Putin says it like it is!

Thommo · **#21** by **Thommo** » Oct 26, 2014 3:38 pm

Mike_L wrote:
Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Did you seriously sit down and watch that man talk for 40 minutes? I noticed people in the crowd falling asleep after a few sentences.

I had it playing in the background while I was busy doing some other stuff.
And I read the summary on the webpage at Information Clearing House (link in original post).
I'm not infatuated with Putin and I don't agree with 100% of what he says, but the gist of his comments here is ably supported by observation of current events. Does anyone seriously contest the claim that U.S. / coalition / NATO interventions in the Middle East (most notably Iraq) and North Africa (Libya) have had destabilizing effects in those regions?

I certainly don't contest the kernel of truth at the centre of the tissue of lies, Western intervention in Iraq has proved unsuccessful and a balanced view would have to see it as adding to instability in the region.

However if one compares Russian intervention in Afghanistan with Western intervention, in the Ukraine, in the Balkans and the former Yugoslavia, in East Germany. If one looks at Russian obstructionism over Syria and compares with western actions in each of these spheres a different picture emerges.

If one only looks at failures of US foreign policy, they don't come out looking too well (and neither does the UK, the longer term guilty party), but there have been successes as well. One only needs to compare South Korea to North to gauge whether Western intervention is universally unsuccessful.

It's also laughable for him to talk about US expansion towards Russia, the US has claimed not one square metre of sovereign territory as a result of war, while Russia on an ongoing basis flouts the very existence of the UN.

Putin is not "telling it like it is", he's wrapping a small kernel of truth with a wider tissue of lies and I am baffled that anyone outside of the influence of Russian propaganda could be suckered in.

SafeAsMilk · **#22** by **SafeAsMilk** » Oct 26, 2014 4:05 pm

Some folks like to put themselves inside that influence for some reason, seems like an absurdly extreme case of sour grapes. I expect next we'll get a post about North Korea complaining about US human rights violations :lol:

Thommo · **#23** by **Thommo** » Oct 26, 2014 4:08 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:Some folks like to put themselves inside that influence for some reason, seems like an absurdly extreme case of sour grapes. I expect next we'll get a post about North Korea complaining about US human rights violations

Mike_L · **#24** by **Mike_L** » Oct 26, 2014 6:04 pm

Thommo wrote:If one looks at Russian obstructionism over Syria...

Russian "obstructionism" got Assad to relinquish his chemical weapons arsenal. If Obama and Kerry had been allowed to follow their chosen path (firing cruise missiles at Assad), the progenitors of what is today ISIS would have had a helping hand* from the US and would very likely have been able to seize some of that arsenal.

* over and above the assistance already given up to that point

If one only looks at failures of US foreign policy, they don't come out looking too well...

Why not rather look at all of them and ask which ones have worked out well?

One only needs to compare South Korea to North to gauge whether Western intervention is universally unsuccessful.

The US has been successfully screwing up that region since the late 1800s.
http://www.brianwillson.com/korea-and-the-axis-of-evil/

It's also laughable for him to talk about US expansion towards Russia...

Putin is talking about expansion of US influence, not expansion of territory.

the US has claimed not one square metre of sovereign territory as a result of war...

No?
Mexican–American War

As for more recent times, the US has substituted territorial expansion with expansion of US hegemony, frequently justifying its aggression abroad with the claim that it is "protecting its interests". It has been quite unabashed about its global objectives and the measures it will take to achieve them.

Putin is not "telling it like it is", he's wrapping a small kernel of truth with a wider tissue of lies and I am baffled that anyone outside of the influence of Russian propaganda could be suckered in.

I'm equally baffled that so many people can be suckered in by preposterously facile Western propaganda. Take a critical look at Obama's utterances at the UN and you might begin to appreciate just how much bilge comes spilling out of the White House.

Thommo · **#25** by **Thommo** » Oct 26, 2014 7:00 pm

Sorry, I'm not really willing to argue over conspiracy theories and the like.

The idea that conflicts from 160 years ago are in any way related to Russian annexing of areas of Ukraine by military force is sufficiently silly that I don't really need to say more, particularly when they are brought up as a response to a sentence fragment deliberately removed from context.

I will repeat that the US and UK have far from lily white records in foreign policy, but this does not justify any actions Russia is taking or the large number of covert and not so covert actions Russia is taking this very day to decrease stability or suppress human rights.

Whilst you might think that your criticism that people (by which you clearly insinuate me) are suckered in by "preposterously facile Western propaganda" cuts both ways, there are some really quite striking differences, after all, I'm not starting threads about Obama critizing Russia, and linking only his side of the story, offering no criticism of that side and endorsing it with comments like "Obama tells it like it is". You on the other hand, are, in an example of false equivalence only matched by the idea that nebulous "US influence" encroachment is relevant or comparable to Russian troops fighting a war in another sovereign country with the intent of annexation of territory.

