Are Russia preparing for WW3?

[Water Melon]

By Putin you refer to Vladimir Putin, the former KGB guy who assassinates / locks up his political rivals / journos, invades neighboring countries, forcing himself on a nation while making its citizens lives more miserable from year to year? In mild words I'll just say that he is one of the most corrupt dictators in modern history.

A good way to judge one nations government is by the quality of life and the individual freedom of its citizens. So I guess that 'evil' is just a subjective point of view in that case.

Of course he is a former KGB guy. Do you want to talk about KGB and FBI? Or do you wanna discuss CIA's secret prisons in EU or guantanamo? Putin is probably a billionaire, he is corrupt, but Bush and Obama are the people who killed millions and the people of these countries hate them for their neo-colonialism. Lets see how things pan out in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria compared to the times before the US -led invasion. So far it has been nothing but a war crime, massacre.

 

[2cents]

Of course he is a former KGB guy. Do you want to talk about KGB and FBI? Or do you wanna discuss CIA's secret prisons in EU or guantanamo? Putin is probably a billionaire, he is corrupt, but Bush and Obama are the people who killed millions and the people of these countries hate them for their neo-colonialism. Lets see how things pan out in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria compared to the times before the US -led invasion. So far it has been nothing but a war crime, massacre.

What exactly do you mean by the US invasion of Syria?

 

[antihenry]

By Putin you refer to Vladimir Putin, the former KGB guy who assassinates / locks up his political rivals / journos, invades neighboring countries, forcing himself on a nation while making its citizens lives more miserable from year to year? In mild words I'll just say that he is one of the most corrupt dictators in modern history.

A good way to judge one nations government is by the quality of life and the individual freedom of its citizens. So I guess that 'evil' is just a subjective point of view in that case.

Americans and their allies invade sovereign countries, bombto hell thousands of people and dozens of cities, overthrow governments and create chaos everywhere they go, which in turn causes these territories to be overrun by terrorists and radicals of all sorts from across the globe, but it's Putin who's the problem. Yeah, okay.

 

[antihenry]

What exactly do you mean by the US invasion of Syria?

Desn't US Air Force operate in Syria? And they're there illegally.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Desn't US Air Force operate in Syria? And they're there illegally.

Invasion usually refers to a ground force taking and occupying ground.

 

[antihenry]

Invasion usually refers to a ground force taking and occupying ground.

Not neccessarily. Invasion is an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.

 

[2cents]

Desn't US Air Force operate in Syria? And they're there illegally.

If that's what he's referring to then fine - I queried it just because he's lumping it in with Iraq and Afghanistan which are obviously quite different cases.

 

[Kaos]

If that's what he's referring to then fine - I queried it just because he's lumping it in with Iraq and Afghanistan which are obviously quite different cases.

Its intervention, not to the tangible scale as seen in Afghanistan and Syria, but an intervention nonetheless.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Not neccessarily. Invasion is an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.

There's a clear difference between (a) boots on the ground that occupy and hold territory, and (b) flying into a country's airspace.. When people talk about a country being invaded, they mean the former.

 

[Kaos]

Here's a fun experiment:

List the number of countries that have been invaded, had their governments overthrown and number of people killed by the US since 1945, and compare that to Russia.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Desn't US Air Force operate in Syria? And they're there illegally.

Illegally according to which court of law?

 

[The Firestarter]

Historical precedent says completely otherwise.

By "like Putin" I meant someone who is not delusional. Which cannot be said about the historic precedents.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Here's a fun experiment:

List the number of countries that have been invaded, had their governments overthrown and number of people killed by the US since 1945, and compare that to Russia.

Here are two more fun experiments:

1) List the number of genuine democratic elections that have ever been held in the current Russian Federation or the preceding USSR and compare that to the USA.

2) List the number of Russian/USSR citizens that have been murdered by their own government since the founding of the USSR, and compare that to the USA. [Handy hint: set your counter to number by the millions.]

 

[MoBeats]

Illegally according to which court of law?

International i'd have thought, they're performing whatever it is they think they're performing in someone else's country where they're not wanted.
The war crimes they've carried out certainly would go against international law.

 

[MoBeats]

Here are two more fun experiments:

1) List the number of genuine democratic elections that have ever been held in the current Russian Federation or the preceding USSR and compare that to the USA.

2) List the number of Russian/USSR citizens that have been murdered by their own government since the founding of the USSR, and compare that to the USA.

It's not standing as a shining beacon in the world for democracy, so why?

