WW3

Omega said:

Well, if you don't mind dying, then it is your choice. However, don't decide for others

Click to expand...

Well you seem to have made claim to all of the other decisions and scenarios so thought make a play for me the last one..

No fear of dying here, it is inevitable after all.

There's only one way to deal with a bully and it isn't to let him carry on without any reprisals. It was embarrassing watching world leaders kissing putins .... just before he invaded Ukraine we should have done more before now , and I'm sure this would have been over already . We should hit him hard and teach him that just thinking you are right doesn't necessarily mean you are .all our thoughts should be with the Ukrainian people who have been treated terribly by Russia for decades

Omega said:

Putin said, that whose who don't want the return of USSR - those don't have the heart, those who want the return of the USSR - they don't have the brains. So, Baltic is definitely out of the table and Putin agrees with this

Click to expand...

He also said this in 2022 (Narva by the way is in Estonia).

Peter the Great waged the Great Northern War for 21 years. On the face of it, he was at war with Sweden taking something away from it… He was not taking away anything, he was returning. This is how it was. The areas around Lake Ladoga, where St Petersburg was founded. When he founded the new capital, none of the European countries recognised this territory as part of Russia; everyone recognised it as part of Sweden. However, from time immemorial, the Slavs lived there along with the Finno-Ugric peoples, and this territory was under Russia’s control. The same is true of the western direction, Narva and his first campaigns. Why would he go there? He was returning and reinforcing, that is what he was doing.

Clearly, it fell to our lot to return and reinforce as well. And if we operate on the premise that these basic values constitute the basis of our existence, we will certainly succeed in achieving our goals.

Click to expand...

I am under impression that we are also a kleptocracy, though Trump is a definite outlier - most of our Prime Ministers come from Eton, this is a good indicator that our democracy is not very democratic. However, I do not see anything better than this . Only pity that our current politicians are demagogues

Click to expand...

Less of the 'we' business, I'm Irish.

Larse said:

Also Biden didn't do it to screw Trump. Unless by screwing Trump, you mean making sure that Trump has one less way to screw Ukraine.

Click to expand...

So its no coincidence he gave the green light just after he lost his job and not before?

Chippy_Tea said:

So its no coincidence he gave the green light just after he lost his job and not before?

Click to expand...

I already said it wasn't. Just supplied a different interpretation of the motive.

Larse said:

I already said it wasn't. Just supplied a different interpretation of the motive.

Click to expand...

I prefer mine

Chippy_Tea said:

I prefer mine

Click to expand...

I prefer it too. Tump being screwed would be nice. But I doubt he'd give a damn.

Well the very fact we are all free to have and air out personal views and opinions in safe and free country is the exact reason we can't let the likes of Putin enforce their will on sovereign nations, the US may be prepared to walk away but this will have a serious impact in world politics, well known that China are just watching the wider response to illegal invasion to gauge how they move forward.

It needs to be made clear any threats to the US or UK and indications they are now are part of the war, is one step away from invoking a full NATO response.

If Putin wants to drag the US and UK into this mess then he should be ,made aware that any action against NATO member counties can trigger article 4

Putin has made threats at every step.

He looks at the western populace as scared sheep and their leaders as weak and fickle. He knows he can keep them under control with threats, whereas he has absolute control of Russia and her vassal states and is happy to expend millions of lives to advance his world view.

Every time there has been support of Ukraine he says "there will be consequences" and yet...

Omega said:

I am not sure what you meant about EU, but having a border with the EU would immensely beneficial to Russia as long as this is not a border with NATO too. Though probably on one condition - EU elite accepts Russian elite. It is the elite who always has the financial goals in any conflict.

Click to expand...

Missed this earlier. Putin is virulently opposed to the EU. Its very size and diversity makes it a very strong force on the international trade scene. But the greatest danger for him is that prosperous EU members on his border provide a stark contrast to the miserable living conditions and economic hardships suffered by the ordinary Russian.

Putin's biggest fear is from his own people. Everything about Russian life is designed to keep the population in the dark and fed with the party line. All media is state controlled, either directly or with threats. Journalists who question the status quo don't last long. Political opposition is either corrupted, defenestrated or confected.

It's well known in the west that Putin is immensely wealthy. Estimates of his worth go up to $200 billion. But this wealth is hidden very carefully amongst cutouts, bagmen (Abramovich is believed to be one of these) and abroad. He has repeatedly denied that his palace on the black sea is his. Why would he fear this being known in Russia? Because it would destroy his carefully cultivated persona of the strong man who eschews such frippery and likely cause huge unrest. Revolution is always possible, would the armed forces likely protect him now?

