Putin:- Playtime is over.....

[ATG]

XJ Flyer said:

The fact that Russia obviously rose out of the ashes of the Soviet Union in a strong enough position to stop NATO's eastward expansion plans is certainly a rebuttal.

Eh? The "fight"was against the Soviet system. That is gone.

[Zod]

XJ Flyer said:

The fact that Russia obviously rose out of the ashes of the Soviet Union in a strong enough position to stop NATO's eastward expansion plans is certainly a rebuttal.

It clearly is not.

[anonymous-user]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29966852.
The guy isn't stupid and he wouldn't say such things lightly.

[loafer123]

It shows archaic thinking and breathtaking arrogance.

It is clear that he and Putin have no regard at all for the people that they govern(ed).

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and other states have gravitated towards "The West" purely because it provides emancipation and an improvement in living standards, not because they want to be part of another "bloc".

"Mother Russia" simply has no kids - the foster children it looked after left home as quick as they could.

The grandparents need to get over it.

[XJ Flyer]

loafer123 said:

It shows archaic thinking and breathtaking arrogance.

It is clear that he and Putin have no regard at all for the people that they govern(ed).

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and other states have gravitated towards "The West" purely because it provides emancipation and an improvement in living standards, not because they want to be part of another "bloc".

"Mother Russia" simply has no kids - the foster children it looked after left home as quick as they could.

The grandparents need to get over it.

It 'provides an improvement in living standards' because of the cash that has been diverted eastwards in order to provide an artificial incentive for the ex WP and Soviet states to 'change sides'.When what was needed was to respect the withdrawal of Russia back to its own borders by providing no economic or military inducements to those states thereby creating a neutral de militarised buffer between east and west.Which I'm guessing was the original intention in that Russian withdrawal.Instead of which it has been a case of the delusional idea that the west supposedly brought the Soviet Union down by way of economic warfare.It then advanced militarily into the vacuum left in the east using economic bribery to do it.

In which case it isn't difficult to understand how that looks from Russia's point of view and it is my guess that Gorbachev is massively understating the gravity and seriousness of that issue,in that we've possibly lit a slow burning fuse to something potentially far more serious than the Cuban missile crisis.

[loafer123]

No.

You think that we want to take over because that is what Russia would do, and so it feels threatened.

But we don't.

We all couldn't give a monkey's arse what these countries do, as long as it is the will of their people.

[XJ Flyer]

loafer123 said:

No.

You think that we want to take over because that is what Russia would do, and so it feels threatened.

But we don't.

We all couldn't give a monkey's arse what these countries do, as long as it is the will of their people.

I think the fact that NATO has moved into those ex WP and Soviet states is,arguably,a military 'take over' from Russia's understandable point of view.The key word being 'neutrality' so that Russia doesn't have,what it views as,a potentially hostile force on its borders just as we, understandably,would continue to view Russia as a potentially hostile force on Europe's.Replacing the ex WP and Soviet states previous military status as neutral can only help diffuse the situation in that regard.

As it stands now we've just replaced a Cold War based on what NATO understandably viewed as a potentially hostile Russian backed force on Europe's borders,with another based on what Russia views as a potentially hostile NATO force on Russia's borders.With Ukraine/Crimea obviously being Russia's line in the sand.

[loafer123]

XJ Flyer said:

loafer123 said:

No.

You think that we want to take over because that is what Russia would do, and so it feels threatened.

But we don't.

We all couldn't give a monkey's arse what these countries do, as long as it is the will of their people.

I think the fact that NATO has moved into those ex WP and Soviet states is,arguably,a military 'take over' from Russia's understandable point of view.The key word being 'neutrality' so that Russia doesn't have,what it views as,a potentially hostile force on its borders just as we, understandably,would continue to view Russia as a potentially hostile force on Europe's.Replacing the ex WP and Soviet states previous military status as neutral can only help diffuse the situation in that regard.

As it stands now we've just replaced a Cold War based on what NATO understandably viewed as a potentially hostile Russian backed force on Europe's borders,with another based on what Russia views as a potentially hostile NATO force on Russia's borders.With Ukraine/Crimea obviously being Russia's line in the sand.

See above.

[XJ Flyer]

loafer123 said:

XJ Flyer said:

loafer123 said:

No.

You think that we want to take over because that is what Russia would do, and so it feels threatened.

But we don't.

We all couldn't give a monkey's arse what these countries do, as long as it is the will of their people.

I think the fact that NATO has moved into those ex WP and Soviet states is,arguably,a military 'take over' from Russia's understandable point of view.The key word being 'neutrality' so that Russia doesn't have,what it views as,a potentially hostile force on its borders just as we, understandably,would continue to view Russia as a potentially hostile force on Europe's.Replacing the ex WP and Soviet states previous military status as neutral can only help diffuse the situation in that regard.

