Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cyclonic happiness

So Much Support For Putin?

Recommended Posts

The thing I've noticed upon reading all the newspapers and online forums and such, is that there is a huge amount of support for what Putin is doing in Syria, even over our own 'leaders'.

(just read the comments sections of any newspaper http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/04/putin-russia-attacks-syria-way-out-of-isolation#comments)  

 

Me myself, I know that Putin is not doing this out of the goodness of his own heart, and that his main aim is to destroy the hegemony that America has in the middle east. But I can't help but admire the way the bloke is running rings around both the Americans and NATO.

I know it feels wrong, but I do support Putin as it stands.

 

How do you feel about Putin as a leader?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/04/john-mccain-russia-us-proxy-war-syria-obama-putin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great leader, think most people are aware by now that America deliberately destabilizes Middle Eastern countries purely to weaken Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Just seen a clip from Euro News - it seems that Putin is not make any friends in some quarters of Syria and they are resented the somewhat heavy handed way he has got involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Putin unlike western leaders has his people on side. 

 

Our politicians are not weaker than Putin but our people are cynical, unwilling to act in their own self interest and have no sense of duty any more. Far too many of the bigger nations like the US, UK, France and Germany have people who want to follow a Norway/Swiss model of get rich and leave the world to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putin is a dictator who is taking Russia backwards however in terms of Syria its hard for the west to complain about him meddling given the USA and UK laid the foundations for IS to grow by their disastrous Iraq war. Lets think of this another way if the USA had some big strategic naval base in a country and wanted to remain influential would they be doing anything different.

 

The UK government is happy to pal upto Bahrain and Saudi who are both committing human rights violations on a regular basis, the wests policy is nauseatingly hypocritical.  The west pushed the Arab spring, emboldened the original moderate rebels then pulled the plug. In Iraq the west pushed the Marsh Arabs to rebel then let them get slaughtered by Saddam Hussein.

 

So frankly the west moralizing to Russia about its Syrian policy is pathetic and laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putin is a dictator who is taking Russia backwards however in terms of Syria its hard for the west to complain about him meddling given the USA and UK laid the foundations for IS to grow by their disastrous Iraq war. Lets think of this another way if the USA had some big strategic naval base in a country and wanted to remain influential would they be doing anything different.

 

The UK government is happy to pal upto Bahrain and Saudi who are both committing human rights violations on a regular basis, the wests policy is nauseatingly hypocritical.  The west pushed the Arab spring, emboldened the original moderate rebels then pulled the plug. In Iraq the west pushed the Marsh Arabs to rebel then let them get slaughtered by Saddam Hussein.

 

So frankly the west moralizing to Russia about its Syrian policy is pathetic and laughable.

And the massive propaganda in all the main media outlets. The BBC has been disgusting recently :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the massive propaganda in all the main media outlets. The BBC has been disgusting recently :-(

Its no different in the USA. To be honest Putin is just doing what the UK or USA would do if it was in their strategic interest to do so. I don't think Putin needs to take lessons in morality from either the UK or USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the massive propaganda in all the main media outlets. The BBC has been disgusting recently :-(

It stood out at the FM`s media conference BBC question lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I think that Putin unlike western leaders has his people on side. 

 

Our politicians are not weaker than Putin but our people are cynical, unwilling to act in their own self interest and have no sense of duty any more. Far too many of the bigger nations like the US, UK, France and Germany have people who want to follow a Norway/Swiss model of get rich and leave the world to it.

 

 

I' m not so sure about that - something strikes me as quite machiavellian the way Putin has clung onto power, first of all as president in his own right, then as prime minister whilst his stooge held the presidential seat only to go back to being a president once more. During this time democracy in Russia has gradually weakened and he has gained more presidential powers. 

 

There is opposition in Russia but to an extent it is stifled. There is also the Russian attitude to its leaders - above the majority admire and respect strong leaders - one only has to the history of Russia over the past few centuries, most of the time ruled by the Romanovs under a feudal system, to be followed by the Soviets under the Lenin/Stalinists regimes where the rights of the individual were suppressed for the 'greater good' of the majority.

 

Under the Yeltsin regime many bemoaned the passing of the Soviet system, particularly when their economy was going 'tits up' and crime was becoming rampant with the Mafioski, which left many disheartened. 