 

[Synco]

Here's a fun experiment:

List the number of countries that have been invaded, had their governments overthrown and number of people killed by the US since 1945, and compare that to Russia.

Here are two more fun experiments:

1) List the number of genuine democratic elections that have ever been held in the current Russian Federation or the preceding USSR and compare that to the USA.

2) List the number of Russian/USSR citizens that have been murdered by their own government since the founding of the USSR, and compare that to the USA.

If you put these two standpoints together, it would get pretty close to reality. But the way this is going, the apologist tendency is pretty strong on both sides.

 

[GlastonSpur]

International i'd have thought, they're performing whatever it is they think they're performing in someone else's country where they're not wanted.
The war crimes they've carried out certainly would go against international law.

Simply carrying out military operations in a foreign country does not automatically make those operations illegal. And if they are not wanted, then they are not wanted by a government which itself is not wanted .... go figure.

I rather think that when it comes war crimes in Syria, the Syrian government and Russia are the major players - witness the relentless and indiscriminate bombardment of Aleppo for example, complete with barrel bombs and poison gas.

 

[GlastonSpur]

It's not standing as a shining beacon in the world for democracy, so why?

Why what?

 

[MoBeats]

Simply carrying out military operations in a foreign country does not automatically make those operations illegal. And if they are not wanted, then they are not wanted by a government which itself is not wanted .... go figure.

I rather think that when it comes war crimes in Syria, the Syrian government and Russia are the major players - witness the relentless and indiscriminate bombardment of Aleppo for example, complete with barrel bombs and poison gas.

The UN evidence would suggest otherwise.

 

[2cents]

Its intervention, not to the tangible scale as seen in Afghanistan and Syria, but an intervention nonetheless.

(I assume you meant Iraq there) - that's exactly my point though - what's happening in Syria, and the role of the US there, is vastly different to the other two cases, which is why throwing them all together under the banner of "US invasion" is extremely unhelpful when trying to discuss these things.

 

[MoBeats]

Nobody is suggesting the Russians and Putin are angels.
It's scouse logic at its best to counter an argument saying "never mind how bad we are, look at how bad they are".
The west have very long and very recent history of just fecking things up and no history of doing any good whatsoever.
Russians are bad too, m'kay.

 

[2cents]

Simply carrying out military operations in a foreign country does not automatically make those operations illegal. And if they are not wanted, then they are not wanted by a government which itself is not wanted .... go figure.

I rather think that when it comes war crimes in Syria, the Syrian government and Russia are the major players - witness the relentless and indiscriminate bombardment of Aleppo for example, complete with barrel bombs and poison gas.

All sides, even the Kurds to a certain extent, appear to be guilty of war crimes in Syria.

 

[GlastonSpur]

The UN evidence would suggest otherwise.

The evidence would suggest that - when it comes war crimes in Syria - the USA is the major player (and NOT Russia and the Syrian government)? What evidence would this be?

 

[GlastonSpur]

Nobody is suggesting the Russians and Putin are angels.
It's scouse logic at its best to counter an argument saying "never mind how bad we are, look at how bad they are".
The west have very long and very recent history of just fecking things up and no history of doing any good whatsoever.
Russians are bad too, m'kay.

Those, like yourself, who suggest some kind of moral equivalence between the West and Russia need to ask yourself what the world would be like now if the West didn't exist but Russia did.

You wouldn't even be free to type your words on a discussion forum like this.

 

[fcbforever]

Peaceful decades in human history were breached when US invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, tried to overthrow Assad. Now Putin is bad because he responded to a call for help from Assad. Assad is still legitimate president of Syria by the way, it's the rep of his government represents the country in UN. As mentioned earlier Russia have a military base there and are making sure it stays there.
As for Crimea, if anything, it is the closest comparison to "the good intentions" that you mentioned. A referendum was held, not a single bomb dropped. Came back from there a little over a week ago. Fantastic hotels, not a signle refugee. Again, I do not support what Putin did, but it cant be compared to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, the overthrow of Gaddafi. Millions dead, refugees all over the Europe, countries that will hardly be rebuilt in decades to come.
NATO's expansion towards East, extremely close to Russia's borders, the withdrawal of US from ABM treaty in 2002, and you expect Putin to do sweet feck all about it. No way.

Also as a reply to what you responded to @Raoul

I don't know if I have to throw a history book at you like at Mobeats or if you are just willfully ignoring facts, but okay, let's get this started.