Regardless, I will concede for the sake of argument that the US (and the UK, and the west) are horrible horrible sovereignties who have done so much wrong they can't regard themselves as superior to Russia. This means that so long as we accept the playground style doctrine that "two wrongs make a right" Putin makes a good point - but of course, I rather suspect most of us do not.

tuco · **#26** by **tuco** » Oct 26, 2014 9:53 pm

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:I agree that the net impact of the USA on the middle east in the past decade has been to destabilize the region. I would just point out that if Putin is going to raise this argument, now isn't the best time. Not while his mob is destabilizing an entire nation and not after that plane was shot down. (oh yea, that was a CIA gubment plot, yehaw, bring back the gold standard)

It make sense that while being accused he points to hypocrisy of accuser(s). Though I tend to agree that he is not going to succeed by rising this argument here and now as there is little understanding of Russia and too much bias. Besides, committing crime with saying: He did it too! gets little sympathy, from me.

Mike_L · **#27** by **Mike_L** » Oct 26, 2014 10:29 pm

Thommo wrote:Sorry, I'm not really willing to argue over conspiracy theories and the like.

What "conspiracy theories"? And what is "the like" supposed to be? I have not presented any conspiracy theories or anything remotely akin to a conspiracy theory.

Whilst you might think that your criticism that people (by which you clearly insinuate me) are suckered in by "preposterously facile Western propaganda" cuts both ways...

It's a response to this...

"I am baffled that anyone outside of the influence of Russian propaganda could be suckered in."

...by which you clearly insinuate me. And it certainly does cut both ways.

I'm not starting threads about Obama critizing Russia, and linking only his side of the story, offering no criticism of that side and endorsing it with comments like "Obama tells it like it is".

It's not for me to make opposing arguments to my own statements! However, you (and others) have the unfettered opportunity to do so.
Putin's comments are a response to Obama's UN speech, in which the US president lumped Russia together with ISIS and ebola as threats to the world. The USA more properly belongs in such a grouping... especially since chaos in Iraq, generated by Washington's 2003 act of aggression, is the environment in which ISIS has thrived.

You on the other hand, are, in an example of false equivalence only matched by the idea that nebulous "US influence" encroachment is relevant or comparable to Russian troops fighting a war in another sovereign country with the intent of annexation of territory.

This is actually the crux of the matter. It's not encroachment of a "nebulous US influence". The involvement of Washington in Ukraine was very deliberate and it had a dramatic effect on that region, leading directly to the current upheaval. You can't reasonably take the Russian annexation of Crimea as a starting point and ignore (or trivialise) the events that preceded it.

Regardless, I will concede for the sake of argument that the US (and the UK, and the west) are horrible horrible sovereignties who have done so much wrong they can't regard themselves as superior to Russia. This means that so long as we accept the playground style doctrine that "two wrongs make a right" Putin makes a good point - but of course, I rather suspect most of us do not.

You're assuming that Putin is an opportunist seizing upon Washington's misdeeds as justification for following a long-nurtured desire for expansion of empire. That's not the way I see it. Putin has only done what was necessary to protect Russia's interests in the region. That region happens to be on Russia's doorstep.

Weaver · **#28** by **Weaver** » Oct 26, 2014 11:30 pm

Come on, everyone, face the real core reality - the real reason why Mike_L agrees with Putin is because Putin is saying things against America. Whether they're true or not, and whether Putin is someone to be admired or not, is irrelevant - so long as he's saying things against America is all that matters, and all it takes to get Mike_L to fully agree with him.

Start from the core belief that America is always wrong, and fit facts and opinion around that.

It's like creationism and science - ignore everything that doesn't fit the core belief.

Simples.

tuco · **#29** by **tuco** » Oct 26, 2014 11:49 pm

Face the sausages you meant? That's the first problem. The second one is trying to discredit argument by discrediting proponent of such argument. Both pretty much anti-science.

Weaver · **#30** by **Weaver** » Oct 27, 2014 12:57 am

What science would you suggest applying to Putin's political ramblings?

It's not like there's a rigorous field of political science - that field is about as rigor-free as tiddliwinks, and far less rigorous than sociology and anthropology.

tuco · **#31** by **tuco** » Oct 27, 2014 1:00 am

Weaver wrote:Come on, everyone, face the real core reality - the real reason why Mike_L agrees with Putin is because Putin is saying things against America. Whether they're true or not, and whether Putin is someone to be admired or not, is irrelevant - so long as he's saying things against America is all that matters, and all it takes to get Mike_L to fully agree with him.

Start from the core belief that America is always wrong, and fit facts and opinion around that.

It's like creationism and science - ignore everything that doesn't fit the core belief.

Simples.

If you cant see it there is nothing I want to do about it beyond this post.

Weaver · **#32** by **Weaver** » Oct 27, 2014 1:13 am

See what? That I was talking much more about Mike_L than about Putin? Of course I know it - my post was entirely a comment on Mike_L's posting history, and his habit of being in full agreement with anyone who criticized the US, whether that criticism was factually justified or not.