 

Then enter Putin, stage right - he is a pretty ruthless character but under his leadership the economy has improved somewhat and the people are again regaining pride in their country and this is what the majority of Russians want. But there again most of the Germans thought that Hitler was the best thing since sliced bread. That is not to say that Putin and Hitler are exactly the same, times are different as well as many other aspects but what does come through is that Putin is determined to enlarge Russia's footprint in the world and to do this he is engaging nationalism which can be a dangerous thing at times.

 

As for the USA V Russia syndrome, they are still as bad as each other, building up mistrust against each other just as they did in the Cold War by endless propaganda where any approach to the actual truth of the matter was purely co-incidental fuelled by the desire for self interest and self seeking agendas to propagate undeserved reputations of the pigs who believe they are more equal than others. 

 

Despite all our dreams 25 years ago for a better world there does not appear to have been that much change overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably more begrudging admiration than support.

He is strong in his convictions and beliefs, which contrasts to the weathervane, wishy-washy politicians/leaders prevelent in the "west".

Despite that, I doubt many would like to live under him; the novelty might ware off amongst even his most fervent supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putin knows that the Russian people are politically unsophisticated and gives them the unreconstructed leader they want, moobs and all.

When he chucks his weight around on the international stage it goes down a storm at home but militarily Russia is an irrelevance.

Russia's dated warplanes are in serious danger of being shot down by US supplied SAMs fired by Syrian rebels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putin knows that the Russian people are politically unsophisticated and gives them the unreconstructed leader they want, moobs and all.

When he chucks his weight around on the international stage it goes down a storm at home but militarily Russia is an irrelevance.

Russia's dated warplanes are in serious danger of being shot down by US supplied SAMs fired by Syrian rebels.

Russia's military is not an irrelevance. Ask Georgians or Ukrainians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia's military is not an irrelevance. Ask Georgians or Ukrainians.

Both using obsolete equipment supplied by the Russians themselves.

Because of the lack of military funding in Russia after the cold war ended, they are a generation behind the US in hardware development. Putin has taken steps to catch up but they are currently using fighter bombers which are over 30 years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread could equally be entitled, "Is Putin justified in materially assisting the brutal Assad regime in systematically killing, maimimg and torturing over 250 thousand Syrian people, and at the same time instigating the biggest diaspora since WW2, in order to maintain a foothold in the Middle East?". The answer is emphatically no and he is as guilty of crimes against humanity as his buddy Assad.


Great leader, think most people are aware by now that America deliberately destabilizes Middle Eastern countries purely to weaken Russia.

 

What a load of absolute nonsense.

 

It also completely amazes me that when discussing the quagmire that is the Middle East and historically has been ever thus, is how those posters who are under the thrall of the Russian propaganda machine, choose completely to ignore the bitter schism within Islam and the hatred of millions of Sunnis for Shias and vice versa which is first and foremost why the region has never been stable. Throw into the mix psychopathic dictators and the circle is complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russians have "enjoyed" the use of facilities at Latakia and Tartus for decades. These facilities give them a presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and allow Moscow to project their power in a strategically important part of the world.

 

The Crimea functioned in the same way for the Black Sea and the Bosphorus - it was unthinkable for Moscow to allow that territory and its naval facilities to fall into the hands of a potentially hostile Government in Kiev. In addition, given the overwhelmingly pro-Russian (thanks to ethnic cleansing) population in the peninsula, it was always going to be easy for Russia to regain control.

 

In Syria, I suspect Putin doesn't care who is in power in Damascus as long as the Russians have their facilities in Latakia and Tartus. I suspect he's not that bothered if IS control the deserts in the east either - as long as a pro-Russian Government controls cities likes Damascus, Aleppo and Homs Moscow will be happy.

 

This is therefore not about propping up Assad per se - it's about ensuring a stable secure pro-Moscow Government remains in power in Damascus. 

 

The corollary is that American policy in Syria is geared not toward providing democracy for Syria but toward creating a pro-Western Government in Damascus which will allow American ships access to Syrian naval facilities and deny them to the Russians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Putin unlike western leaders has his people on side. 

 

Our politicians are not weaker than Putin but our people are cynical, unwilling to act in their own self interest and have no sense of duty any more. Far too many of the bigger nations like the US, UK, France and Germany have people who want to follow a Norway/Swiss model of get rich and leave the world to it.

Thank goodness for that. How can a blind willingness to shoot brown people, usually in far-off countries, be either a duty or in one's self-interest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russians have "enjoyed" the use of facilities at Latakia and Tartus for decades. These facilities give them a presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and allow Moscow to project their power in a strategically important part of the world.

