I agree with your basic premise. I just fear there will be more blood spilled (in Ukraine and Russia) before there is the inevitable regime change.
Russia Discussion
- Thread starter iSparky
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I agree with your basic premise. I just fear there will be more blood spilled (in Ukraine and Russia) before there is the inevitable regime change.
That's what I thought. As far as I was aware, the furthest the West ever got was sanctions on the regime when protesters started to be killed. Whereas Russia has soldiers in Crimea and the East 'helping' the locals. I think that Russia sees no distinction between the carrot of a Western style model (EU/NATO membership) and the stick they're currently using. I think they see it all as a just a fight for control.
I remember a similar article in the Guardian (yeah I know it's the Guardian but still....).
Well, according to you Russia invaded Ukraine and started the war. I've never heard of hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing to the country that invaded their own. There's something very wrong with that picture.
According to the latest info, around 875,000 people fled to the Russian territory and close to 300,000 have already applied for temporary residence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...56c23e-c0d5-49e1-a78c-25e372a714d9_story.html
That's one big refugee camp or a 'safe area across the border', as you put it.
Last edited:
This is quite how it happened unless you're living in a parallel Universe where Russian propaganda is reality. There were no issues in either Crimea or Donbass a year ago. We know Putin invaded Crimea, he has since admitted it after it was annexed, and is now doing the same in Donbass. Russian speakers in Donbass have been completely saturated in anti-Ukrainian propaganda, which is why they probably find it easier to skip across the border where there is no fighting, rather than into other areas of southern Ukraine just outside Donbass where the Ukrainian military are set up.
What we can deduce from all of this is that Putin is a highly accomplished liar who will say anything in order to flog the perception that he can be dealt with through diplomacy. The only way to deal with him is through the language he speaks - that of coercion. The sanctions are now squeezing the life out of his regime and his weaknesses are quite predictably being exposed. Another 6-12 months of this and the Russian economy will be completely in the toilet, at which point the public will put two and two together and finally get rid of their corrupt little KGB apparatchik and hopefully elect a proper leader who doesn't destroy the country.
So close to a million people "skipped across the border" just because an "accomplished liar" Putin had convinced them it was a good idea? What was his sales pitch, I wonder? They just got up and left their homes and most of their belongings to cross the border into the country which, according to you, had actually attacked those people and all that due to evil Putin's powers of persuasion. Now that's some great line of logic you got there, buddy.
Also, those hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees didn't just stay in some camp right across the border, I hope you realize that it's impossible. They spread all across the country and now reside in many cities and towns in various parts of Russia, getting assistance from the government social services and various volunteer groups. Some plan to return, others don't.
Russia's current problems have much more to do with oil prices than any sanctions. Obviously Putin and Co are at fault for not having done nearly enough to modernize and diversify Russian economy over the last fifteen years or so to ease the dependency on oil and gas revenue, but whatever happens, I doubt it would result in a regime change. Russia is not some banana republic you can push around, and Russians are used to living in much harsher conditions than what you could imagine. If anything, the political pressure and sanctions had the opposite effect to what the West had hoped, majority of the country's population support Putin and blame the US and EU for creating the whole mess.
Even in the worst case scenario, if it gets so bad that Putin is forced out, do you really think that whoever replaces him under those circumstances will be some liberal West oriented democrat? In a country, like Russia? Really? Not a chance. It'll be the kind of a guy that would make good old Vladimir look like an angel and we're talking about a country with a very impressive nuclear arsenal. Is that what you want, seriously? That's what bothers me the most about American foreign politics, it's this constant meddling in everybody else's business, creating chaos across the globe and acting like their shit doesn't think. It's never about democracy or freedom or good vs evil. It's about money and power, and you getting all uppity about Putin being a liar is frankly amusing. Do you think American politicians are any different?
Raul, it's almost impossible to discuss this topic with someone whose bias clouds their judgment to the point that it's irrelevant what anyone else says. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it helps if you at least on occasion are open to a notion that some of your assumptions may be wrong.
You have to have a degree of bias to have an opinion on this topic. Its clear that Russia's path towards progress and prosperity is one of democratic reform, economic integration with global markets, and greater freedoms for its citizens domestically. Unfortunately, Putin is an autocratic leader who has aligned himself with a group of Oligarchs and mafia syndicates to remain in power, instead of doing the right thing over the years and reforming the system. Therefore Russia's demise is all down to him, and history will accurately record it as such.
