I know - wanted Danny boy to admit it and show Putin is as desperate for legitimacy in this situation as Assad.
Putin and Russia in Syria
- Thread starter Dans
- Start date
Not the 4 "moderate" fighters the US trained.
Haha hilarious innit people in Syria dying. Lololol.Not the 4 "moderate" fighters the US trained.
No one's yet get given a reasonabe explanation as to why the US aren't keen to share intelligence relating to ISIS with the Russians
Nations don't share intelligence because it would reveal the methodology of how the information is collected. In this case, the US aren't going to reveal anything to the Russians, because it would compromise their ability to collect information on the Russians.
Who's the biggest threat to Syrian civilians and the average citizen in Syria? It sure as hell IS. What metric do you want to use this time?
Fair enough, never considered that angle tbh.
What on earth are you on about?
It's why most of the released videos/satellite pictures are really crap. Or why certain things aren't released.
You are aware that the M-R pact came about because Britain and France, probably due to a Polish veto, refused to form an Anti-German alliance with the USSR right?
Otherwise, what in the absolute feck does M-R have to do with Syria?
What about the nations in the US led coalition? You don't share it with them either or the US aren't concerned with revealing anything sensitive to them?
Certainly with the Brits, Canadians, and Aussies if they are involved I would guess.
Nothing's ever Russia's/the Soviet Unions fault is it.
I can't imagine why the British wouldn't agree to an alliance worded to allow the Soviets to get involved in Finland and the Baltics without a German attack there.
Top Cuban general, key forces in Syria to aid Assad, Russia, sources say.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/1...o-syria-to-operate-russian-tanks-say-sources/
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/1...o-syria-to-operate-russian-tanks-say-sources/
Cuba's history of sending troops to Africa and the Middle East dates back into the 60's. Would not be surprised if this is true.
Are the North Koreans in too?
In the Last 24-hours, Russia Has Destroyed Nearly All ISIS Ammunition & Heavy Vehicles
Well, that's how its done. Fair play to Russia.
Well, that's how its done. Fair play to Russia.
Source: RT.
In the last 24 hours, RT have reported it was in fact Putin who was the first man on the moon.
BREAKING: Granma reports Fidel is leading the troops in Syria!
Edit: For those who don't know, Granma is the state newspaper in Cuba. Also the boat they took over from Mexico.
Edit: For those who don't know, Granma is the state newspaper in Cuba. Also the boat they took over from Mexico.
Last edited:
So why was Putin whining about a lack of intelligence information from the U.S. about where to and where not to bomb?
All part of the Putin show - he overcomes the treacherous Yankees to destroy ISIL. After confronting the fascist junta in Kiev and destroying Islamist militants in Syria, I wonder what the next production will be? Just don't mention a currency worth a third of its 2007 value, inflation back at 15% and rapidly falling living standards.
One wonders when the Russian people will finally get wind of what he's doing and get rid of him.
I never understood the point of hiting the target with a roof knocking why Israel just send a real deal rocket because if I owned a house and someone was using to target the "enemy" I would be running away in less than a second.
Considering where Russian people and their country were when Putin took over I'm fairly certain they are still grateful for what he's done - basically kept together the country that was falling apart and brought it back from its knees. A lot's been said about his flaws, but his popularity is largely based on him being a Russian patriot, someone who defends the country's national interests. Yes, he's a product of the Soviet system and his autocratic tendencies made him unpopular in the West. So what? Most Russians aren't liberal, never were and they couldn't care less what the rest of the world think about that. The popular opinion in the western mass media is that Putin is trying to distract the population from the economic problems. That may be a part of it, but you have to be a total idiot to think that he didn't plan to get involved in Syrian crisis for a quite some time, it wasn't just some fluke, it's a strategy. He took the Americans by surprise and made them look like fools, and that irritates the hell out of them. He gets in their way in Ukraine, now he gets involved in the Middle East. Obama looks weak and the whole world sees it. You bet he's a constant pain the ass for the US and their EU vassals, they can't control him and he is too unpredictable in his actions.
I'm sure the West felt much warmer toward the 90s version of Russia, with those 'liberal' reforms that robbed people of their life savings, non - existent foreign policy, with an alcoholic for a president, two wars in Chechnya, resources torn apart by oligarchs, criminal rate going sky high and a large chunk of the population living close to or below the poverty line. Now that was the Russia that knew its place and therefore was acceptable to the West. The 2015 version, on the other hand, is quite unpleasant.
By all accounts putin is wrecking Russia - the economy is in the toilet, as is the currency. Living standards are plummeting, capital and investors are fleeing the country, opposition are being assassinated in the streets; speech, press, and civil society have been drastically curtailed, and 54% of Russians lack the basic necessities to live their lives during a time when his kleptocratic patronage network have plundered over $1 Trillion of the people's money.
