Vladimir Putin' s Not-So-Secret War On Europe

a reply to: DJW001

I take it Putin is playing the long game, what's the time frame you have in mind, perhaps 2025 ?

I'm glad this thread was pulled from the deep dark depths of Ats entertainment section.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I take it Putin is playing the long game, what's the time frame you have in mind, perhaps 2025 ?

He's already got a quarter of the EU's economy adrift in the English Channel. While the US watches the domestic political circus, he will probably start asserting Russia's role in the Eastern Mediterranean. His assistance to Assad in the multi-polar war is turning into cooperation with Turkey in a campaign against the Kurds. He is also well positioned to be the new arbiter in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

His to-do list includes acquiring Novorossiya, the Ukrainian territory east of the Dnieper, to secure access to Sevastopol,and, of course, getting land access to to the other exclave, Kaliningrad. With a weakened United States, he might be able to seize Eastern Ukraine militarily. With a strong United States he might try to negotiate a purchase. As for Kaliningrad, there is no military option, but he might be able to whip up sepratist sentiments in the Suwalki Gap. The next ten years is about the right time frame.

Are you a Kremlin insider?

You seem to apparently "know" a lot about what Putin is thinking, his intentions, and his plans...

a reply to: DJW001

originally posted by: mortex
Are you a Kremlin insider?

You seem to apparently "know" a lot about what Putin is thinking, his intentions, and his plans...

a reply to: DJW001

All you have to do is assume that Vlad Vladimorvitch is not an idiot. I certainly don't think he is an idiot. Do you? He wants what is best for Russia. Everything I laid out is what Russia needs to be great again. Year round ports, that sort of thing. Do you want Russia to be great again?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: mortex
Are you a Kremlin insider?

You seem to apparently "know" a lot about what Putin is thinking, his intentions, and his plans...

a reply to: DJW001

All you have to do is assume that Vlad Vladimorvitch is not an idiot. I certainly don't think he is an idiot. Do you? He wants what is best for Russia. Everything I laid out is what Russia needs to be great again. Year round ports, that sort of thing. Do you want Russia to be great again?

Would it be any worse than the horrors the west has done in the last two decades?

a reply to: DJW001



There is no doubt that the US are working behind the seen to subject Russia:


Read this from Michael Ratney:jasirx.wordpress.com...

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: DJW001



There is no doubt that the US are working behind the seen to subject Russia:


Read this from Michael Ratney:jasirx.wordpress.com...

That is common knowledge, nor does it excuse Russian meddling elsewhere.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: mortex
Are you a Kremlin insider?

You seem to apparently "know" a lot about what Putin is thinking, his intentions, and his plans...

a reply to: DJW001

All you have to do is assume that Vlad Vladimorvitch is not an idiot. I certainly don't think he is an idiot. Do you? He wants what is best for Russia. Everything I laid out is what Russia needs to be great again. Year round ports, that sort of thing. Do you want Russia to be great again?

Would it be any worse than the horrors the west has done in the last two decades?

It would if a miscalculation on Putin's part results in NATO's Section 5 to be invoked. It could lead to the deaths of millions. He needs to learn from the Chinese. They are successfully colonizing Africa without firing a shot.

a reply to: DJW001


No. It dosent actually excuse any one does it?


I Guess we are just as bad as the Russians are.... right?

a reply to: spy66

No. It dosent actually excuse any one does it?

No, it does not. The United States has done some underhanded things, but that does not justify accepting underhanded things that adversely affect the United States.

I Guess we are just as bad as the Russians are.... right?

What do you mean "we," Paleface? When the United States invades a country they hit the ground wearing uniforms and flying the flag in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. When Russia invaded Ukraine, they disguised themselves as partisans, hit the streets in uniforms without insignia, and then loudly protested that they had no troops there. It's as if Putin's brain is so twisted that even when he is doing something out in the open he doesn't feel right unless he lies about it. So no, we are not just as bad. When an American leader does something shady and it becomes public, they are chastised and sometimes even removed from office. That just doesn't happen in Roseland.

