@Kaba:
I really don’t think Putin should be put in the same bandwagon as Assad or Kim Jung Il.
Sure. Not that this isn't the world's lowest hurdle to cross lol.
I mean, sure, he uses war liberally, and nearly certainly uses political assassinations and imprisonments, too. He’s by no means a “good” guy. However, I do think he does what he believes is needed for Russia to remain “great”.
Russia is an elaborate mafia state, Putin plays his game of thrones with his buddies and everyone benefits in those circles. The use of Russian nationalism to boost his popularity and legitimacy is super shallow and obvious. On some level he might be some sort of nationalist, but he does what he does to bolster himself. The installation of himself so utterly and totally in propaganda as this macho superman makes this clear.
So, yes, he protects Russian interests, aggressively if needed, like in Chechenia, or in Ukraine, or in Syria…
What ACTUAL Russian interests are in Syria? A small irrelevant naval base?
A regime with longstanding ties that….has no real use in modern times for the Russians?
And Ukraine, what "interest" is that. Ukraine being free to go its own way and economically link to the EU more, why is this against Russian interests? There is no fundamental interest of Russia as a society that it should continue to exist as an opposing player to the EU/West. Nothing requires this. The current set up of the Russian government however? That seems to be the only interest that cannot allow for this.
… but don’t forget what he’s up against. I mean, the head of the state, in Georgia (not the US state, the country near the Black sea), unilaterally declared independence, while, if memory serves, insulting Russia. Well, that was a clear casus belli, there.
Wow, wowwww.
This person knows precisely dick about what they're talking about with Georgia. I think they're referring to the 08' war….and they seem to think Georgia declared independence in 08'.
George declared independence in fucking 1991. The 08' war had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do Georgian independence. I could go into what it was over, but what's even the point. How does a place have a head of state before declaring independence anyway??
Also this person is some sort of total sociopath if they think insulting a country is grounds for war.
In Syria, Assad is a traditional ally to the USSR, then to Russia.
Syria as traditional ally of Russia, is no different than all manner of unsavory dictators that both the US and USSR had as client states in the Cold War. Defending shit-head client dictators is morally indefensible regardless of who does it. If Saudi Arabia faces a huge uprising and the US enters the war to defend the Saudi royal family it will be every bit as immoral.
> The US and their allies (which include Turkey and Israel, and, to my shame, France – along with a lot of other UE countries) wanted to change this. Russia's barely relevant connections to a tinpot dictator through a crappy little base is the last thing the West gives a crap about in Syria.
This is why they sponsored the rebellion,
The main sponsors of the FSA have been Middle Eastern Sunni states, and they are doing so to attack a country who is allied with Syria.
And that country is not Russia, its Iran.
Also this person is framing the support as if it created the rebellion, which is not the case at all. And the usual disgusting tactics of Russian apologists, erasing the agency of people in uprisings. In Ukraine, in Syria, in Libya. Wherever convenient for them.
even the more fundamentalist factions (part of which are now known as AQMI…), by offering them weapons,
The west has not supported the fundamentalist factions, in fact the west has bombed them lol. The likes of the Gulf states may well have been.
But of course I wonder if this person is expressing the same discomfort with the fact that Russia is fighting alongside soldiers of the theocratic state of Iran, and the religious militia of Hezbollah. Or does that not count?
> bombing the country (WITHOUT a UN mandate to do so, etc.) The west has only been bombing ISIS and occasionally other extremist groups like Al-Nusra. Russia has no problem with this, so make sure to point this out so he can suddenly defend it as the best thing ever.
> Now, a lot of people weep at how Syria is torn asunder, at the number of civilian deaths, etc… I do NOT condone Assad’s methods, and I wish he could be removed by DEMOCRATIC means, AHAHAHAHAHA, what the holy mother of fuck.
Does this person live in a friggin' children's cartoon or something?
This makes me angry and amused in equal amounts.
1. THE ENTIRE WAR was caused by Assad unleashing his security forces and military on peaceful protests.
2. SYRIA IS NOT A GODDAMN DEMOCRACY AND NEVER WAS. YOU CANNOT VOTE OUT THE DICTATOR. Is this person so fucking gullible that they see the mere existence of elections, not even remotely competitive ones that are top to bottom shams, and thinks "Oh neat, a democracy". What in the hell? This is terrifyingly naive. Its not like with Russia where the elections are like sort of real, but manipulated just enough to never actually matter. The Syrian elections were/are NAKEDLY bullshit in every regard.
but those do NOT include civil war.
Hey remember how France got rid of its dictators? ELECTIONS! a hurr durrr durrr! Its not like the last French dictator, Napoleon III, only lost power because he was in the middle of a war and got captured by the opposing side (Prussia)!
This is some first world privilege talk if ever I've heard it. Though how even a person in a functional democracy can be this clueless about what dictatorships ARE I have no idea.
Plus, the Baas party may be a “communist” party in the middle east, but, at least, it’s not favorable to muslim extremism…
Hmm, how to punt this stupid comment.
1. Sure, its only favorable to Shiite extremists, who are currently fighting the war practically for them alongside Russia.