So what does he do to cover up all of his corruption and incompetence ? Launch two wars on the back of a massive government controlled propaganda campaign, cynically playing on Russian nationalism and blaming the West.
He is now trapped in that he can't revive his economy due to the price of oil and sanctions and is stuck in a cycle where he has to fight wars that he can't afford. There will come a point in the near future where the economy will get so bad that all the propaganda in the world won't save him and since he doesn't seem to want to relinquish power, he may wind up going the route of Ceausescu.
So what does he do to cover up all of his corruption and incompetence ? Launch two wars on the back of a massive government controlled propaganda campaign, cynically playing on Russian nationalism and blaming the West.
He is now trapped in that he can't revive his economy due to the price of oil and sanctions and is stuck in a cycle where he has to fight wars that he can't afford. There will come a point in the near future where the economy will get so bad that all the propaganda in the world won't save him and since he doesn't seem to want to relinquish power, he may wind up going the route of Ceausescu.
All what you said is true, he is a dictator in disguise, and so is that in two weeks has hit ISIS / Al Nusra stronger than the Americans in 18 months. The precariousness of the Russian economy , badly thrown bombs, short-term strategy , supporting a dictator ... but are showing the initiative and leadership that would correspond to US . Assad will remain in power, but it was ISIS who was defined as the most evil regime from the Nazis
Just a thought, but the Russian people, when Putin took over, were exactly where they were because Russia had been run by people exactly like Putin following the policies he is currently following home and abroad.
Yeah you have been told you one upped the US in Syria, if everything goes to plan long term which never seems to happen in the middle east. ( go Putin )
What makes you think that; making the west your enemy and following the bare chested ,bear strangling, bare back ridding Judo black belted former KGB officer,polonium poisoner and now glorious undisputed, undefeated heavy weight political leader of the world; is going to end any differently for you this time than it did the last time you were were fed and believed the same unimpeachable, unquestionable diatribe of bullshit?
Perfectly put.
Nail on head.
Yeah, let's wait til Fox tell us what really happened.
To be honest, I think this is more about Western hypocrisy than Israeli morals. Keeping the non-combatants death toll low buys the politicians additional time to achieve the goals of the military maneuver. Israel is operating under unique circumstances, and therefore has to take unique measures. We're not the US, Russia or NATO who can go on bombing thousands of civilians into oblivion without anyone batting an eyelid.
Nothing's ever Russia's/the Soviet Unions fault is it.
What does fault have to do with it.
Whether or not the alliance was realistic, or possible. It paints a slightly different picture of the actual geo-political situation at the time. With all the historical revisionism and wehraboos around, you would think that Stalin was jumping at the chance to sign a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany. That isn't actually the truth. The truth is that the Soviet state recognized the threat Germany posed to them and sought outside help in containing it before it became too late. The United Kingdom and Russia had been historical allies for the last several hundred years leading up to the Communist revolution btw. Russia had been Britains continental counter balance to Germany and France at various times.
Nobody is trying to excuse what the USSR did after the war, or what it did to Poland during the war, but we're not exactly in a position here on our Islands in the west to judge a country facing an existential crisis.
The point is, what the feck does M-R have to do with Syria. I'm going to state this unequivocally. Only a moron compares what is happening now with Russia to what happened in WW2 Stalin or Hitler. There are zero points of relevant comparison.
From the end of the Napoleonic Wars right up to the turn of the century they were in a state of Cold War over Russia's expansion into the Caucasus and Central Asia which Britain feared was ultimately aimed at India. Once it even broke into open war date during the Crimean War. This was the time of the 'Great Game' with the emergence of 'Russophobe' and 'Russophile' politicians in various British cabinets, and the emergence of many of the anti-Russian themes which still exist in the Western imagination. Only the emerging threat of a strong, united Germany brought them together in the run-up to the First World War but even then there was no trust (from the British side at least).
No, it isn't true at all. Following the fall of the USSR the country had been run by oligarchs for almost a decade by the time Putin became the president. The economy was in shambles, the second Chechen war was still on, the level of trust in the government among the population was close to zero. The country was literally on its last legs economically, politically, socially. He ended the war, put oligarchs in their place, drastically reduced the crime rate and seriously improved social welfare, among many other things. There's a reason why most Russians support him, even though I'm not surprised westerners either genuinely don't get it or simply too brainwashed by their own version of liberal propaganda. Here's a fun fact: since Putin came to power, Russia’s gross national product per capita increased from 49,800 roubles in 2000 to 461,300 in 2013.
Below is a good explanation of why Putin enjoys such a strong support in Russia, a well written piece from someone who clearly knows the subject first hand.