The US have long been hesistant to intervene in Syria (too long) and, contrary to you claims, haven't invaded until today. Calling Assad legitimate is a nice claim commonly used by the far left, but after what he's done after the first protests arose it's looking a bit like a bad joke. Furthermore, denying the US to intervene with Air Strikes to fight ISIS while defending Putin coming to help of a dictator is a bit silly.

Apart from that, yes, the last 25 years have been the most peaceful decades since the mid of the 19th century. After all, small scale conflicts like Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan won't change that. And yes, they are small scale conflicts compared to what we had before. Contrary to your claims, we are not talking about "millions of dead" here. Not even close. Also, like most on the far left, you are ignoring Georgia and Tschetschenia. And the whole of eastern Ukraine. Also, this is solely for territorial gain. Nobody in Russia can seriously think that NATO is a threat and nobody does. It's just part of their game. And a convenient explanation to fool people like you.

Also, as Raoul said, your stance towards the Arab spring is appaling. "Hey only SOME of you were murdered, why weren't you happy?". If at all, it's disgraceful the west supported people like Assad and Gaddafi till the very end because of a very similar mindset.

And please don't act like that referendum, while Crimea was already invaded by Russian troops, had any legitimacy at all. That's like saying the Us had the right to invade Iraq because they had chemical weapons. And yes, Russia keeps Crimea clear of refugees. These have flooded into Ukraine, where thousands and thousands are on the run in the east which Putin keeps destabilizing.

The US is far from being a selfless, goodwilling power. But that doesn't give Putin the right to do what he does and after all, what he does is far more diametral to European security interest than what the US has done.

 

[MoBeats]

Those, like yourself, who suggest some kind of moral equivalence between the West and Russia need to ask yourself what the world would be like now if the West didn't exist but Russia did.

You wouldn't even be free to type your words on a discussion forum like this.

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

 

[antihenry]

Here are two more fun experiments:

1) List the number of genuine democratic elections that have ever been held in the current Russian Federation or the preceding USSR and compare that to the USA.

2) List the number of Russian/USSR citizens that have been murdered by their own government since the founding of the USSR, and compare that to the USA. [Handy hint: set your counter to number by the millions.]

What does USSR have to with anything? The country no longer exists. And all the elections in the modern Russia have been recognized by the international community. Violations happen on a local level but none such that would affect the actual outcome.

Again, we're not talking about Soviet regime here and its crimes against its own people. Why bring it up?

 

[fcbforever]

International i'd have thought, they're performing whatever it is they think they're performing in someone else's country where they're not wanted.
The war crimes they've carried out certainly would go against international law.

As of now, it's neither legal nor illegal since Assad's UN ambassador got informed about the intervention beforehand and Assad, to this day, has decided not to file any protest. While the US and it's allies are acting without any official mandate, this is seen as consent in international law.

The UN evidence would suggest otherwise.

The evidence for the use of chemical weapons by Assad or the one suggesting Russia bombed an UN convoy?

 

[fcbforever]

What does USSR have to with anything? The country no longer exists. And all the elections in the modern Russia have been recognized by the international community. Violations happen on a local level but none such that would affect the actual outcome.

Again, we're not talking about Soviet regime here and its crimes against its own people. Why bring it up?

On that basis, you could also deny any US actions performed by a republican gouvernment tbh.

 

[antihenry]

Also as a reply to what you responded to @Raoul

I don't know if I have to throw a history book at you like at Mobeats or if you are just willfully ignoring facts, but okay, let's get this started.

The US have long been hesistant to intervene in Syria (too long) and, contrary to you claims, haven't invaded until today. Calling Assad legitimate is a nice claim commonly used by the far left, but after what he's done after the first protests arose it's looking a bit like a bad joke. Furthermore, denying the US to intervene with Air Strikes to fight ISIS while defending Putin coming to help of a dictator is a bit silly.

Apart from that, yes, the last 25 years have been the most peaceful decades since the mid of the 19th century. After all, small scale conflicts like Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan won't change that. And yes, they are small scale conflicts compared to what we had before. Contrary to your claims, we are not talking about "millions of dead" here. Not even close. Also, like most on the far left, you are ignoring Georgia and Tschetschenia. And the whole of eastern Ukraine. Also, this is solely for territorial gain. Nobody in Russia can seriously think that NATO is a threat and nobody does. It's just part of their game. And a convenient explanation to fool people like you.

Also, as Raoul said, your stance towards the Arab spring is appaling. "Hey only SOME of you were murdered, why weren't you happy?". If at all, it's disgraceful the west supported people like Assad and Gaddafi till the very end because of a very similar mindset.

