Russia General

[ProfTournesol 956]

I wonder why such story wasn't brought to us four or five years ago.

Well it's far from being new...

[dontknowhow 33]

Well it's far from being new...

Yes. The rumor that he has 40 billion dollars stashed is about 10 years old, I believe.

I still wonder if it's true though.

[exe_74rus 1]

When speak of billions of Putin, is said that the money steal in his place.

[katipo66 94]

 

I'm in shock, what's wrong with this world?

 

Your attitude for a start..

[d_lukin 16]

Your attitude for a start..

I think problem in the capitalistik ideology, because the most important in this ideology it is the profit, humans is in second place. From here starts all the problems.

[Tonci87 163]

Your attitude, yep, definatelly your attitude  :huh:

[d_lukin 16]

Your attitude, yep, definatelly your attitude  :huh:

But as practice shows, nothing better has not yet invented, unfortunately.

[Tonci87 163]

LOL, as if Russia was the only nation in the world that had to endure hardships. Why don´t you ask some of those nations Russia has conquered and opressed for centuries how they feel?

I can speak for Croatia, 1000 years of beeing ruled by somebody else, fighting some war or another all the time, and yet we are still there. Get off your high supremacist horse.

[Sanya 97]

I think problem in the capitalistik ideology, because the most important in this ideology it is the profit, humans is in second place. From here starts all the problems.

I agree, this ideology compels them to go to Moscow. Under socialism, they could live at home.

[d_lukin 16]

LOL, as if Russia was the only nation in the world that had to endure hardships. Why don´t you ask some of those nations Russia has conquered and opressed for centuries how they feel?

I can speak for Croatia, 1000 years of beeing ruled by somebody else, fighting some war or another all the time, and yet we are still there. Get off your high supremacist horse.

Did not want to offend. Here are some cat-therapy  :)

 

I agree, this ideology compels them to go to Moscow. Under socialism, they could live at home.

Yea.

Today found on the website of the Communists:

(google translate)

We stress: the problem of mass illegal migration is a product of capitalism, which condemns whole populations to poverty and seek a better life working abroad. Capitalism creates the desire to maximize profit and personal gains, pushing businessmen and officials in violation of the law and allowing illegal migrants to the labour market of our country...

 

[dontknowhow 33]

You are welcome to go back to the five year plan and the kolkhoz

[d_lukin 16]

You are welcome to go back to the five year plan and the kolkhoz

No thanks  :)

[tacticalnuggets 24]

The majority of this thread sounds like middle aged men getting all hyped up by the anti-Russian Nato propaganda, something which they were exposed to a large portion of their lives. The arguments on here are poor. On one side you have Russia obsessed people who could give a rats butt about the atrocities Russia has committed, and then on another side you have people who clearly live in the walls of Nato, currently the most powerful force on this planet. But anyone who has been paying attention has seen the lines blur a lot. Even before Russia has become highly military active in the recent years, Nato has continued to build its world power, flipping governments they want control over and sometimes leaving certain countries in ruin. Nato has become highly corrupt, and has surrounded Russia in response to BRIC. Our news sources reflect the bias heavily, and so too has the Russian media. I have explored the darknet in search of just what the hell is really going on, and I have found a lot of benevolent content seemingly blocked by popular search engines, not using wrapped protocols or anything special.

 

As the facts stand, Russia, despite having a sociopath for a leader, has deployed its military in much fewer countries and at a much shorter distance than the United States (the leader of Nato) has in the last 15 years. Russia has taken action within the scope of international law in Crimea and Syria. In Crimea, the lines are much more blurry though, if we take the "world vote", what Russia did was wrong, but if we take some of the facts at face value, then it was legitimate. But, again, the problem remains that the "world vote" is Nato. And to make it even more strange, there have been exposed conversations of Nato actively assimilating Ukraine at the time Russia decided to go into Crimea. 