 

The Crimea functioned in the same way for the Black Sea and the Bosphorus - it was unthinkable for Moscow to allow that territory and its naval facilities to fall into the hands of a potentially hostile Government in Kiev. In addition, given the overwhelmingly pro-Russian (thanks to ethnic cleansing) population in the peninsula, it was always going to be easy for Russia to regain control.

 

In Syria, I suspect Putin doesn't care who is in power in Damascus as long as the Russians have their facilities in Latakia and Tartus. I suspect he's not that bothered if IS control the deserts in the east either - as long as a pro-Russian Government controls cities likes Damascus, Aleppo and Homs Moscow will be happy.

 

This is therefore not about propping up Assad per se - it's about ensuring a stable secure pro-Moscow Government remains in power in Damascus. 

 

The corollary is that American policy in Syria is geared not toward providing democracy for Syria but toward creating a pro-Western Government in Damascus which will allow American ships access to Syrian naval facilities and deny them to the Russians.

 

Broadly in agreement with that. I posted this in the other thread but it's relevant here.

 

Putin’s formula — fight Isis first and discuss “transition†in the Syrian government later — is proving attractive at the UN. It is the kind of bullet-point simplification that Putin loves. If it wins support, if Assad’s misrule is allowed to flourish, then expect a jihad, a Sunni revolt on a scale that will make the current scraps in Iraq and Syria look distinctly featherweight.

 

The West cannot decide which evil needs tackling first — Isis or Assad. It was Assad who deliberately released jihadists en masse from his prisons in 2011. He then denounced the moderate opposition as terrorists and declared war on them, ensuring that the Arab Spring would not topple his throne. His regime traded with Isis. His army struck deals with the jihadists: so long as Isis was eliminating units from the moderate opposition, they would be left in peace.

 

Yet still Europeans buy the Putin pitch of Isis First. In fact if Putin has his way Isis will last forever. As long as Assad’s future is contingent on a supposed global threat from Isis, and as long as they do not attack the Assad heartland, the jihadists will be allowed to blare out their fundamentalist propaganda and decapitate at will. In New York Putin called for a broad coalition against Islamic State that includes Russia, Iran and Syria. But his own contribution to the struggle so far has been to supply the Assad regime with missiles that can take out rebel positions in Aleppo. That is the true meaning of the Russian initiative: Putin, under the cover of grappling with Isis, is killing anyone who could conceivably sit down with Assad in future power-sharing talks. Should we be helping him do that? I think not.

 

There is another aspect that needs t be considered. Many posters who get quite excited and object to the Syrian mass migration into Europe at the same time appear to pay homage to Saint Putin and his policy in Syria. Which is a trifle odd seeing as said policy caused the diaspora in the first place. Go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both using obsolete equipment supplied by the Russians themselves.

Because of the lack of military funding in Russia after the cold war ended, they are a generation behind the US in hardware development. Putin has taken steps to catch up but they are currently using fighter bombers which are over 30 years old.

 

Ehm, so is the UK! The Tornado bomber's first flight was in 1974 and was introduced into service in 1979. OK, so there have been upgrades over the years but it's still essentially a 35yr old aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Broadly in agreement with that. I posted this in the other thread but it's relevant here.

 

Putin’s formula — fight Isis first and discuss “transition†in the Syrian government later — is proving attractive at the UN. It is the kind of bullet-point simplification that Putin loves. If it wins support, if Assad’s misrule is allowed to flourish, then expect a jihad, a Sunni revolt on a scale that will make the current scraps in Iraq and Syria look distinctly featherweight.

 

The West cannot decide which evil needs tackling first — Isis or Assad. It was Assad who deliberately released jihadists en masse from his prisons in 2011. He then denounced the moderate opposition as terrorists and declared war on them, ensuring that the Arab Spring would not topple his throne. His regime traded with Isis. His army struck deals with the jihadists: so long as Isis was eliminating units from the moderate opposition, they would be left in peace.