And please don't act like that referendum, while Crimea was already invaded by Russian troops, had any legitimacy at all. That's like saying the Us had the right to invade Iraq because they had chemical weapons. And yes, Russia keeps Crimea clear of refugees. These have flooded into Ukraine, where thousands and thousands are on the run in the east which Putin keeps destabilizing.

The US is far from being a selfless, goodwilling power. But that doesn't give Putin the right to do what he does and after all, what he does is far more diametral to European security interest than what the US has done.

Small scale conflicts? Are you kidding? So close to a million dead, rise of ISIS and other terrorist networks unprecedented by its scale and hundreds of thousands of refugees storming Europe while millions are sure to follow is what you call most peaceful decades? The consequences of the actions of western powers in the Middle East alone are such that the world will suffer from it for a very long time. I'm sure it doesn't concern you or where you live but believe me, Europe will be a very different place 10-15 years from now, and I don't mean in a good way.

 

[PedroMendez]

If you put these two standpoints together, it would get pretty close to reality. But the way this is going, the apologist tendency is pretty strong on both sides.

Rule #1: you're either with us, or against us!

 

[MoBeats]

The evidence for the use of chemical weapons by Assad or the one suggesting Russia bombed an UN convoy?

Neither, show me those.

 

[Kaos]

On that basis, you could also deny any US actions performed by a republican gouvernment tbh.

No, because the Republican government is still central to the US political apparatus, the USSR on the other hand is history.

It would be more akin to holding the current German government culpable for the crimes committed by the Nazi regime.

 

[Kaos]

Here are two more fun experiments:

1) List the number of genuine democratic elections that have ever been held in the current Russian Federation or the preceding USSR and compare that to the USA.

2) List the number of Russian/USSR citizens that have been murdered by their own government since the founding of the USSR, and compare that to the USA. [Handy hint: set your counter to number by the millions.]

Like I've said above, pointless comparison. Maybe we should hold Merkel culpable for Hitler's genocide? The difference is the US's foreign policy doctrine has not changed - it still seeks to undermine democracy, prop up brutal dictators, force regime change while bullying nations to complying with its vision for the world.

Everyone knows Russia is no angel on the world stage and I'm not one to leap to their defence, but when it comes to invasions, regime change and millions of people killed since the conclusion of the second world war, no one comes remotely close to the US. Hence its a little rich when you have the usual US apologists pouring out crocodile tears and outrage over Russia's campaigns in Syria and Ukraine.

 

[Water Melon]

Also as a reply to what you responded to @Raoul

I don't know if I have to throw a history book at you like at Mobeats or if you are just willfully ignoring facts, but okay, let's get this started.

The US have long been hesistant to intervene in Syria (too long) and, contrary to you claims, haven't invaded until today. Calling Assad legitimate is a nice claim commonly used by the far left, but after what he's done after the first protests arose it's looking a bit like a bad joke. Furthermore, denying the US to intervene with Air Strikes to fight ISIS while defending Putin coming to help of a dictator is a bit silly.

Apart from that, yes, the last 25 years have been the most peaceful decades since the mid of the 19th century. After all, small scale conflicts like Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan won't change that. And yes, they are small scale conflicts compared to what we had before. Contrary to your claims, we are not talking about "millions of dead" here. Not even close. Also, like most on the far left, you are ignoring Georgia and Tschetschenia. And the whole of eastern Ukraine. Also, this is solely for territorial gain. Nobody in Russia can seriously think that NATO is a threat and nobody does. It's just part of their game. And a convenient explanation to fool people like you.

Also, as Raoul said, your stance towards the Arab spring is appaling. "Hey only SOME of you were murdered, why weren't you happy?". If at all, it's disgraceful the west supported people like Assad and Gaddafi till the very end because of a very similar mindset.

And please don't act like that referendum, while Crimea was already invaded by Russian troops, had any legitimacy at all. That's like saying the Us had the right to invade Iraq because they had chemical weapons. And yes, Russia keeps Crimea clear of refugees. These have flooded into Ukraine, where thousands and thousands are on the run in the east which Putin keeps destabilizing.

The US is far from being a selfless, goodwilling power. But that doesn't give Putin the right to do what he does and after all, what he does is far more diametral to European security interest than what the US has done.