 

The entire problem is one of chicken and egg, who fired first, ect. In a situation like that, you have to look at geography, who holds power, and clear motives. Once you do that, Russia clearly looks like its acting out to stop Nato from cutting off its country and monopolizing resources. The US and Nato have clearly been pursuing this in at least the middle east. 

 

Vladimir Putin's selfish action have coincidentally been unselfish for his country; they have been an attempt to restore the balance of power back to the east.

 

As far as all eastern countries being "inherently evil"... I dont buy it.. 

[Tonci87 163]

OK, explain how invading another sovereign country, annexing a big chunk of its territory and then starting a proxy war (if you can even call it that since russian weapons and troops have been involved heavily in the fighting) is legitimate.

 

Go ahead, I´m curious.

[tacticalnuggets 24]

OK, explain how invading another sovereign country, annexing a big chunk of its territory and then starting a proxy war (if you can even call it that since russian weapons and troops have been involved heavily in the fighting) is legitimate.

 

Go ahead, I´m curious.

 

Because there is evidence to suggest Nato has actively been trying to assimilate Ukraine, and according to international law, the annexation of Crimea was at the very least partially legitimate. And there is also very strong evidence that most of the novo separatists are not actually getting their weapons from Russia, but from Ukraine itself. But most of those weapons, especially armored vehicles, are not in Ukrainian service, so how can this be? Well, its hard to exactly prove either which way when many vehicles that are not in Ukrainian service are actually in STORAGE. So they are available, and the counter argument again degrades into "you cant trust Russia, or you cant trust Ukraine", ect.

 

But lets assume Russia is fighting a proxy war, which is certainly a possible and reasonable assumption. What makes it morally wrong? You have a government that has fascist connections, political intrusions by oppositional countries to Russia, such as Nato, and you have a large territory of People who believe their culture and language is fundamentally different to western Ukrainians. It would be highly logical to at least give your neighbors weapons to separate. These people are not like ISIS or the rebels in Syria, they are not trying to overthrow the entire country of Ukraine and supersede their ideals. The interest in Ukraine keeping that territory is a pure matter of resources, and not about the interests of the people. Counter arguing any further, for instance against the idea of Russia controlling East Ukraine as a puppet state (ignoring Crimea at this point) is diving into the realm of conspiracy theories, grounds which I will not argue on.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Because there is evidence to suggest Nato has actively been trying to assimilate Ukraine, and according to international law, the annexation of Crimea was at the very least partially legitimate.

 

NATO isn't a country but a pact, while Russia is a country. What country has been "annexed" by the NATO treaty ? You may have not much clue about "international law", contrary to some "middle aged" men around. But you prefer to throw some "anti Russian propaganda" at other posters, which shows how weak your aguments are.

[Dwarden 1124]

Ukraine was sovereign country with granted border integrity by Russia, UK and USA with France and China supporting it separate

Ukraine decided it 'may' move slowly -toward European Union and NATO (both are opt-in, opt-out alliance , pact, group systems)

Russia decided they don't like it and occupied Crimea (fearing it would lose those non-freezing-water naval ports)

(which is irony as Ukraine assured many times repeated lease renewals until 2050 or even 2100 are possible)

reason was simple, you do not need to pay for what you steal ... as bonus around Crimea are huge oil, gas and fishing grounds

then East Ukraine conflict, again, gas fields, major coal reserves and other natural resources, industrial part of country etc.

while I do not agree with some USA/NATO decisions

(Kosovo was typical example of what will Russia/China use in future as example excuse)

(Libya was pure example that state in order with reformed dictator is better than civil war)

[Tonci87 163]

Despite repeating myself, under wich international law was the annexation of Crimea legitimate?

[Caselius 94]

Oh well, I have tried to avoid commenting to this topic for best of my abilities and remain an observer but here we go.