Larse said:

Missed this earlier. Putin is virulently opposed to the EU. Its very size and diversity makes it a very strong force on the international trade scene. But the greatest danger for him is that prosperous EU members on his border provide a stark contrast to the miserable living conditions and economic hardships suffered by the ordinary Russian.

Putin's biggest fear is from his own people. Everything about Russian life is designed to keep the population in the dark and fed with the party line. All media is state controlled, either directly or with threats. Journalists who question the status quo don't last long. Political opposition is either corrupted, defenestrated or confected.

It's well known in the west that Putin is immensely wealthy. Estimates of his worth go up to $200 billion. But this wealth is hidden very carefully amongst cutouts, bagmen (Abramovich is believed to be one of these) and abroad. He has repeatedly denied that his palace on the black sea is his. Why would he fear this being known in Russia? Because it would destroy his carefully cultivated persona of the strong man who eschews such frippery and likely cause huge unrest. Revolution is always possible, would the armed forces likely protect him now?

Click to expand...

Would be interested to see evidence of all of this. Otherwise it reads like Sun or Mirror
Not saying you are wrong, but I read these accusations lots of time, watched the video of Navalny about Putin and Putin’s villa, even followed up Navalny’s sources to see the prove and … no reliable prove . Of course, “this is because he is so powerful that he destroyed all evidence”, but even our society protects people against baseless accusations. At the same time, I checked Navalny’s biography with details how he committed ordinary crimes that would be found being a criminal in any country I know and … I found evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he was an ordinary criminal
Putin is , I don’t argue about it, and my reason not to like him is because it is immoral to be in power for so long (he didn’t break or rewrite the law, by the way, so he is not a dictator, and we are poor judges because we don’t even choose our own Prime Minister). However, I want to see evidence of his crimes with prove that is beyond reasonable doubts

Putin is strongly conservative. Since the fall of the Soviet Union he's seen western influences creep east - goods, media, and with them come liberal values that he despises. The EU and NATO have gone right up to the Russian border, even consuming former Soviet countries.

When the Euromaidan protests happened, he had to do something or he'd lose a strategic and extremely symbolic territory forever. So the little green men went into Donbas, with him knowing that nobody would accept Ukraine into anything, because who wants a country currently under invasion in their organisation?

But we all kept taking Russian gas and oil and pretending it wasn't really an invasion. Putin kept having people chucked out of windows in various European cities. He created a walking dirty bomb in Salisbury. And we all did nothing.

Why did Putin attack Ukraine? Because he knew he could expand Russia without consequence. Until he gets a punch in the face he's going to keep doing it.

Omega said:

he didn’t break or rewrite the law, by the way

Click to expand...

He changed the constitution in 2020 allowing him to stay in power until 2036.

JockyBrewer said:

He changed the constitution in 2020 allowing him to stay in power until 2036.

Click to expand...

Thanks - that's correct, he did. It was people's vote suggesting Putin is a demagogue. I will use this argument when I come across his proponents

Omega said:

Would be interested to see evidence of all of this. Otherwise it reads like Sun or Mirror
Not saying you are wrong, but I read these accusations lots of time, watched the video of Navalny about Putin and Putin’s villa, even followed up Navalny’s sources to see the prove and … no reliable prove . Of course, “this is because he is so powerful that he destroyed all evidence”, but even our society protects people against baseless accusations.

Click to expand...

There's a Wikipedia page devoted to it. Suffice to say, the transactions are extremely murky and would lead you to believe that concealment was the purpose of such murky dealings. And there have been other investigations of it including by Meduza and BBC Russian Service. Many of Navalny's conclusions were borne out by these subsequent investigations. Practically speaking there's no concrete way of getting evidence from a closed system like Russia has. The only way would be through buying hacked data on the dark web and even then would not be conclusive given its origins.
But that's just about the palace. Putin's corruption goes a long way back. Anna Politkovskaya's book "Putin's Russia" is a very good source of how things worked in his early days. Anna was assassinated in a lift (coincidentally? on Putin's 54th birthday) two years after the book was published. Well worth a read, although grim as ****.

Omega said:

At the same time, I checked Navalny’s biography with details how he committed ordinary crimes that would be found being a criminal in any country I know and … I found evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he was an ordinary criminal

Click to expand...