As it stands now we've just replaced a Cold War based on what NATO understandably viewed as a potentially hostile Russian backed force on Europe's borders,with another based on what Russia views as a potentially hostile NATO force on Russia's borders.With Ukraine/Crimea obviously being Russia's line in the sand.

See above.

And that type of intransigence is how large scale wars start.

[anonymous-user]

Loafer, you are misguided. To dismiss Gorbachev, the reformist, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, the architect of perestroika, glasnost and in turn the dissolution of the USSR and the end of the cold war as archaic and arrogant is really, really thick.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 9th November 08:48

[RobinBanks]

I've spent a lot of time in Russia over the last few years and as the economy weakens (along with the rouble), a lot of people I've spoken to have become more and more worried. A lot of them are in despair as they just can't afford their European and American business obligations now that the money they hold in roubles is almost worthless.
Last time I was in Russia (a few months ago) the rouble was at 64 to the pound.
This time last year it was around 52 to the pound
A year before that it was 45 to the pound.

Right now it's 64 to the US dollar (74 to GBP). That's a big hit - I'm not surprised that people who hold a lot of cash in roubles are worried and that Банк россии has spent $30 billion over the last month buying roubles to support the rate. It's not really working though.

The rouble isn't a currency that you can trade like USD or GBP or Euro - no one wants to touch the nasty, volatile notes. I never keep more than about £10 in roubles - I exchange every time I go because I don't want a couple of grand to quickly evaporate. It has happened before and it is happening again (although not as strongly as then).

[Octoposse]

loafer123 said:

We all couldn't give a monkey's arse what these countries do, as long as it is the will of their people.

When the will of the people of Ukraine, expressed through elections and peaceful political process, was closer links to Russia we gave such a monkey's arse we went for regime change . . .

[NicD]

Octoposse said:

loafer123 said:

We all couldn't give a monkey's arse what these countries do, as long as it is the will of their people.

When the will of the people of Ukraine, expressed through elections and peaceful political process, was closer links to Russia we gave such a monkey's arse we went for regime change . . .

You have stated two joined points

Can you provide links to each

or in your mind, are they 'facts' that need no support?

[anonymous-user]

Sorry hit wrong button. Fat fingers.

[Octoposse]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Absolutely - and this is a man widely perceived in Russia as having been niave, weak, exploitable, and far too pro-Western . . . (Putin's popularity being based on being not-Gorby, and the opposite in every category).

[Octoposse]

NicD said:

You have stated two joined points

Can you provide links to each

or in your mind, are they 'facts' that need no support?

I don't think any of:
- Victor Yanukovich wins election in Ukraine, enjoying particular support in the more Russia-oriented South and East;
- Government rejects EU Trade Deal (to widespread relief in the East), in favour of closer links with Russia;
- EU and US throws weight behind street protests and coup . . .
. . . is particularly contensious as a matter of record?

[loafer123]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Fair enough - on reflection, and reading the article again, he is simply stating the fact that we could enter another Cold War.

I agree with him -in fact I think I would go further - we have already done so.

But in my view it would be a mistake to withdraw sanctions as he suggests - it would simply validate the recent actions of Russia and encourage further invasions of our neighbours and friends.

[Octoposse]

loafer123 said:

But in my view it would be a mistake to withdraw sanctions as he suggests - it would simply validate the recent actions of Russia and encourage further invasions of our neighbours and friends.

Except that we have put ourselves on the wrong side of Article 1, Chapter 1 of the Charter of the United Nations - . . . respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples . . . - let alone consistency with 'our' actions in Kosovo, Iraq, et al.

Also, objectively, you have to wonder whether picking a sanctions-based fight with Moscow is going to lead to more or less stability than seeking a political based deal and modus vivendi . . .

[NicD]

Octoposse said:

NicD said:

You have stated two joined points

Can you provide links to each

or in your mind, are they 'facts' that need no support?

I don't think any of:
- Victor Yanukovich wins election in Ukraine, enjoying particular support in the more Russia-oriented South and East;
- Government rejects EU Trade Deal (to widespread relief in the East), in favour of closer links with Russia;
- EU and US throws weight behind street protests and coup . . .
. . . is particularly contensious as a matter of record?

The former is true, but the latter contention is indeed contentious unless you have evidence which is what I asked you for.

you haven't mentioned this :

This led to popular protests and the occupation of Kiev's Independence Square, a series of events dubbed the "Euromaidan" by young pro-European Union Ukrainians. In January 2014, this developed into deadly clashes in Independence Square and in other areas across Ukraine, as Ukrainian citizens confronted the Berkut and other special police units.[4] In February 2014, Ukraine appeared to be on the brink of civil war, as violent clashes between protesters and special police forces led to many deaths and injuries.[5][6][7] On 21 February 2014, Yanukovych claimed that, after lengthy discussions, he had reached an agreement with the opposition.[8] Later that day, however, he fled the capital for Kharkiv, travelling next to the Crimea, and eventually to exile in southern Russia.[9