 

And there is also very strong evidence that most of the novo separatists are not actually getting their weapons from Russia, but from Ukraine itself. But most of those weapons, especially armored vehicles, are not in Ukrainian service, so how can this be? Well, its hard to exactly prove either which way when many vehicles that are not in Ukrainian service are actually in STORAGE. So they are available, and the counter argument again degrades into "you cant trust Russia, or you cant trust Ukraine", ect.

 

Some of the equipment which separatists have are not used by Ukraine at all, however they are being actively fielded by Russian military. For example there is numerous cases of identified T-72B3 tanks. B3 is a recent modification for T-72 tank series which has it's own distinctive features which give the vehicle away - Ukraine is not operating any of those. Also MLRS systems like Grad-K and Buratino have been seen in Separatist use, Buratino was seen by OCSE observers.

 

But lets assume Russia is fighting a proxy war, which is certainly a possible and reasonable assumption. What makes it morally wrong? You have a government that has fascist connections, political intrusions by oppositional countries to Russia, such as Nato, and you have a large territory of People who believe their culture and language is fundamentally different to western Ukrainians. It would be highly logical to at least give your neighbors weapons to separate. These people are not like ISIS or the rebels in Syria, they are not trying to overthrow the entire country of Ukraine and supersede their ideals. The interest in Ukraine keeping that territory is a pure matter of resources, and not about the interests of the people. Counter arguing any further, for instance against the idea of Russia controlling East Ukraine as a puppet state (ignoring Crimea at this point) is diving into the realm of conspiracy theories, grounds which I will not argue on.

 

Well, even if giving weapons would be "logical" for some it for sure is not right in legal means. I also feel that it is absolutely unnecessary for other countries to take part to other countries' internal politics and claim full nations are "facists" like what I seen during this conflict. Even that doesn't justify military actions to other countries.

 

About giving support, It is clear that Russia as a nation with strong interests wants to drive them forward with all possible means. I really doubt Russia would supply rebels as "goodwill". Russia definitely has and had it's hands on the affairs from early on. The change in the war in August 2014 saw a raise in the involvement of the so called soldiers on leave or volunteers like one side's sources like to say. I also doubt that such thing wouldn't have happened if Russian leadership wouldn't have wanted to further instigate the conflict or more clearly affect the course of war to more favorable position for them. 

 

Weakening Ukraine, taking region with valuable natural resources and industry seem to be the main objectives for the war. They would profit of it even if the Eastern Ukrainian areas would be given to the rebels and they would form their own states.  

 

I feel it is weird how surprisingly fast these all uprisings began with "armed rebels" taking control of governmental buildings. I would expect that there would have been more widespread resistance beforehand if they wanted to depart from the country. But, yeah, might be me there.

 

I think the main point behind this conflict is that Putin saw the "right moment" come. Crimea had been an problem for them even earlier in the 1990's and the inner problems made the plans possible. However all what Ukraine wanted to do internally and the plans to further develop cooperation with the EU or even NATO shouldn't justify military action.

 

In my honest opinion, if there is defensive alliance getting more member states. It tells more that those now joining nations are feeling threatened, not that the alliance wants to expand. For example in my country after the start of Ukrainan crisis, the support of NATO has risen a lot and there has been increasing military cooperation with other nations like Sweden.

[dontknowhow 33]

The majority of this thread sounds like middle aged men getting all hyped up by the anti-Russian Nato propaganda, something which they were exposed to a large portion of their lives. The arguments on here are poor. On one side you have Russia obsessed people who could give a rats butt about the atrocities Russia has committed, and then on another side you have people who clearly live in the walls of Nato, currently the most powerful force on this planet. But anyone who has been paying attention has seen the lines blur a lot. Even before Russia has become highly military active in the recent years, Nato has continued to build its world power, flipping governments they want control over and sometimes leaving certain countries in ruin. Nato has become highly corrupt, and has surrounded Russia in response to BRIC. Our news sources reflect the bias heavily, and so too has the Russian media. I have explored the darknet in search of just what the hell is really going on, and I have found a lot of benevolent content seemingly blocked by popular search engines, not using wrapped protocols or anything special.

