Putin Sacks Sakhalin Governor Khoroshavin on Grounds of Mistrust - Kremlin

originally posted by: Krasnay
God help us, I'd hate to see your analysis as to Obama's sacking of generals in the US nuclear defence agencies.. would be apocalyptic stuff. But I suppose you would blame Putin for that, eh.

I think Obama should be impeached and if I had my way charged and tried in court. This is one flaw you guys seem to have when we discuss Russia. You want to bring the Us into it while accusing people of having a different standard when it comes to our President.

Putin is responsible for the mess he got himself into by running his mouth, making outrageous claims and then realizing he cant back track from any of it.

Discussing Putin and his misadventures is no different than people discussing how the CIA / US is responsible for everything that happens in the world.

We tolerate those discussions.

Why cant you and the others do the same?


Why is it so far outside the realm of reality for you that Putin could be having internal issues and is trying to stave off disaster by firing / removing / charging / killing those who oppose him?

a reply to: Xcathdra

LOL, gee, wow. You are one of them. Dare I ask, but do you look forward to the Apocalypse too? Are you really one of them? Because IMHO, it seems like you are advocating US-Russia war and will use any issue and tell any lie to make it reality.

As I said, take a walk and smell the roses. Just love people and respect their rights to exist and express themselves how they want. Leave Novorossia be.

a reply to: TDawg61

What are you on about?

That would be your obvious shill account comrade to spew braindead communist tripe.

originally posted by: TDawg61
That would be your obvious shill account comrade to spew braindead communist tripe.

? Shill account? LOL

a reply to: Krasnay

Looks like one.. looking forward to your first thread

a reply to: dollukka

AS you may tell, I certainly will not be going easy on United States' or western European governments that disrespect people's rights, oppress and kill people and assist in the trampling of human rights both near and abroad.

But I won't start that yet

a reply to: Krasnay

Not at all which is why I state Putin needs to go away before he starts a war he cant win.

a reply to: Krasnay

AS you may tell, I certainly will not be going easy on United States' or western European governments that disrespect people's rights, oppress and kill people and assist in the trampling of human rights both near and abroad.

Well, you need to add Russia to your list as they have done the same thing probably more if we look at history. So that means you will give Russia the same criticism you have for the US and Western European governments...I mean it's only fair.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

If I feel that necessary I will do so, however, my intellectual leanings would naturally defend Putinism and the socially responsible aspects of his policies, such as those that advocate patriotism over nationalism, ensuring organs of state comply with socially responsible policies, protecting people not profits, tying to limit the effect of foreign-funded NGO's, modernising run-down military and space assets, and re-connecting with former Soviet-allies such as Cuba, VietNam, Syria and others.

My main thesis is that western "liberal" governments are hypocritical and fail to protect their citizens whilst using those very same normative values (such as free trade, individual liberty, corporate citizenship) to attack, sanction and undermine other states that do not hold those values.

But we are way off thread here...

a reply to: Xcathdra

Start a war he cannot win? You are a Ukies dream

I do not think Russia will be starting a war they cannot win. Though, like yourself, I do think that the ability of Russia to project hard power across central and western Europe is not as strong as some make out.

To me that is a temporal factor that other invading forces have failed to consider. Russia, unlike almost any western state, is a country that can win an all-out war without a functioning economy. Indeed, the monetisation of their assets and services has only recently been accomplished. They can build the materiel of war without money.

Investment in the modernisation of factories does take investment and trade, but the people are willing to work and fight to defend Russia. In the west, most folk won't even get out of bed unless they get paid.

Have no fear, Putin will not be starting a war he cannot win.

It's worth checking an atlas.
It may or may not be relevant to this man's case, but Sakhalin is an island of strategic importance.
On the frontier with Japan, not all that far from the Aleutians.

a reply to: DISRAELI

So it is - did you need to check an atlas to know that?

a reply to: Krasnay
No, I've got a pretty good mental map of my own.
But some of the people reading the comment might have needed to check an atlas first, hence the advice.

originally posted by: Krasnay
a reply to: Xcathdra

Russia, unlike almost any western state, is a country that can win an all-out war without a functioning economy.

Not sure about the winning part, but you hit the thruth with unfunctioning economy. Prices of medicines in Russia is estimated to rise 20% and people do not afford buying them. Every year HIV is increasing in Russia about 10% a year. Russian gbt is estimated to drop down 4.4 % this year. Also food prices are going uphill.