He could of course undo the damage by getting out of Ukraine, but that would weaken him domestically since he's all along been lying to his own citizens about what he's been doing there.
He could of course undo the damage by getting out of Ukraine, but that would weaken him domestically since he's all along been lying to his own citizens about what he's been doing there.
So the argument is that if we oppose what Putin is doing in Ukraine we are going to get someone worse than Putin which means we should just let Russia do whatever it wants there.What a very poor circular argument that is. We faced down the soviet threat before when it was a genuine threat I can't see the point in deciding to be scared of it now. I think the west has dodged a bullet here because we now know exactly what we are dealing with and how to cope with it. A few more years of wishful thinking about having Russia as a partner and we could have been in a much more serious position. As it happens Putin over played his hand and even the Germans are moving away from seeing a future in anyway dependent on Russia.
The only argument that is valid from a Russian point of view is that they have a legitimate concern with the encroachment of NATO towards Russia and need to keep Sevastopol. I completely understand the need to act with the prospect of Ukraine joining the EU. That's all that I will agree with though, the Russians started the Ukrainian conflict and that's just how it is.
It's equally possible that the Russian population becomes more nationalistic and agreeable to more drastic military actions while supporting Putin even more.
That's already happened through Putin's propaganda and actions (Sochi, Crimea, etc). The Russians have a serious decision to make in terms of whether they are going to remain insular and authoritarian (cloaked as a liberal western style Democracy) or reform their socio-cultural norms and actually take steps of becoming a proper Democracy where "Presidents" don't rule for life and actually leave office every few years when citizens vote to change their leadership.
I doubt many Russians see it this way though. We wouldn't be here if they thought in these terms. It's possible that they see their economy sink, look at the direct cause of it (Western sanctions), and blame the West for their problems. Mind you, I feel sanctions were absolutely warranted as there had to be some accountability for Putin's actions. Ultimately, Putin won't dare to get into a straight up military conflict with NATO especially after the reaffirmation of the alliance so this conflict will end at some point with some sort of mechanism for Putin to de-escalate and save face (an off ramp).
They definitely don't, as they are living in a parallel world of jingoistic propaganda that's being shaped by Putin's preferred narrative.
Putin is definitely on his way to getting check mated. He can't get out of Ukraine because it would make him look weak at home and all his lies over Russian involvement would come home to roost. He also can't get more involved there as the next round of sanctions (known as stage 2 sanctions) would send Russia into complete and absolute economic freefall. His only option at the moment is to do nothing and gradually deescalate and divest himself from Ukraine and change his tone and propaganda, which he is already beginning to do. That too however, will just continue the slow bleeding of the Russian economy.
How Many Enemies Does America Want? Congress Sacrifices U.S. Security With New Sanctions Against Russia
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougban...security-with-new-sanctions-against-russia/3/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougban...security-with-new-sanctions-against-russia/3/
Rest assured, another round of sanctions will be the killer bite to the Russian economy. The rouble has now gone over the 60-1 mark vs the US dollar and Russian GDP may contract by as much as 4.5% next year. Time to completely get out of Ukraine, return all stolen Ukrainian land, allow them to secure their borders, and get back to fixing Russian domestic problems.
To 65,5/66-1 in a day. It's like watching the Titanic sinking.
I don't think that "completely get out of Ukraine, return the stolen lend et cetera" will help at all.
I think that's the problem. What would be worse: a strong Russia under Putins control that dominates it's neighbours or a failing, fragile Russia where the government is weak and there is no stability?
I think Russia is a country with huge weaknesses and may be overstretching itself. The worry is that if it suffers a "killer bite" as Raoul said, it may be even more dangerous to the region.
History suggests that a strong Russia is more dangerous to the region than a weak one doesn't it?
There is no stability right now, not really. "Stability" is the key word in Putin's campaigns (literally), but it's stabile decline. The government isn't strong - it's corrupt and uncoordinated, nobody understands what's happening and everybody is trying to do what Putin wants. The thing is, nobody knows what he wants and he doesn't tell them, so it's a complete chaos.
The most dangerous thing to the outer world is that Putin is trying to switch the blame for the crisis on the West, as @sport2793 rightfully suggested. I don't know if he succeeded in this - it's hard to judge even from here, with the level of propaganda everywhere. I think that it's possible to some extent - Russia can not be controlled as North Korea can be, due to it's enormous territory, but the Koreans are sure that their hunger and economical struggle is due to America's sanctions, for example.