 

As the facts stand, Russia, despite having a sociopath for a leader, has deployed its military in much fewer countries and at a much shorter distance than the United States (the leader of Nato) has in the last 15 years. Russia has taken action within the scope of international law in Crimea and Syria. In Crimea, the lines are much more blurry though, if we take the "world vote", what Russia did was wrong, but if we take some of the facts at face value, then it was legitimate. But, again, the problem remains that the "world vote" is Nato. And to make it even more strange, there have been exposed conversations of Nato actively assimilating Ukraine at the time Russia decided to go into Crimea. 

 

The entire problem is one of chicken and egg, who fired first, ect. In a situation like that, you have to look at geography, who holds power, and clear motives. Once you do that, Russia clearly looks like its acting out to stop Nato from cutting off its country and monopolizing resources. The US and Nato have clearly been pursuing this in at least the middle east. 

 

Vladimir Putin's selfish action have coincidentally been unselfish for his country; they have been an attempt to restore the balance of power back to the east.

 

As far as all eastern countries being "inherently evil"... I dont buy it.. 

 

Because there is evidence to suggest Nato has actively been trying to assimilate Ukraine, and according to international law, the annexation of Crimea was at the very least partially legitimate. And there is also very strong evidence that most of the novo separatists are not actually getting their weapons from Russia, but from Ukraine itself. But most of those weapons, especially armored vehicles, are not in Ukrainian service, so how can this be? Well, its hard to exactly prove either which way when many vehicles that are not in Ukrainian service are actually in STORAGE. So they are available, and the counter argument again degrades into "you cant trust Russia, or you cant trust Ukraine", ect.

 

But lets assume Russia is fighting a proxy war, which is certainly a possible and reasonable assumption. What makes it morally wrong? You have a government that has fascist connections, political intrusions by oppositional countries to Russia, such as Nato, and you have a large territory of People who believe their culture and language is fundamentally different to western Ukrainians. It would be highly logical to at least give your neighbors weapons to separate. These people are not like ISIS or the rebels in Syria, they are not trying to overthrow the entire country of Ukraine and supersede their ideals. The interest in Ukraine keeping that territory is a pure matter of resources, and not about the interests of the people. Counter arguing any further, for instance against the idea of Russia controlling East Ukraine as a puppet state (ignoring Crimea at this point) is diving into the realm of conspiracy theories, grounds which I will not argue on.

 

There is so much nonsense in these 2 posts that I wouldn't even know where to start. But what do I know, after all I am one of those middle aged men exposed to anti Russian propaganda for a large portion of my life. Thankfully for me, I might say.

God bless the 6th fleet.

 

NATO isn't a country but a pact, while Russia is a country. What country has been "annexed" by the NATO treaty ?

Actually, without the opposition of some members, starting from Germany, Ukraine would have joined NATO already years ago. Same goes for Georgia

[Tonci87 163]

I see somebody didn´t answer my question, wich doesn´t suprise me at all.....

[Sanya 97]

I see somebody didn´t answer my question, wich doesn´t suprise me at all.....

Crimea is an autonomous republic.  Autonomous Republic of Crimea did not want to be a part of Ukraine.

[dontknowhow 33]

Crimea is an autonomous republic.  Autonomous Republic of Crimea did not want to be a part of Ukraine.

Happy now, tonci? You have your answer :rolleyes:

I read these posts and I understand how Putin could destroy his economy without people complaining.

[St. Jimmy 272]

Got to wonder how much Crimea played role in Syria conflict.  At least Crimea is bit closer to Syria and it has some military bases and having Sevastopol totally under their control could've helped them.

[Tonci87 163]

Happy now, tonci? You have your answer :rolleyes:

I read these posts and I understand how Putin could destroy his economy without people complaining.

 

That wasn´t an answer to my question.

And it is quite telling that the crimean population only started those demands after they were invaded by Russia