What do you mean "we," Paleface? When the United States invades a country they hit the ground wearing uniforms and flying the flag in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. When Russia invaded Ukraine, they disguised themselves as partisans, hit the streets in uniforms without insignia, and then loudly protested that they had no troops there. It's as if Putin's brain is so twisted that even when he is doing something out in the open he doesn't feel right unless he lies about it. So no, we are not just as bad. When an American leader does something shady and it becomes public, they are chastised and sometimes even removed from office. That just doesn't happen in Roseland.

a reply to: DJW001

There is always two sides to a story. And you only seam to be keen on the story we deliver. If you think Russia invaded Ukraine without a reason then you are supporting the actions we have done.

The US didnt invade Ukraine With military forces, but they did do something much more stealthy and that is the reason Russia did what they had to do to protect their interests With Ukraine.

These conflicts are only about national interests between the US and Russia. Ukraine on the other hand have no saying in the matter. The conflic in Syria is just the same but more open now. There is no doubt that the US are in Syria to prevent Russia from succeeding with their goals.

a reply to: spy66

There is always two sides to a story. And you only seam to be keen on the story we deliver. If you think Russia invaded Ukraine without a reason then you are supporting the actions we have done.

I oppose the actions you have done. I understand why your government needs access to the Black Sea. I understand why your government feared that a Ukrainian government that turned West rather than East might not honor the treaty giving them access to the Crimean ports.

The US didnt invade Ukraine With military forces, but they did do something much more stealthy and that is the reason Russia did what they had to do to protect their interests With Ukraine.

Your government had other options. Your leader was raised by the KGB. He prefers covert warfare to open diplomacy.

These conflicts are only about national interests between the US and Russia. Ukraine on the other hand have no saying in the matter. The conflict in Syria is just the same but more open now. There is no doubt that the US are in Syria to prevent Russia from succeeding with their goals.

Ideally, all nations act in their best interests. This should lead to cooperation rather than conflict. For example, Russia could have offered Ukraine a huge sum to purchase Crimea outright. Ukraine's economy is in bad shape and they probably would have accepted. Unfortunately, Vladimir Vladimirovitch thought that would make him look weak, so he preferred to let innocent Russians die instead.

The carnage in Syria is only partially about Russian goals. It is noteworthy that Russia is willing to support a genocidal regime to maintain its port there. When the dust settles, they will take a page out of America's book. Russia will lend Syria billions to rebuild... using Russian contractors. (And as the number of ethnic Russians on the Mediterranean coast swells, the more likely another "referendum" becomes.)

It doesn’t take much to see that Crimea was taken back with ease, and with the support of the overwhelming majority of it’s population (Russian). It clearly appears the overwhelming majority population (Russian) is happy to be with Russia than being exposed to the Ukrainian nazi extremists.

I’m not Ukrainian nor have heritage from there. DJWOO1 might though. So I can understand the one sided view on the situation.

Parts of countries were ripped out and with devastation. Look at Kosovo. The Muslim extermists there demolished centuries old orthodox monasteries and got support for independence from the clintons.

Crimea didn’t open doors for parts of countries to be “seized”.

Crimea had an overwhelming majority population of Russians there a good century before Kosovo’s muslim population, which grew and sky rocketed a mere decades ago.

Crimea being part of Russia is a lot more natural than Kosovo being taken away from Serbia.

Which has been with Serbia before the 11th century.

Who doesn't see that Putin, Trump and all the like (including of course EU and Brit puppet politicians and their black no(a)bility behind them) are in the same agenda of enslaving humankind from America to Russia and they don't care about nationality at all - is blind.

originally posted by: Imhere
It doesn’t take much to see that Crimea was taken back with ease, and with the support of the overwhelming majority of it’s population (Russian). It clearly appears the overwhelming majority population (Russian) is happy to be with Russia than being exposed to the Ukrainian nazi extremists.

I’m not Ukrainian nor have heritage from there. DJWOO1 might though. So I can understand the one sided view on the situation.

Parts of countries were ripped out and with devastation. Look at Kosovo. The Muslim extermists there demolished centuries old orthodox monasteries and got support for independence from the clintons.

Crimea didn’t open doors for parts of countries to be “seized”.

Crimea had an overwhelming majority population of Russians there a good century before Kosovo’s muslim population, which grew and sky rocketed a mere decades ago.

Crimea being part of Russia is a lot more natural than Kosovo being taken away from Serbia.

Which has been with Serbia before the 11th century.