I think (mostly hope) that the government doesn't have all the instruments to control the minds of all country now (with internet and all the information) and if their lyes were to be proven wrong one after the other, it will be the end of Putin's regime and there will not be any angry outbursts of the cornered country.
A weak one might be preferable but I find it hard to believe that a Russian economy bad enough to cause Putins downfall would lead to anything other than someone more extreme taking over.
I wouldn't know much about the situation in Russia and what the public there are thinking compared to you but I would be worried that if he manages to convince the public that 'the West' is trying to destroy Russia then they might be unwilling to admit any fault on the part of Putin. All over the Internet there are people from all sorts of countries who defend Putins actions by saying that the West is worse. I'm sure that there'd be a large amount of people in Russia who would be willing do the same.
You're probably right in that once the momentum of the economy goes from slight growth to deep recession, it will take several business cycles to slow the negative momentum down to where it can be turned around again into the positive direction. Unfortunately for Putin, oil and the sanctions are hitting him simultaneously at the least opportune time. Oil may continue down as low as the 30s, which will only accelerate the economic domino effect inside Russia.
I have read every kind of twisted logic in this thread.
The west is as bad as Russia here. Well no it really isn't and that can be seen by the fact we don't have tanks seizing territory and declaring it for ever part of America.
The west started this by backing the revolt. No Putin started this by forcing the Ukrainian president (his stooge and the man who he politically funded to become president) into joining an exclusive Russian dominated trade block. This backfired because it sparked a revolt. Putin's man would still be having his pillow cases folded into hearts and his napkins into swans if he hadn't.
The west can't do anything to stop it. Yes we can and we did and it might take some time but it is beginning to work.
And now we get,
Well we shouldn't have done anything because it will be dangerous and Putin might be replaced by someone worse. For heavens sake always with the negative thinking Moriarty.
The west is as bad as Russia here. Well no it really isn't and that can be seen by the fact we don't have tanks seizing territory and declaring it for ever part of America.
The west started this by backing the revolt. No Putin started this by forcing the Ukrainian president (his stooge and the man who he politically funded to become president) into joining an exclusive Russian dominated trade block. This backfired because it sparked a revolt. Putin's man would still be having his pillow cases folded into hearts and his napkins into swans if he hadn't.
The west can't do anything to stop it. Yes we can and we did and it might take some time but it is beginning to work.
And now we get,
Well we shouldn't have done anything because it will be dangerous and Putin might be replaced by someone worse. For heavens sake always with the negative thinking Moriarty.
I actually agree with all of that. Don't misunderstand me, I'm glad the sanctions are taking their toll and I'm no supporter of Putin or his actions. All I'm saying is that removing Putin is not going to solve the problem which (imo) is what is Russias place in the world. Given all he's done, the fact that he continues to enjoy such support from his own people, suggests (to me at least) that removing Putin won't suddenly change the direction Russia is taking. But I do believe that we have to make it clear that Russia can't do what it wants without some kind of consequence.
The most underwhelming of the lot is that the west started this by challenging Putin on Ukraine.
Ukraine is a Putin generated problem in that he has always wanted to control it because its a gas transit state en route to Russia's major market in Europe. The less he controls it, the more unstable one of Russia's main sources of revenue becomes. Yanukovych getting chased out of the country caught him off guard after the euphoria of Sochi, and he panicked by invading Crimea as a device to retain domestic popularity.
Khodorkovsky pretty much spot on about Putin's mistake.
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/puti...kovsky-GLncvTCES_G8F847Lvb6~Q.html?cmpid=yhoo
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/puti...kovsky-GLncvTCES_G8F847Lvb6~Q.html?cmpid=yhoo
Can't really comment on this without insulting a fellow poster by questioning his intellect.
Wish I had more time to debate with you guys on this, but here are some points I want to make.
Russia did not pose a threat to the 'West' prior to the Ukrainian conflict, and still doesn't. You have to be an idiot to believe that Russia is a military threat to the might of NATO.
People have to ask themselves what Russia had to gain from all this, if they were truly the instigators? The fact is that Putin became too powerful to control and wouldn't yield to 'Western' influence, therefore a strategy was put in place to 'topple' him, long before Ukraine made the headlines. Putin has actually played into their hands now, as it has given the west a narrative on which to work (see Khodorkovsky video above).