Playing the man and not the ball? Not your best work.

Omega said:

Putin is , I don’t argue about it, and my reason not to like him is because it is immoral to be in power for so long (he didn’t break or rewrite the law, by the way, so he is not a dictator, and we are poor judges because we don’t even choose our own Prime Minister). However, I want to see evidence of his crimes with prove that is beyond reasonable doubts

Click to expand...

I suppose if you squint a lot and look through your fingers, you might be forgiven for thinking that a constitutional limit of two consecutive terms, being increased to four and reportedly to soon become six is only coincidence and has not got the faintest whiff of dictatorship in a 'political system' that has no real opposition and shamelessly high votes for the incumbent, then fair enough. I just can't stretch my credulity that far I'm afraid.

Edit: "we don’t even choose our own Prime Minister"

As I said before, I'm Irish, so don't have a Prime Minister, we call it Taoiseach. But this isn't the supposed anti-democratic concept people seem to think it is. Staying away from the UK system (because I'm Irish) we choose the people who choose the head of government. It's reminiscent of all that brexit malarkey about 'unelected bureaucrats' which was such a simplification of what in effect is a civil service. Which isn't elected either. And who'd want an elected civil service? It's a recipe for corruption, injustice and stagnation.

Larse said:

There's a Wikipedia page devoted to it. Suffice to say, the transactions are extremely murky and would lead you to believe that concealment was the purpose of such murky dealings. And there have been other investigations of it including by Meduza and BBC Russian Service. Many of Navalny's conclusions were borne out by these subsequent investigations. Practically speaking there's no concrete way of getting evidence from a closed system like Russia has. The only way would be through buying hacked data on the dark web and even then would not be conclusive given its origins.
But that's just about the palace. Putin's corruption goes a long way back. Anna Politkovskaya's book "Putin's Russia" is a very good source of how things worked in his early days. Anna was assassinated in a lift (coincidentally? on Putin's 54th birthday) two years after the book was published. Well worth a read, although grim as ****.

Playing the man and not the ball? Not your best work.

I suppose if you squint a lot and look through your fingers, you might be forgiven for thinking that a constitutional limit of two consecutive terms, being increased to four and reportedly to soon become six is only coincidence and has not got the faintest whiff of dictatorship in a 'political system' that has no real opposition and shamelessly high votes for the incumbent, then fair enough. I just can't stretch my credulity that far I'm afraid.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I read about "Putin's Palace" and there are too many unsubstantiated claims.
I followed Politkovskaya's work because my university worked a lot with her. However, she wrote about corruption, even Russian government does not deny it. I came across corruption in the UK too, so...
Definitely agree with you that stretching constitutional limits is immoral, but... democracy is subjective, even North Korea is formally called Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)

Omega said:

Thanks. I read about "Putin's Palace" and there are too many unsubstantiated claims.
I followed Politkovskaya's work because my university worked a lot with her. However, she wrote about corruption, even Russian government does not deny it. I came across corruption in the UK too, so...
Definitely agree with you that stretching constitutional limits is immoral, but... democracy is subjective, even North Korea is formally called Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)

Click to expand...

I think that phenomenon is called astro-turfing. Naming yourself for all the things you're actually opposed to.

Democratic - Hard nope
People's - lol Nope.
Republic - Haha

Larse said:

I think that phenomenon is called astro-turfing. Naming yourself for all the things you're actually opposed to.

Democratic - Hard nope
People's - lol Nope.
Republic - Haha

Click to expand...

Well said . I will memorise this word
This is how countries comply with our Western definition of democracy. I guess other countries also judge us and don't find us democratic. And saying they are wrong... “Let him who is without sin among you, cast the first stone at her” Bible, John 8:7

Omega said:

Well said . I will memorise this word
This is how countries comply with our Western definition of democracy. I guess other countries also judge us and don't find us democratic. And saying they are wrong... “Let him who is without sin among you, cast the first stone at her” Bible, John 8:7
View attachment 105994

Click to expand...

I suppose it's a view, but I just never thought I;d see democracies being averaged. I'm sure there's a purpos- for it, but it looks more like an answer searching for a question to me. At least my astro-turfing description is on average; accurate.

Is it a form of nominative determinism? Or more properly anti-nominative determinism? Like are the United States of America more the Disunited States of America right now. Or for that matter the Disunited Kingdom?

Omega said:

However, she wrote about corruption, even Russian government does not deny it. I came across corruption in the UK too, so...

Click to expand...

That’s whataboutery.