From http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/why-do-russians-support-still-support-vladimir-putin
Russians love and support their president. I wanted to understand why, so I spoke to a number of people in their 20s, 30s and 60s who helped me crystallise their reasoning into the following arguments.
Putin is a strong leader. Russia has always done better under formidable leaders, however autocratic and repressive. Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Josef Stalin are some examples. Old and sickly, indecisive leaders and those who, like Gorbachev, tried to please all, never inspired trust or respect. The president’s public images work to reinforce his power. ”Putin is without a doubt the strongest political leader out there. He is a brilliant public speaker, he controls every dialogue and is a strategist, whereas his counterparties are reactionary tacticians.”
Putin built Russia’s middle class. There is a popular, if ignorant, view that Russians are either super rich or extremely poor. You don’t need to travel to Moscow (a quick trip to Cyprus or Turkey’s sea resorts would do) to see that many Russians now drive a decent car (anything other than a Lada), travel abroad, wear clothes from Zara and can afford to buy whatever else signals middle class. Since Putin came to power, Russia’s gross national product per capita increased from 49,800 roubles in 2000 to 461,300 in 2013, according to theFederal State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation. From the same source, we learn that Russian citizens travelled abroad 9.8 million times in 2000 and 38.5 million times in 2013.
Putin has improved social welfare in Russia. A sales manager in his late 20s talked to me about Putin’s welfare reforms, raising pensions, investing in education and healthcare, infrastructure and social security laws which sought to encourage families to have children and address declining population. For the first time in the last 20 years new births in Russia were recorded as higher than deaths in 2013. Average pensions (stated in 1992 prices) went up from 694 roubles a month in 2000 to 9,918 roubles in 2012. Crime went down, including murders (from 28.2 per cent in 2000 to 10.1 per cent in 2012, the coefficients indicating deaths from murder per 100,000 people). There were 9.3 hospital beds in Russia per 1,000 people in 2012, as compared to 3 beds per 1,000 people in the UK in 2011.
Putin has restored Russian might. Throughout his time in office, Putin has demonstrated his dedication to addressing the values Russians care about most: the integrity of their country, its sphere of influence in international relations, and its ability to withstand the US dictating its policies to the world at large. This is perhaps the core factor in Putin’s popularity, which came across in all the conversations I’ve had with those Russians who support the current regime. ”It’s not about the economy or the welfare,” a professional woman in her 30s said to me, ”it’s about thinking on a much bigger scale and more globally”. Putin has gradually rebuilt Russia’s defence industry, making it a strategic priority. Taking Crimea, Putin protected Russia’s military base on the Black Sea, was an important manoeuvre at the time of the accelerating hostility from the US and Nato. The Russians have regained self-respect, rising from the financial ashes of the 1990s and restoring national pride. ”The world has been looking at us as a third world country throughout the 1990s but today we are a force to be reckoned with.”
There is no one else. Ultimately, there is no other viable candidate to lead Russia instead. If it’s a chicken and egg problem, it would take time to grow credible opposition, although the soil is hardly fertile. As it stands, even moderate supporters of Putin agree that current opposition leaders are neither convincing nor capable. Putin has a track record of delivering economic stability, however justified were his means. Russians are too used to local and national government officials helping themselves to the state pocket, so the prevalent philosophy to the change in power is that the incumbent is always ”the least worst”. A woman in her 60s said to me: ”What’s wrong with Putin? At least he holds the country together – look at what happened to the Ukraine. It’s in pieces; its people are beyond despair.”
Russian people have survived many periods of hardship since the Mongol invasion in the 13th century, which destroyed its peace, independence, culture and cities (including the then-capital, Kiev). It is perhaps this early history, as well as the civil war after the Bolshevik Revolution, the famine that followed, the Second World War and the Stalinist repressions, which indicates that Russian tolerance for austerity is higher than in the western world. Russians do not seek prosperity but stability. They are less concerned with individual freedom than with the collective sense of status and integrity. Spanning both European and Asian continents, Russia has inherited the Eastern sense of community, attitude of acceptance and predisposition towards authoritarian government.
In the increasingly cool climate between Russia and the west, it helps to understand each other’s values.
Russians love and support their president. I wanted to understand why, so I spoke to a number of people in their 20s, 30s and 60s who helped me crystallise their reasoning into the following arguments.
Putin is a strong leader. Russia has always done better under formidable leaders, however autocratic and repressive. Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Josef Stalin are some examples. Old and sickly, indecisive leaders and those who, like Gorbachev, tried to please all, never inspired trust or respect. The president’s public images work to reinforce his power. ”Putin is without a doubt the strongest political leader out there. He is a brilliant public speaker, he controls every dialogue and is a strategist, whereas his counterparties are reactionary tacticians.”