Dressing geopolitical hegemony in a humanitarian guise is a trusted tactic of the 'West', which all but the most indoctrinated of people can see. It's been applied for decades now, directly and indirectly resulting in millions of deaths of innocents, with the purpose of expanding the 'free-market' and facilitating access to natural resources.
People can go on about the spreading of democracy and all that, but the truth is there is no democracy even in the 'West' (I know this may surprise some of you, but hey there you go). Democracy means governance by the people, and for a true democracy to exist, it's people need to have access to objective information through which they can reach a 'decision'. As unbiased media doesn't exist (no, the BBC is not the epitome of objectivity which we were raised to believe), the next best thing is reading various perspectives, and that doesn't mean Bloomberg, CNN, Sky, BBC, The Times, and the Guardian (sometimes), as they all represent one side in this conflict.
Russia did not pose a threat to the 'West' prior to the Ukrainian conflict, and still doesn't. You have to be an idiot to believe that Russia is a military threat to the might of NATO.
People have to ask themselves what Russia had to gain from all this, if they were truly the instigators? The fact is that Putin became too powerful to control and wouldn't yield to 'Western' influence, therefore a strategy was put in place to 'topple' him, long before Ukraine made the headlines. Putin has actually played into their hands now, as it has given the west a narrative on which to work (see Khodorkovsky video above).
Dressing geopolitical hegemony in a humanitarian guise is a trusted tactic of the 'West', which all but the most indoctrinated of people can see. It's been applied for decades now, directly and indirectly resulting in millions of deaths of innocents, with the purpose of expanding the 'free-market' and facilitating access to natural resources.
People can go on about the spreading of democracy and all that, but the truth is there is no democracy even in the 'West' (I know this may surprise some of you, but hey there you go). Democracy means governance by the people, and for a true democracy to exist, it's people need to have access to objective information through which they can reach a 'decision'. As unbiased media doesn't exist (no, the BBC is not the epitome of objectivity which we were raised to believe), the next best thing is reading various perspectives, and that doesn't mean Bloomberg, CNN, Sky, BBC, The Times, and the Guardian (sometimes), as they all represent one side in this conflict.
Firstly, the Russian regime does pose a threat to its neighbors, particularly when they reject governments who aren't aligned with its trademark kleptocratic authoritarianism. And the EU has at least as much interests in states like Ukraine and Moldova as Russia does (they border the EU and their history did not begin with the conquests of the Russian Empire under Catherine II). Secondly, you posit your argument on "what did Russia have to gain"? In reality, nothing - it would be much better off if it aligned with the rest of Europe, with which it shares a mass of ethnic and cultural ties. But, you make the mistake of assuming that the interests of Putin and his ozero dacha cronies are synonymous with those of Russia when in reality they are very divergent. So, when your economy is failing after years of mismanagement and graft (and growth stalled long before the current crisis blew up), why not distract attention and summon up a convenient bogeymen by provoking a nationalist upsurge through annexing Crimea and invading Eastern Ukraine? It may not be very prudent but, as his assessors at KGB school told young Volodya, he was very poor at assessing risk.
And please spare us the moral relativism about the media. The BBC and the Guardian etc are not remotely comparable with Russian media outlets. State media in Russia is now controlled by a particularly odious (albeit enormously talented) character called Dmitry Kiselyov, who has more in common with Goebbels than editors at UK media outlets. I generally avoid lazy third reich references but, if you have ever seen his Sunday night flagship show, it's the only comparison that springs two mind.
You're completely ignoring Putin's complicity in all of this. This is a situation that was created by him to retain domestic popularity in order to retain absolute power disguised as Democracy. He is the problem, not the world around him. If Russia had a proper leader who instituted Democratic reforms, grew their economy without coercion and manipulating countries around them, and actually left office without wanting to be President for life, none of this would be happening. The reaction is merely the West saying to Russia 'You can't continue to bully your neighbors without endangering your own prosperity'.
Putin's popularity in Russia before the Ukraine conflict was very high, he walked the election in 2012, no need to rewrite history. His moves in Crimea takeover and support of the separatist movement in the southeast of Ukraine were a reaction to an unconstitutional coup in Kiev, which he perceived (rightly, imho) as a direct challenge to Russia's geopolitical interests from the US and the EU. He may have overplayed his hand in the process though, but we'll see.