 

Yet still Europeans buy the Putin pitch of Isis First. In fact if Putin has his way Isis will last forever. As long as Assad’s future is contingent on a supposed global threat from Isis, and as long as they do not attack the Assad heartland, the jihadists will be allowed to blare out their fundamentalist propaganda and decapitate at will. In New York Putin called for a broad coalition against Islamic State that includes Russia, Iran and Syria. But his own contribution to the struggle so far has been to supply the Assad regime with missiles that can take out rebel positions in Aleppo. That is the true meaning of the Russian initiative: Putin, under the cover of grappling with Isis, is killing anyone who could conceivably sit down with Assad in future power-sharing talks. Should we be helping him do that? I think not.

 

There is another aspect that needs t be considered. Many posters who get quite excited and object to the Syrian mass migration into Europe at the same time appear to pay homage to Saint Putin and his policy in Syria. Which is a trifle odd seeing as said policy caused the diaspora in the first place. Go figure.

If Putin can stop ISIS regardless of who is funding and equipping them, the flow of people from Syria should slow down quite a bit. 

(ignoring the fact that the vast majority of migrants have nothing to don with Syria).

 

Also, no-one is calling him a saint, he's just actually making a decisive difference whether for the better of the worse, non of the dilly-dallying around the issue like NATO has been doing.

 

The whole stirring up the hornets' nest thing was done entirely by the Americans and their arrogant and cynical bombing campaigns against a foe that a lot of people say , they fund.

 

You're right about the ME being a complete basket case, but Putin's aim is to create stability over the part with Russian interests, like the ports and naval bases, he's not really bothered about Assad and the Syrian nation, it a purely selfish act.

 

You can admire someone without supporting them and even liking them, I admire his attitude to actually doing and not sitting and talking about doing.

 

As for where the intervention will get us and the ME, who knows, but it's fascinating to watch, in a ghoulish way.

 

(and before you say Knocker, because I know what you're like :-D  No, I do not enjoy seeing mass death and destruction)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehm, so is the UK! The Tornado bomber's first flight was in 1974 and was introduced into service in 1979. OK, so there have been upgrades over the years but it's still essentially a 35yr old aircraft.

Agreed, and when Prime Minister Corbyn declares war on President Trump for chatting up Diane Abbot, our military won't be taken very seriously either!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, and when Prime Minister Corbyn declares war on President Trump for chatting up Diane Abbot, our military won't be taken very seriously either!

 

We could always use one of our new aircraft-less aircraft carriers as a mega-sized battering ram.

 

As for Putin I've got to think he's a bit of a self-obsessed, dictatorial nutter, but he's running rings around 'the West' at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Putin can stop ISIS regardless of who is funding and equipping them, the flow of people from Syria should slow down quite a bit. 

(ignoring the fact that the vast majority of migrants have nothing to don with Syria).

 

Also, no-one is calling him a saint, he's just actually making a decisive difference whether for the better of the worse, non of the dilly-dallying around the issue like NATO has been doing.

 

The whole stirring up the hornets' nest thing was done entirely by the Americans and their arrogant and cynical bombing campaigns against a foe that a lot of people say , they fund.

 

You're right about the ME being a complete basket case, but Putin's aim is to create stability over the part with Russian interests, like the ports and naval bases, he's not really bothered about Assad and the Syrian nation, it a purely selfish act.

 

You can admire someone without supporting them and even liking them, I admire his attitude to actually doing and not sitting and talking about doing.

 

As for where the intervention will get us and the ME, who knows, but it's fascinating to watch, in a ghoulish way.

 

(and before you say Knocker, because I know what you're like :-D  No, I do not enjoy seeing mass death and destruction)

 

Excuse me. Try telling that to the 4m in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. I know they are not all flooding into Europe with the rest of the Muslim hordes but they are part of the diaspora.

 

 

(ignoring the fact that the vast majority of migrants have nothing to don with Syria).

 

Do tell ch and I'll be sure to your thoughts on to my analyst.

 

 

(and before you say Knocker, because I know what you're like :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me. Try telling that to the 4m in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. I know they are not all flooding into Europe with the rest of the Muslim hordes but they are part of the diaspora.

 

 

Do tell ch and I'll be sure to your thoughts on to my analyst.

Yes, well hopefully if Putin kills off ISIS enough, they will be able to try to go back home and rebuild.

 

I don't know why they just don't all work together against this common foe?  

 

You have an analyst? :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, well hopefully if Putin kills off ISIS enough, they will be able to try to go back home and rebuild.

 

I don't know why they just don't all work together against this common foe?  

 

You have an analyst? :-D

 

As soon as ISIS are killed off another terrorist group will form from the massive pool of jihadists in the rebel armies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...