irons my paper the lazy git
Octoppose ... you are regurgitating the warped perspective and ridiculous self justification we keep hearing from the Kremlin.
Can your seriously not see how silly it is to draw a comparison between the East India company's gun boat style "diplomacy" and the general public chucking out an unpopular president? Or do you really think foreign powers conspired to somehow encourage people to take to the streets? Seriously? Similarly it is completely absurd to draw parallels between NATO intervention in a civil war in the former Yugoslavia and Russia's attempts to interfere in and undermine any neighbouring states it sees as anti-Russian - to the extent of fomenting civil war and then using direct military intervention.
Can your seriously not see how silly it is to draw a comparison between the East India company's gun boat style "diplomacy" and the general public chucking out an unpopular president? Or do you really think foreign powers conspired to somehow encourage people to take to the streets? Seriously? Similarly it is completely absurd to draw parallels between NATO intervention in a civil war in the former Yugoslavia and Russia's attempts to interfere in and undermine any neighbouring states it sees as anti-Russian - to the extent of fomenting civil war and then using direct military intervention.
Also the talk of Russian humiliation is so childish. What kind of idiot thinks Serbian aggression shouldn't have been curtailed because they were best best friendies with another state? Again, seriously? If Russia chooses to feel humiliated, that is its own problem. No one sets out to humiliate Russia. The only pillocks who see international relations in those infantile terms are Putin, Chavez , Mugabe, Fat Boy Kim and other peddlers of pea-brained nationalism.
ATG said:
Also the talk of Russian humiliation is so childish. What kind of idiot thinks Serbian aggression shouldn't have been curtailed because they were best best friendies with another state? Again, seriously? If Russia chooses to feel humiliated, that is its own problem. No one sets out to humiliate Russia. The only pillocks who see international relations in those infantile terms are Putin, Chavez , Mugabe, Fat Boy Kim and other peddlers of pea-brained nationalism.
By that logic I think you can add the British and French governments in 1914 to that list.IE Ironically if only us and France had used your logic when Russia mobilised against Germany for similar reasons with the rest being history.
As for the Yugoslav civil war that was another example of what inevitably happens when the idea of federalism goes bad.Just as it did in the US in 1861 and possibly the EU in the long term future assuming any of its member states decide to secede on the basis of the justified idea of self determination/nationalism.
The fact is the western governments have historically hypocritically applied the idea of supporting nationalism and federalism on a selective basis as and when it suits them.As in the case of supporting the nationalist cause in the case of Serbia and as a result the Russian mobilisation against Germany,in 1914.While putting it down in the case of Ireland.
While ironically in the case of the Yugoslav Civil War,bearing in mind,the foreseeable at the time,Islamic threat on the Southern borders of the Balkans.It would probably have been better to have supported Russia,in providing Serbia with the best peaceful deal possible out of that breakup,rather than bombing the place into submission.The result being that if push ever comes to shove in that regard,in the form of a united Islamic invasion of the Balkans,you can bet that the Serbs will probably withdraw east to join their Russian allies and allow the place to be overrun.
You could certainly add many of the protagonists in 1914 to that list. WW1 took place at the point in history when the changes I described were taking place, and indeed it accelerated them hugely precisely because it stood as such a stark example of the outcome of the old way of thinking.
ATG said:
Octoppose ... you are regurgitating the warped perspective and ridiculous self justification we keep hearing from the Kremlin.
Can your seriously not see how silly it is to draw a comparison between the East India company's gun boat style "diplomacy" and the general public chucking out an unpopular president? Or do you really think foreign powers conspired to somehow encourage people to take to the streets? Seriously? Similarly it is completely absurd to draw parallels between NATO intervention in a civil war in the former Yugoslavia and Russia's attempts to interfere in and undermine any neighbouring states it sees as anti-Russian - to the extent of fomenting civil war and then using direct military intervention.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Can your seriously not see how silly it is to draw a comparison between the East India company's gun boat style "diplomacy" and the general public chucking out an unpopular president? Or do you really think foreign powers conspired to somehow encourage people to take to the streets? Seriously? Similarly it is completely absurd to draw parallels between NATO intervention in a civil war in the former Yugoslavia and Russia's attempts to interfere in and undermine any neighbouring states it sees as anti-Russian - to the extent of fomenting civil war and then using direct military intervention.
Octoposse said:
ATG said:
Octoposse said:
Yes. Abso-bloomin-lutely. (Which bit in particular do you question?).
The whole lot I'm afraid.Octoposse said:
Writing from Moscow - well, Putin's undoubtedly genuine popularity (approval ratings that any EU leader would flog their babushka for) is based on two factors - the perception that he doesn't let himself be humiliated by the West like his immediate predecessors, and paying pensions on time. Neither of these is likely to change, and of course 'we' chose to re-inforce the first by picking a fight over Ukraine . . . a bizarre move in any event, playing chicken with someone who cannot afford to lose.