It looks bad. I know Russians have somewhat recent history when there were nothing to buy and "bread lines" ( queue for possible bread ) were huge. Wasn´t that one reason Soviet Union fell when people in Russia had it bad ? So how do you expect people to fight for Putin when their future in Russia is not much different than in Soviet times ?

originally posted by: Krasnay
Russia, unlike almost any western state, is a country that can win an all-out war without a functioning economy. Indeed, the monetisation of their assets and services has only recently been accomplished.

I'd love to hear the rational behind this....

originally posted by: Krasnay
They can build the materiel of war without money.

It didn't work out so well for them in the Cold War and they required Lend-Lease Aid from the US (and UK) in World War 2 totalling $11 Billion in 1940's money (some $115 Billion in 2015 money) to enable them to fight off the Germans. Even then, it was largely down to German idiocy that they won, than anything the Russian's did.

n total, the US deliveries through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans); 11,400 aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras) and 1.75 million tons of food.

Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line

The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil), 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,900 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. One item typical of many was a tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR. The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars.

Not sure about the winning part, but you hit the thruth with unfunctioning economy. Prices of medicines in Russia is estimated to rise 20% and people do not afford buying them.

Sounds exactly like happens in western countries. In fact price of medicines in the US and UK may well have even greater inflation. State agencies do not even recommend many medicines that are not "cost effective" but do work

Every year HIV is increasing in Russia about 10% a year. Russian gbt is estimated to drop down 4.4 % this year. Also food prices are going uphill.

Not sure about these numbers and assumptions. True, food prices are increasing, but that is the norm anywhere. The GDP numbers are a short-term effect due to currency/oil price issue which is working through the economy this year.

It looks bad. I know Russians have somewhat recent history when there were nothing to buy and "bread lines" ( queue for possible bread ) were huge. Wasn´t that one reason Soviet Union fell when people in Russia had it bad ? So how do you expect people to fight for Putin when their future in Russia is not much different than in Soviet times ?

In the early post-Great Patriot War period food shortages were occurring. But they were across Europe too. The UK had food stamps for decades. Bread shortages were common at some times, and did result in famines. That is fact, and very, very sad. But Russians cannot be lumbered with that blame. Blame a Georgian and a Ukrainian if you must (Stalin and then Kruschev) as they chaired the USSR over those times.

As for bread shortages in my life-time (mid 1960's born) I am not aware of any. Sure some shortages have happened, but nothing critical, unless it was a luxury item. During my stays in Moscow, I can honestly say I never saw a line, except waiting to get served in a hotel bar for instance. The food was not wonderful (onion soup, bread for example) but plentiful. And lots of fruits. And alcohol.

Take it from me, the state of the nation (the Russian people) is much improved than December 1991 when the union fell. Sure monetisation of everyday goods and services to reflect realistic market prices (rent, utilities, buses) have skyrocketed, but then so have purchasing power (pensions, wages). People have free access to western luxury items (when they are not sanctioned!) and yes, they still line up just to get a glimpse sometimes.

But hey, as a people think Russians are working through their problems, trying to balance their historical fears (invasion, authority) with going forward on their own path, proud yet fair. That is the Russia that will fight for what is right, even if it costs them everything they have.

a reply to: stumason

It is true that the Soviet Union borrowed heavily from America to get the things to fight with. But, to lay the seed of victory at the door of lend-lease would in my opinion be wrong. Sure it was effective and very much appreciated, but to me the people and their stour nature won against the capitalist-backed Nazis.

We may differ in this opinion, and I understand that.

a reply to: Krasnay

Without the massive amount of Aid sent by the Allies, Russia would have collapsed, no matter what it's "stour" people did. It was the continuous supply of arms, especially early on, that kept the Germans at bay and even then, only just.

It wasn't money sent, but tens of thousands of tanks, aircraft, weapons and ammunition which the USSR simply could not have produced - especially as they had to relocate huge amounts of industry eastwards as a result of the German invasion.

You can differ all you like, but it is a matter of fact that without lend lease, the USSR would have collapsed in the face of German aggression. They are nothing special, they are like everyone else and without a working economy and industry, they have no hope of winning a war any more than anyone else.

a reply to: stumason

AS you said, it was supplies (such as fuel, food, "spam") and equipment that was sent - not money. It did not need an economy to use them. It did however place the USSR in America's debt, which even Stalin graciously acknowledged.