Mike_L · **#33** by **Mike_L** » Oct 27, 2014 5:58 am

Weaver wrote:Come on, everyone, face the real core reality - the real reason why Mike_L agrees with Putin is because Putin is saying things against America. Whether they're true or not, and whether Putin is someone to be admired or not, is irrelevant - so long as he's saying things against America is all that matters, and all it takes to get Mike_L to fully agree with him.

Lacks detail.

There's much that I like and admire about the US... its industrious and resourceful people, its arts and literature, its motion picture and television industries, NASA, yummy confectioneries, and much more... but its foreign policy record (post WW2) is frankly deplorable, based as it is on hubris and expressed through jingoistic belligerence. The disastrous "interventions" in Iraq and Libya and the ongoing economic warfare against Iran and Russia are but the latest manifestations of that self-serving and destabilizing foreign policy.

Criticism of a country's leadership does not equate to criticism of the country as a whole.

Weaver · **#34** by **Weaver** » Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am

It's not that you dislike America, or American politics - it's that you side with the most asinine criticisms of America, from the most deplorable people, so long as they too are criticizing America.

Mike_L · **#35** by **Mike_L** » Oct 27, 2014 6:22 am

"Asinine" is subjective. I agree only with those criticisms that are backed by evidence... such as bomb craters across the length and breadth of Vietnam, ruins in Fallujah, etc.
Many of my other criticisms are based on unabashed displays of belligerence and/or admissions from Americans themselves...
* CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup
* CIA Admits Involvement in Chile
...and so on.

Weaver · **#36** by **Weaver** » Oct 27, 2014 6:29 am

And you ignore anything that doesn't fit the narrative, like Bosnia, or Kosovo.

You believe the most outlandish, outrageous claims if the DO fit your narrative, like Ukraine not Russia (or Russian separatists)shooting down the plane, and Syria not gassing the rebels.

Your confirmation bias is so strong that I bet if I told you that Putin said America was bombing Antarctica, you'd be posting the Russia Times article in confirmation.

Mike_L · **#37** by **Mike_L** » Oct 27, 2014 6:59 am

Weaver wrote:And you ignore anything that doesn't fit the narrative, like Bosnia, or Kosovo.

I don't deny the positives. I just recognise that they're somewhat dwarfed by the negatives. The 2003 - 2011 war in Iraq was proof enough that what worked in the Balkans was simply not going to work in places like Syria and Libya. Yet the military approach was rolled out again... with predictably disastrous results... ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and like-minded jihadists gaining traction in Libya, with influence spreading as far as Mali.

You believe the most outlandish, outrageous claims if the DO fit your narrative, like Ukraine not Russia (or Russian separatists)shooting down the plane, and Syria not gassing the rebels.

Go back just one page to this post.

Your confirmation bias is so strong that I bet if I told you that Putin said America was bombing Antarctica, you'd be posting the Russia Times article in confirmation.

Bombing Antarctica?! Damn, I knew that would happen sooner or later!

Cthulhu's Trilby · **#38** by **Cthulhu's Trilby** » Oct 27, 2014 10:23 am

Surely the EU is more to blame for destabilizing Eastern Europe than the US?

tuco · **#39** by **tuco** » Oct 27, 2014 11:06 am

The only region in Eastern Europe destabilized at the moment is Ukraine as far as I know. The EU, unlike the US, does not have unified foreign policy on many issues if ever. Same goes for NATO. If we are able to define how does such blame measure we could get some answer, until then it seems to me that if the EU is to blame for something is lack of ability to act like one.

Cthulhu's Trilby · **#40** by **Cthulhu's Trilby** » Oct 27, 2014 11:27 am

tuco wrote:The only region in Eastern Europe destabilized at the moment is Ukraine as far as I know. The EU, unlike the US, does not have unified foreign policy on many issues if ever. Same goes for NATO. If we are able to define how does such blame measure we could get some answer, until then it seems to me that if the EU is to blame for something is lack of ability to act like one.

What I mean is that the troubles in Ukraine started from a free trade and political association deal with the EU. It was Ukraine leaning Europe-ward, not US-ward, which kicked off the trouble.

Putin says it like it is!

Re: Putin says it like it is!

Re: Putin says it like it is!

Re: Putin says it like it is!

Re: Putin says it like it is!

Re: Putin says it like it is!

Re: Putin says it like it is!

Re: Putin says it like it is!

Re: Putin says it like it is!

Re: Putin says it like it is!

Re: Putin says it like it is!

Re: Putin says it like it is!

Re: Putin says it like it is!

Re: Putin says it like it is!

Re: Putin says it like it is!

Re: Putin says it like it is!

Re: Putin says it like it is!

Re: Putin says it like it is!

Re: Putin says it like it is!

Re: Putin says it like it is!

Re: Putin says it like it is!

Who is online