Don’t think much of the above is contentious? The gratuitous humiliations of Russia when it was at its lowest ebb, for example the bombing campaign against its traditional ally and co-religionist Serbia, the hectoring and lecturing by the West, are not forgotten. One of the bases of Putin’s domestic popularity is the perception that he can’t be pushed around like his immediate predecessors – ergo a ‘whatever it takes’ pushback to the overthrow of the elected government in Kiev was inevitable.
Not reacting would be the beginning of the end for Putin . . . . the folly of our policy makers in expecting anything else is inexplicable.
Octoposse said:
ATG said:
Putin views international relations from the perspective of someone stuck in the 19th century. The rest of the world had moved on.
But Putin is right . . . international relations work exactly as in the nineteenth century. How else?We can’t even consistently apply the principles of the Charter. Take Article 1 “ . . . . self-determination of peoples . . .” Kosovo and Scotland – Good; Crimea and South Ossetia – Bad, Palestine – Indifferent. Our political leaders can even claim that it is entirely up to the people of Syria to choose their government, but that Assad can’t be on their list of choices, without irony.
Nineteenth century? Yanukovich refuses to sign a trade deal with the EU! He must be deposed and replaced with someone who will sign! It’s more eighteenth century East India Company . . . . . . . we’ll be insisting on paying the Chinese in opium next . .
Octoposse said:
Braindead newspaper articles talk about 'goodwill' and 'allies', but actually there is a deal to be done on everything, and bygones are always bygones. Thus - as I recall - Tony Blair gave up some of the UK's EU rebate in exchange for France agreeing to bomb Serbia. Thus there was a deal with Putin over Crimea and Ukraine on the table seven months ago, but we chose condemnation instead as a policy.
Factually correct IMHO . . ..It's a very clever statement. It's difficult to argue with a lot of the points about US/EU/Western behavior while glossing over Russia's pretty similar actions and claiming that it's all innocent and they only have economic self interest in mind.
Of course the main difference is that Russia's more objectionable actions have all been camouflaged and denied instead of being transparent and then publicly dragged through the mud like most of the provocative decisions made on our side.
It sounds like he's trying to claim the moral high ground and in turn create seemingly rational justification for a very serious threat. Whether the threat is real or not probably depends on how bad the Russian position becomes, which he's trying to avoid confessing is more or less out of his hands.
Of course the main difference is that Russia's more objectionable actions have all been camouflaged and denied instead of being transparent and then publicly dragged through the mud like most of the provocative decisions made on our side.
It sounds like he's trying to claim the moral high ground and in turn create seemingly rational justification for a very serious threat. Whether the threat is real or not probably depends on how bad the Russian position becomes, which he's trying to avoid confessing is more or less out of his hands.
ATG said:
What kind of idiot thinks Serbian aggression shouldn't have been curtailed because they were best best friendies with another state? Again, seriously?
Serbian agression? It was a low level - but nasty - little civil war within the borders of a recognised state. I refer you to:UN Charter Article 2 said:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state . . .
.And you appear to argue that the consequences of our actions are irrelevant? Dire consequences indeed flowed from the attack on Serbia - directly, indirectly, and in terms of precedent, and all entirely predictable.
Edited by Octoposse on Wednesday 5th November 18:01
ATG said:
Can your seriously not see how silly it is to draw a comparison between the East India company's gun boat style "diplomacy" and the general public chucking out an unpopular president? Or do you really think foreign powers conspired to somehow encourage people to take to the streets? Seriously? Similarly it is completely absurd to draw parallels between NATO intervention in a civil war in the former Yugoslavia and Russia's attempts to interfere in and undermine any neighbouring states it sees as anti-Russian - to the extent of fomenting civil war and then using direct military intervention.
Well, clearly the reference to the EU behaving like the East India Company in the eighteenth century and deposing rulers who won't sign trade agreements was mildly (but only mildly) tongue-in-cheek . . but there are parallels too stark to ignore given the accusation that it is Moscow that is stuck in the nineteenth century . . It is undeniable that the EU and the US threw their weight behind regime change in Ukraine, against a democratically elected government. Yanukovych might have been unpopular in the capital, but it was voters in the South and East of the country who had propelled him to power, and who were disenfranchised by the coup.
And if military intervention by NATO to support sepatarists in Kosovo, ignoring the principle of the territorial integrity of states, doesn't establish a precedent for Russian intervention to support sepatarists in Crimea, South Ossetia, or anywhere else, why not?
Octoposse said:
ATG said:
What kind of idiot thinks Serbian aggression shouldn't have been curtailed because they were best best friendies with another state? Again, seriously?