2. Sure, they don't need their help to commit virtual genocide of their own population. They can do that on their own thank you very much.
3. Sure, aside from destroying the country so much that they create the vacuum in which extremists thrive, being as ISIS came about in exactly those conditions.
4. Sure, aside from when those extremists are convenient for their bullshit claims to what they're fighting for. So that they tolerate ISIS for years and even leave them alone in some circumstances.
As for Ukraine, the country has two distinct parts:
And so do many countries? Hey, lets tear apart Belgium, Italy, the US, England etc. They are geographically distinct in parts! > one, on the west, which is rather pro-Europe, where people speak mostly Ukrainian, etc… and one, on the east, where people are rather pro-Russia, where people speak mostly Russian, etc (because those lands were given by Stalin, maybe 50 years ago, from Russian lands). lolll, nearly the complete opposite is true. The furthest west parts of Ukraine were added on (taken from Poland) after WW2. The eastern borders have largely remained the same since the foundation of the USSR. Stalin had shit to do with it. This fool is maybe thinking of Crimea, which was Khrushchev not Stalin. > The insurrection against the Russia-aligned government started quite peacefully, and the police did NOT fire at the people. Then, one day, everything went awry, a lot of deaths in the protesting crowd, AND deaths in the police force (shot down). So, who shot first ? 130 protestors died during Euromaidan, 18 cops died. If this person thinks that tally reflects an armed and violent protest they're a fool.
Calling it an insurrection is a laugh as well. Also this person fails to consider that there were other state organs beyond the common police and riot police. Berkut and other special agencies were around the place and have received the brunt of accusations of such things.
I mean, had there only been peaceful protesters, which, outraged by the killings, had retreated, and came back with weapons, it should have taken time, right ? It’s almost as if at least SOME people, in the crowd, were already armed – maybe to ignite the powderkeg, and force a violent revolution.
Why would killing cops ignite a violent revolution? That doesn't make any sense.
This person wants to simultaneously believe that the mean nasty pro-Europe side would kill police in cold blood. And also wants to believe they did it to make the pro-Europe side benefit. Benefit how??
Dead cops supports the first thing that they want to believe, that the protestors are bad violent people that need to be put down. And not the second part.
Someone shooting cops would be discrediting the protestors!
Also, the violent revolution that y'know… didn't happened? A protest turned violent, a ton of people died within a day or two. Then things went quiet and tense over this, and then the president ran away.
Now, in Ukraine, people tell you that separatists are bad rebels, and that the rest of the country is protecting itself against Russia… but the truth is that, once again, it’s the Cold War reinstated…
Ok, and that changes the pre ellipses part of the sentence how? > The new Ukraine governement (pro-UE/US) declared that, from now on, only Ukrainian was to be used in official documents (when a lot of the population don’t even know how to speak it !) False, that law was never passed.
And claiming that Russian speakers don't know how to speak it is acting like they are not bilingual (between these two enormously similar languages). Also if this is grounds for war and separatism, France is one of the worst criminals in the world at this lol. Would this person support violent secession of Brittany and Occitania over the language policies in France? lol
They also revoked the rights of occupation for a major Russian navy base (Sevastopol, I guess it was – this is from memory), there again with a very short delay, instead of giving a reasonable timeframe – maybe a few years, to allow Russia to relocate it in good order.
False, this never happened. Also again…is this person saying annexing Crimea is ok because of this even if it HAD happened?? If Cuba kicked the US out of Guantanamo all of a sudden would it be fine if the US annexed a chunk of Cuba?? Of course not.
So, all in all, coupled with aggressive anti-russian talk,
By small niche nationalist factions. > and with skirmishes between supporters of both camps, it lead to a full-on rebellion. I don't even know what this person is talking about now. The Donbass?
After it started, it seems hard to begrudge Putin defending russian-speaking populations, on used-to-be-russian lands…
He created the conflict in the Donbass, it was Russian backed from the start. And at no point established itself as a popular revolt of any kind, it refuses neutral international observers to even view their "elections". And what the hell is he defending them from. A law that never got passed that would make documents in Ukrainian? The fuck?
So, yeah, he’s hard, ruthless, and in no way a saint. But I’d agree he’s, in a lot of ways, like some presidents the US had (the CIA is not known for its kindness or its love of democratically-elected opponents to US policies, and sending troops on foreign land to protect “vital national interests” is, unfortunately, a sport much practiced by big countries – yes, you may include England, France, China, there, and, if you go a bit further in the past, you’ll see Spain and Portugal doing it, too, along with the Netherlands, or the republic of Venice, etc… or even ancient Rome.
I can't tell if this is a "AND U ARE HANGING NEGROS" thing, or this person saying doing terrible things is totes cool and fine.
All powerful countries feel the need to protect their influence and their prerogatives, and do so either diplomatically, or by waging war. Usually using the latter when the former fails.
So, you know, just wanted to set a few things straight, here. (French reader, here).
Hey yall, just wanted to let you know that barbaric imperialist behavior is just like, y'know, normal and stuff. No big dealio. Just puttin' that out there! Toodles!