Putin built Russia’s middle class. There is a popular, if ignorant, view that Russians are either super rich or extremely poor. You don’t need to travel to Moscow (a quick trip to Cyprus or Turkey’s sea resorts would do) to see that many Russians now drive a decent car (anything other than a Lada), travel abroad, wear clothes from Zara and can afford to buy whatever else signals middle class. Since Putin came to power, Russia’s gross national product per capita increased from 49,800 roubles in 2000 to 461,300 in 2013, according to theFederal State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation. From the same source, we learn that Russian citizens travelled abroad 9.8 million times in 2000 and 38.5 million times in 2013.
Putin has improved social welfare in Russia. A sales manager in his late 20s talked to me about Putin’s welfare reforms, raising pensions, investing in education and healthcare, infrastructure and social security laws which sought to encourage families to have children and address declining population. For the first time in the last 20 years new births in Russia were recorded as higher than deaths in 2013. Average pensions (stated in 1992 prices) went up from 694 roubles a month in 2000 to 9,918 roubles in 2012. Crime went down, including murders (from 28.2 per cent in 2000 to 10.1 per cent in 2012, the coefficients indicating deaths from murder per 100,000 people). There were 9.3 hospital beds in Russia per 1,000 people in 2012, as compared to 3 beds per 1,000 people in the UK in 2011.
Putin has restored Russian might. Throughout his time in office, Putin has demonstrated his dedication to addressing the values Russians care about most: the integrity of their country, its sphere of influence in international relations, and its ability to withstand the US dictating its policies to the world at large. This is perhaps the core factor in Putin’s popularity, which came across in all the conversations I’ve had with those Russians who support the current regime. ”It’s not about the economy or the welfare,” a professional woman in her 30s said to me, ”it’s about thinking on a much bigger scale and more globally”. Putin has gradually rebuilt Russia’s defence industry, making it a strategic priority. Taking Crimea, Putin protected Russia’s military base on the Black Sea, was an important manoeuvre at the time of the accelerating hostility from the US and Nato. The Russians have regained self-respect, rising from the financial ashes of the 1990s and restoring national pride. ”The world has been looking at us as a third world country throughout the 1990s but today we are a force to be reckoned with.”
There is no one else. Ultimately, there is no other viable candidate to lead Russia instead. If it’s a chicken and egg problem, it would take time to grow credible opposition, although the soil is hardly fertile. As it stands, even moderate supporters of Putin agree that current opposition leaders are neither convincing nor capable. Putin has a track record of delivering economic stability, however justified were his means. Russians are too used to local and national government officials helping themselves to the state pocket, so the prevalent philosophy to the change in power is that the incumbent is always ”the least worst”. A woman in her 60s said to me: ”What’s wrong with Putin? At least he holds the country together – look at what happened to the Ukraine. It’s in pieces; its people are beyond despair.”
Russian people have survived many periods of hardship since the Mongol invasion in the 13th century, which destroyed its peace, independence, culture and cities (including the then-capital, Kiev). It is perhaps this early history, as well as the civil war after the Bolshevik Revolution, the famine that followed, the Second World War and the Stalinist repressions, which indicates that Russian tolerance for austerity is higher than in the western world. Russians do not seek prosperity but stability. They are less concerned with individual freedom than with the collective sense of status and integrity. Spanning both European and Asian continents, Russia has inherited the Eastern sense of community, attitude of acceptance and predisposition towards authoritarian government.
In the increasingly cool climate between Russia and the west, it helps to understand each other’s values.
Last edited:
Oh, the terrible liberal propaganda: That you do not need to trade any aspect of your freedom for welfare or security (because actually the most welfare and security are found in the best liberal democracies).
Putin put down the oligarchs? He's pretty much one himself. Changed them out at most, got rid of those who opposed him.
And your GDP per capita on a roubles basis is irrelevant because of inflation and PPP. GDP per capita progress can only be adequately assessed in constant currency, and preferably PPP terms. But no need to repost those figures, I know its grown in Russia since 2000. Just as it has in the rest of the world...
Putin put down the oligarchs? He's pretty much one himself. Changed them out at most, got rid of those who opposed him.
And your GDP per capita on a roubles basis is irrelevant because of inflation and PPP. GDP per capita progress can only be adequately assessed in constant currency, and preferably PPP terms. But no need to repost those figures, I know its grown in Russia since 2000. Just as it has in the rest of the world...
Last edited:
i won't derail the thread further but clearly there was an attempt to blame the west for the M-r agreement which ignored the basic fact that the soviets were negotiating with both sides at the same time. Also that Polish fears of soviet troops entering Poland and then refusing to leave after the war (which turned out to be well founded). Then the fact the Sovs used to agreemeny as a huge imperialistic land grab. Well then silly statements like they only entered the M-R because of the French and British are just pretty damn stupid.
There are a few posters here who seem to pass off every single Russian action as being the fault of the west or the result of some western action.