Everybody with the basic knowledge of history knows that Crimea was taken out of Russia by the will of one comunist puppet in 1954 and "given" to Ukraine by him signing the paper... While Kosovo gained "independence" (yeah, from the morality and law) after Clinton and Blair bombed Serbia, based on falsified report about Rachak, made by silly William Walker and officially given by Helena Ranta - who later declared on the record (to be seen on youtube) that Walker twisted her original report, and that he was threathening her constantly... Go figure the Black Rose black operation, for the purpose of black fundings.. (everone knows that Kosovo serves for heroin and human organ trafficking) - it is the shame of humankind that we let something like this happen, indeed!!!! What we allowed to happen in our neigbourhood yesterday, can come to us tomorrow...

a reply to: morano

Everybody with the basic knowledge of history knows that Crimea was taken out of Russia by the will of one comunist puppet in 1954 and "given" to Ukraine by him signing the paper.

A Ukrainian leader of the Soviet Union signed it over, making it legal. No troops were needed in the streets. As I said, Ukraine would probably have sold Crimea back to Russia if they asked. They didn't ask, so it was an illegal invasion and seizure.

In order to maintain power, Putin needs an aura of "strength." He cannot afford a conflict with NATO, or even just Turkey, so he has turned the brunt of his military to demolishing cities in Syria in the hopes of adding an exclave on the Mediterranean. Meanwhile, he has been nibbling away at former Soviet republics and satellites, invading them with "railway workers" and "little green men," to create an impression of military conquest without having to face the unpleasant consequences of an actual war with a near peer enemy, like Turkey or Poland, even without NATO at their backs.

a reply to: Imhere

It doesn’t take much to see that Crimea was taken back with ease, and with the support of the overwhelming majority of it’s population (Russian). It clearly appears the overwhelming majority population (Russian) is happy to be with Russia than being exposed to the Ukrainian nazi extremists.

Now they only have to deal with the Russian Nazi extremists.





(From earlier in the thread, since you seem to need a refresher.)

Possible British or other NATO-EU armed forces' members in Ukraine is going to lead to Kharkov, Kherson and Zaporizhia to join Lugansk and Donetsk in the Novorossiya union ! ... this can happen really fast BTW ...

a reply to: DJW001


Greece was stopped from joining the Communist block after the second world war, the country is basically socialist deep down. Now its getting punished for early retirement and , and wanting a good life for all. Unbridled Capitalism will leave everyone in debt, that's the logical end game. Cant happen here? well it already has.

originally posted by: morano

originally posted by: Imhere
It doesn’t take much to see that Crimea was taken back with ease, and with the support of the overwhelming majority of it’s population (Russian). It clearly appears the overwhelming majority population (Russian) is happy to be with Russia than being exposed to the Ukrainian nazi extremists.

I’m not Ukrainian nor have heritage from there. DJWOO1 might though. So I can understand the one sided view on the situation.

Parts of countries were ripped out and with devastation. Look at Kosovo. The Muslim extermists there demolished centuries old orthodox monasteries and got support for independence from the clintons.

Crimea didn’t open doors for parts of countries to be “seized”.

Crimea had an overwhelming majority population of Russians there a good century before Kosovo’s muslim population, which grew and sky rocketed a mere decades ago.

Crimea being part of Russia is a lot more natural than Kosovo being taken away from Serbia.

Which has been with Serbia before the 11th century.

Everybody with the basic knowledge of history knows that Crimea was taken out of Russia by the will of one comunist puppet in 1954 and "given" to Ukraine by him signing the paper... While Kosovo gained "independence" (yeah, from the morality and law) after Clinton and Blair bombed Serbia, based on falsified report about Rachak, made by silly William Walker and officially given by Helena Ranta - who later declared on the record (to be seen on youtube) that Walker twisted her original report, and that he was threathening her constantly... Go figure the Black Rose black operation, for the purpose of black fundings.. (everone knows that Kosovo serves for heroin and human organ trafficking) - it is the shame of humankind that we let something like this happen, indeed!!!! What we allowed to happen in our neigbourhood yesterday, can come to us tomorrow...

All I'm going to say is if a it was "signed" that ukraine got crimea that's legal.

And don't bring Kosovo into it. They been fighting for independence for decades (almost there). Have the crimeans? Tell you what. Easy way to determine who crimea belongs to. Give it to the ethnic tatars.