Assad is the legitimate president of Syria. Small conflicts or big, they were inside of this country. If you want to remove this government, go and win elections. Assad would have won next elections. Attack of Assa'd regime is an invasion, killing in many many thousands is a crime. Russia was absolutely right to protect its ONLY military base out side of the former USSR. It is area of their interest, just like US claim that the peace in Afghanistan and Iraq is crucial for their homeland security.
As for Gaddafi and Assad, hey the US-led attacks killed much more that Assad and Gaddafi, also they ruined the infrastructure of countries throwing them back to several decades. Same applies to Iraq by the way. The bombings have only killed many many people. Iraq even do not have a central governement being able to control the country now.
As for Crimea- you are deluded, how many people from Crimea have flooded Ukraine? Do you realize now that the standards of living in Crimea are higher than in the Ukraine?
As for the East of Ukraine, it is a different story. Have you been there, when it all started? Have you seen what happened in the East, have you seen explosions, have you seen neo-Nazis asking for heads of Russians? I have seen that, I have lost friends there who were burnt alive. By the way, the eastern part of the Ukraine is ready for a Federal State, the government in Kiev is against.
Finally, it is not Putin who is doing what he wants. It is the butcher US government have been doing what they want. Bombing states across the ocean, and instead of bringing any stability or prosperity, making things even worse for people, who have already been suffering from tyrants. If we live long enough and the caf is still active, I am ready to get back to this topic in 10-15 years and discuss if the situation in Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria has gotten any better.
As for Chechnya, the war was 100% legitimate. First of all Chechnya is within Russian Federations territory. Secondly, it was a nest for terrorists, radicals. By the way terrorist acts in Russia are still taking place. Most of the terrorists from Chechnya were/are wanted by Interpol. It was a good job by Putin to keep Chechnya under control or we could have another ISIS state there.
To sum it up: democracy can not be imposed. I certainly would not want to have a democracy imposed on me by bombs.

US:Hey lets bomb Iraq!
World:Why?
US:They have WMDs.
World: Really? We need evidence.
US:Yes they have. Our intelligence say so. We will bomb no matter what. feck UN Security Council.
Bombed, depleted uranium kills thousands, radiation is higher than in Hiroshima. No state, no central government, instead radicals take over, Iraq is divided into pieces, conflicts all over the place because of religious/sectarian and ethnic issues. Perfect conditions for ISIS to come into force.
World: Look, we have not found any WMDs.
US: Sorry, our mistake. But still Saddam was an asshole.

P.S. God save the world from such "democracy" and "stability". May the world be multi-polar with no single "super power" imposing its values on others, as those values ended up being blood and mass destruction.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html

 

[GlastonSpur]

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

A meaningless answer which ducks the issue.

 

[GlastonSpur]

What does USSR have to with anything? The country no longer exists. And all the elections in the modern Russia have been recognized by the international community. Violations happen on a local level but none such that would affect the actual outcome.

Again, we're not talking about Soviet regime here and its crimes against its own people. Why bring it up?

Bloody hell .... are you for real?

The Russian Federation - Russia as was - was the core of the old USSR. Not all that much is changed by the fact that the name has changed and the borders shrunk down. There is no real democracy in Russia, just the superficial appearance of it: there is no independent judiciary, hardly any media that is not state controlled, independent monitoring groups have been shut down, and opposition politicians are murdered or jailed.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Like I've said above, pointless comparison. Maybe we should hold Merkel culpable for Hitler's genocide? The difference is the US's foreign policy doctrine has not changed - it still seeks to undermine democracy, prop up brutal dictators, force regime change while bullying nations to complying with its vision for the world.

Everyone knows Russia is no angel on the world stage and I'm not one to leap to their defence, but when it comes to invasions, regime change and millions of people killed since the conclusion of the second world war, no one comes remotely close to the US. Hence its a little rich when you have the usual US apologists pouring out crocodile tears and outrage over Russia's campaigns in Syria and Ukraine.

It isn't a pointless comparison when pretty much the same governmental systems operate in today's Russia as operated in the old USSR - i.e. there was no democracy in the USSR and there is no democracy in Russia today: it's a gangster state focused on the projection and glorification of power.

Whereas in contrast, there is democracy in Merkel's Germany, whereas there wasn't under Hitler.

 

[2cents]

Assad would have won next elections

Given the Ba'th used to win every election with around 98% of the vote since Hafiz al-Asad seized power, you're probably right.

 

[Giggs86]

No, because the Republican government is still central to the US political apparatus, the USSR on the other hand is history.

It would be more akin to holding the current German government culpable for the crimes committed by the Nazi regime.

Present day Russia is the direct continuation of the USSR. Always has been. All the hard work that was done by Gorbachev and Yeltsin to get closer to the west has been erased by Putin.

Present day Russia is at its closest to 1989 USSR today more than ever. That's what's Putin is trying to do. In a democratic country he would have been answering for his crimes in a court of law.