It's all well and good to talk about being a proper leader striving towards democracy, free press and all that other nice BS that western politicians regularly sell to their public, but there's a reason why some countries are more advanced in that respect than others and it's a very complex issue, which should be dealt with very carefully, something current political leaders don't quite grasp, and I fear it may very well lead to a global catastrophe in the near future.
And if the West are saying it to Russia, who could ask, let alone demand of the US to start minding their own business? Or is it that America is infallible so it can't possibly be at fault for anything? I mean, you can't really sanction the US or beat them in a war, so how do you make sure they're not fecking it up for everybody else out there?
Its unreal how much it has tumbled this year. I think its in freefall irrespective of what Oil does.
Easy to walk an election when you have complete administrative control of media and the political process and your "opponents" (Zhuganov and Prokhorov) are part of the game. The risk is that, with ordinary people denied true information about what has been happening over many years and now wakening up to rising food prices and declining wages and living standards, there will be an old-fashioned bunt rather than a peaceful transition - as it has been throughout most Russian history. And, all the West is saying is stay out of neighboring countries - the days of the Brezhnev doctrine are gone and Russia doesn't have the economic substance to enforce it.
It went up to 80 this afternoon before falling back (heavy CBR intervention I suspect). I hope it calms down as a lot of ordinary people are getting screwed over by this (whatever my feelings about the ruling clique).
I was replying to Raul's notion that Putin was the one who created the conflict in Ukraine because he needed to boost his popularity, and it simply isn't true. What means he had used to accomplish that is irrelevant to what I argued about.
I wouldn't say he "created" it, but it was opportunistic on his part - the bells were tolling for the Russian economy last year before all this started after years of corrupt mismanagement and so why not distract attention by taking back what had been ancient, ancestral Russian land for all of 250 years since Russia started conquering Ottoman territories. His miscalculation was to think that oil would remain at around $100 a barrel. In other words, his popularity would now be lower without the boost provided by this injection of nostalgia for old times. More generally,you can't really speak of "popularity" in a dictatorship which uses all the methods of modern media to craft its message.
The first bolded bit is a fiction of someone's imagination. Totally and utterly ridiculous to even suggest it. Though, I guess it sticks if that line is repeated over and over again by the MSM.
The second bolded bit, just displays a substantial level of naivete or nationalistic bias. Your blind faith in the media and in the political establishment is clouding your common sense.
I'm sure you know of several situations around the world where one country has invaded another, unilaterally, and without the consent of the UN. Let's eliminate the cases where the US and UK were the oppressors, as that would be considered too cliche. Let's just take their allies. Can you name a case where they have taken action against an oppressive regime which is regarded an ally of the 'West'. The fact that you cannot should help you realise that oppression (or 'bullying') is not the issue. They don't care about people's lives, liberties, freedom, democracy, or any other banner they like to fly. It's all about hegemony.
You think Russia is democratic? Tell me, are you from this part of the world or a Seamus Milne type for whom anyone who sticks two fingers up to the West is a hero? You don't for one moment think that Ukrainians might look across the border to Poland (with whom they have just as many historic ties as with Russia) and think "I could be living in a stable, relatively wealthy state rather than a kleptocratic sh*thole?".
I don't disagree that this is about power. In this case the power lies in the west in terms of economics. Its not rocket science really.
You can't get away with bullying your neighbors and disrupting economic commerce in the process without paying a hefty price, which Putin is about to pay with the demise of his economy. That however only glosses over the fact that this is completely a Russian creation as a result of domestic politics and the west is being used as a device to imbue Putin's domestic agenda. Russian state structures are well connected with corruption and organized crime and its leader therefore is incentivized to seek absolute power over democratic reform and improvements in governance. He can't survive as a leader without resorting to jingoistic propaganda, nationalism, and the pursuit of foreign conquest. Its all a ruse to distract his public from the corrupt mismanagement of his Kleptocratic regime. So in a sense you're right about hegemony. The international system is simply telling Russia, 'no you can't bully your neighbor and steal its land as a diversion to your own internal problems. Reform your system as the price of not reforming it will be far worse than continuing on your current path'.
I don't always like Raoul's approach, he is too one-sided in this (no offense), but what's wrong with that particular statement?
Gorbachev and Yeltsin fit that description in the MSM. Look how good their tenures turned out for the Russian people (Khodorkovsky et al excluded)