Serbian agression? It was a low level civil - but nasty - civil war within the borders of a recognised state. I refer you to:UN Charter Article 2 said:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state . . .
.And you appear to argue that the consequences of our actions are irrelevant? Dire consequences indeed flowed from the attack on Serbia - directly, indirectly, and in terms of precedent, and all entirely predictable.
Octoposse said:
ell, clearly the reference to the EU behaving like the East India Company in the eighteenth century and deposing rulers who won't sign trade agreements was mildly (but only mildly) tongue-in-cheek . . but there are parallels too stark to ignore given the accusation that it is Moscow that is stuck in the nineteenth century . .
It is undeniable that the EU and the US threw their weight behind regime change in Ukraine, against a democratically elected government. Yanukovych might have been unpopular in the capital, but it was voters in the South and East of the country who had propelled him to power, and who were disenfranchised by the coup.
And if military intervention by NATO to support sepatarists in Kosovo, ignoring the principle of the territorial integrity of states, doesn't establish a precedent for Russian intervention to support sepatarists in Crimea, South Ossetia, or anywhere else, why not?
Because in Octoposse's world, the people of Ukraine are merely pawns in a game between two entities, incapable of independent thought or free speech.It is undeniable that the EU and the US threw their weight behind regime change in Ukraine, against a democratically elected government. Yanukovych might have been unpopular in the capital, but it was voters in the South and East of the country who had propelled him to power, and who were disenfranchised by the coup.
And if military intervention by NATO to support sepatarists in Kosovo, ignoring the principle of the territorial integrity of states, doesn't establish a precedent for Russian intervention to support sepatarists in Crimea, South Ossetia, or anywhere else, why not?
skyrover said:
Octoposse said:
ell, clearly the reference to the EU behaving like the East India Company in the eighteenth century and deposing rulers who won't sign trade agreements was mildly (but only mildly) tongue-in-cheek . . but there are parallels too stark to ignore given the accusation that it is Moscow that is stuck in the nineteenth century . .
It is undeniable that the EU and the US threw their weight behind regime change in Ukraine, against a democratically elected government. Yanukovych might have been unpopular in the capital, but it was voters in the South and East of the country who had propelled him to power, and who were disenfranchised by the coup.
And if military intervention by NATO to support sepatarists in Kosovo, ignoring the principle of the territorial integrity of states, doesn't establish a precedent for Russian intervention to support sepatarists in Crimea, South Ossetia, or anywhere else, why not?
Because in Octoposse's world, the people of Ukraine are merely pawns in a game between two entities, incapable of independent thought or free speech.It is undeniable that the EU and the US threw their weight behind regime change in Ukraine, against a democratically elected government. Yanukovych might have been unpopular in the capital, but it was voters in the South and East of the country who had propelled him to power, and who were disenfranchised by the coup.
And if military intervention by NATO to support sepatarists in Kosovo, ignoring the principle of the territorial integrity of states, doesn't establish a precedent for Russian intervention to support sepatarists in Crimea, South Ossetia, or anywhere else, why not?
But, picking up your point, the the people of Ukraine are entirely capable of independent thought and free speech, the end result of which - expressed through the peaceful democratic processes of the state - was a decision against a trade deal with the EU, and in favour of closer links with Russia.
It is worrying that the Soviet brainwashing that still goes on in Russia today seems to not only affect their own citizens, but those from other nations too. Russia is a hulk, suffocated by it's own size and weight and still held back by holding too tightly onto their communist past. The people of Russia hear the call of the bare-chested Putin and their drop their slacks for him.
I hear they pulled down a statue of Steve Jobs recently as Apple's CEO has come out of the closet. That just shows you how backwards this country is.
I hear they pulled down a statue of Steve Jobs recently as Apple's CEO has come out of the closet. That just shows you how backwards this country is.
Mastodon2 said:
It is worrying that the Soviet brainwashing that still goes on in Russia today . . . The people of Russia hear the call of the bare-chested Putin and their drop their slacks for him . . . . That just shows you how backwards this country is.
Stands to reason that anyone who doesn't see the world your way, is the product of two thousand years of culture and history that is different to yours, is by definition either brainwashed, stupid, or - more likely - both. Stands to reason really.
Octoposse said:
But, picking up your point, the the people of Ukraine are entirely capable of independent thought and free speech, the end result of which - expressed through the peaceful democratic processes of the state - was a decision against a trade deal with the EU, and in favour of closer links with Russia.
clearly it was not... ergo maidan protests.The fact is, the vast majority of the country looked over the border into Poland and saw soaring living standards, increasing wealth and a brighter future.
Indeed there are a few people who identified more with the Russian's, especially in the heavy industry sector of which Russia is the primary customer. However as shown here... they are not in the majority.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff