What does Putin ultimately want?

[Bald1]

You actually believe most here know who Lenin was?

 

[HomerThompson]

You actually believe most here know who Lenin was?

That's a good point.

 

[Seaside]

Like any Dictator, he wants to simply keep ruling

Unlike other Dictators, he realizes the way to do that is to rule halfway well and not utterly shit on the common people

He is not a dictator like Saddam or Kim jung Un. More like Xi Jinping he can be overthrown easily by state security agents and military complex. He has wide support to help is not a bad leader compared to what they had before.

The British Army Chief of Staff was just giving an address which was being shown live on Sky. He was talking about Russia as it happens!
He claims they are at a state of rediness. Also mentioned that Russia has always been about the pre-emptive strike.
He spoke about how we should be making the countries closer to Russia a lot stronger so they can fight back against Russia if attacked.
He said that the first attack from Russia is usually something unexpected and unconventional.

So this guy spoke pretty much doom and gloom and it seems like we are living in dangerous times.
He mentioned the number of personel Britain has, and because of the cuts over the years it's not all that impressive. But they have a lot of highly trained part-timers, he said!
The sheer numbers of personel that Russia and China has is scary.
He said Putin and his propaganda has been informing the Russian people over the years that the West is a big threat to them and that we should be putting them straight on this. HOW?

Humans just cannot get along with each other for long can they? There is always someone who wants something that another has and is prepared to get it.
All this build up of arms by Russia, China, and soon the USA, seems like a throwback to yesteryear, but it's present day unfortunately.

You seem to love end of world scenarios. Like you get off on it and want it.

 

[luckyshot]

 

[Prex32]

The British Army Chief of Staff was just giving an address which was being shown live on Sky. He was talking about Russia as it happens!
He claims they are at a state of rediness. Also mentioned that Russia has always been about the pre-emptive strike.
He spoke about how we should be making the countries closer to Russia a lot stronger so they can fight back against Russia if attacked.
He said that the first attack from Russia is usually something unexpected and unconventional.

So this guy spoke pretty much doom and gloom and it seems like we are living in dangerous times.
He mentioned the number of personel Britain has, and because of the cuts over the years it's not all that impressive. But they have a lot of highly trained part-timers, he said!
The sheer numbers of personel that Russia and China has is scary.
He said Putin and his propaganda has been informing the Russian people over the years that the West is a big threat to them and that we should be putting them straight on this. HOW?

Humans just cannot get along with each other for long can they? There is always someone who wants something that another has and is prepared to get it.
All this build up of arms by Russia, China, and soon the USA, seems like a throwback to yesteryear, but it's present day unfortunately.

oh, the "he said"-argument

 

[sweede]

Remind me which "poor and racist" EU countries have started large scale wars? Which ones are racist? And which ones have a masculine agenda?

Let me start by saying that I´m much against EU and the obvious goal of interference what countries shoud and not do, the idea of a centralized ray of power is very alien to me.

That said, if EU can stabilize with economic carrots to lesser countries, then I am positive to EU.

The poor and racist EU-countries are many, but to name the worst of the worst in comparsion to what they get in EU-support and what they do in return, I will name the obvious ones. Poland, Slovenia, Latvia and Lithuania.

You remember the flood of refugees? I don´t have the exact numbers but I think Latvia welcomed 30 refugees in total. Origin country of escape is unknown to me. If we stay on the same country, I can give another reason to why they belong to the poorer section of EU. Latvia get an average of 3 636 SEK (453 USD) per inhabitant from EU. Compare it with Sweden, THAT will lose 2 539 SEK (316 USD) per inhabitant to be a member of this club.

Edit: links to sources of member fees per country and asylum seekers.

https://www.europaportalen.se/2016/03/svenskarna-har-nast-hogsta-eu-avgiften

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-press-releases/-/3-20042016-AP

Where did you read in my post who have started large scale wars? I´m ambivalent with EU and some of the countries within. Me, together with the majority of the population in countries such as mine and Germany are very irritated with the, eat the cake and have it left mentality, that is brooding in many countries. And if you follow the news from Europe, you can see a ocean of examples of how racist it has become. A big reason to this is the countries I listed before who just think EU is a social welfare institution and the irony of all this, is that countires that were not known for racist agenda has grown rapidly becuase the common citizen have been asking " Why the hell can´t those countries take some of the burden?"

So yes, irritation to our members in EU has made rasicm towards the refugees instead. When we are unable to channel our frustration to our politicians doing a proper job in Brussels, going after those racist governments in those said EU-countries, then we must dislike the unknown, and in this event it´s the muslim refugees.

I´m very positive if all the countries had been cool with each other and took their share of refugees, then we would not have had this negative disussion regarding muslims all day long.

It´s not very long ago we had a war going on in Jugoslavia, and when I look on the map and see how close Ukraine is to me, then I am all up for EU to keep the bad apples in check. It will always be cheaper to have peace then war, hence why I´m a supporter of EU rather than not.

I don´t know if you know this guy named Geert Hofstede? I have read some of his books and 2 of them are Cultures and Organisations and Masculinity and Femininity. He is the creator of the concept cultural dimensions. Check him out and you will find for your self what masculine countries we can find in EU. I will give you one hint... The new era of the mighty country Poland.

 

[TheGreatA]

What does he want? To stay in power, to experience as much as possible, to enjoy life to the fullest, as only a Russian "czar" can. And to make Russia great again, but that's not necessarily at the top of the list, based on how he has been governing.

He would most likely wish to be regarded as an important man historically, and to leave a legacy beyond the present day. But not at the expense of sacrificing himself and his immediate interests, of course. Therefore he probably won't go down as such.

He's not the worst type of a leader (in the sense that he's not totally selfish, beyond the point of rationality) but he's not necessarily the best type of a leader either (in the sense that he's not exactly selfless either, in his service of the state).

He's just a guy, who did a pretty decent job at re-building from a collapse, but stalled further progress once he prolonged his stay at the top. Then again, he has also prevented any total nutjob from taking power, and turning Russia into a legitimate threat. Although he may enable that scenario to happen once he leaves a giant power vacuum to be filled after he is gone.

The good thing about him, for the rest of us, is that he governs logically and allows the interactions between Russia and the rest of the world to remain somewhat predictable and tolerable. Cold, perhaps, but not frozen. Although the socially inept leaders of the West make it difficult for themselves to even follow his rather predictable logic to further Russian interests, because they themselves have become completely detached from the process of furthering the interests of even their own citizenship.

 

[KILL KILL]

Infinite bj's

 

[MicroBrew]

To prevent Russia from being controlled by the West. To prevent Western hegemony dictating what Russia can and can not do.

Putin strikes me very as a Russian nationalist, looking out for the Russian nation.

 

[Seaside]

To prevent Russia from being controlled by the West. To prevent Western hegemony dictating what Russia can and can not do.

Putin strikes me very as a Russian nationalist, looking out for the Russian nation.

Tell that to the psychos liberals in the west. Like i say in your other thread your governments not make sense. they promote war monger policy abroad but stupid destructive policy at home. It is chaotic retarded. your think tanks and banking class play a role i bet in this all.

 

[TheGreatA]

To prevent Russia from being controlled by the West. To prevent Western hegemony dictating what Russia can and can not do.

Putin strikes me very as a Russian nationalist, looking out for the Russian nation.

I wouldn't call him a nationalist, atleast not in the Russian sense. He acknowledges Russia's status as a federation, consisting of multiple people's of various ethnicities, religions, and so forth.

He sees Russia, along with some other Eastern countries, as a representative of a power collective that is inevitably at odds with the West, because of the nature of how business has been conducted in the past (and clearly the present). He believes that the world (and Russia) is better off with a structure where the West and the East push against each other, but do not actually fight against each other, commonly benefiting from this sense of competition and one-upmanship that is never driven to actual outright conflict.

He definitely sees this structure as benefiting Russia's influence in the world, of course, as a major representative of the "other", as much as Americans benefit from being the major representative of the opposite side. But he is not necessarily a nationalist in the traditional sense. He's perhaps more comparable to a Russian neo-con or even a Hillary Clinton. He has more of an "imperial" objective, beyond even Russia itself, where Russia mostly serves as a vehicle to accomplish this goal.

A nationalist by nature is more isolationist and less interested in global power collectives, and their constant accommodation at the expense of the population. Putin, on the other hand, thrives on foreign policy, and less so in domestic issues.

 

[Seaside]

I wouldn't call him a nationalist, atleast not in the Russian sense. He acknowledges Russia's status as a federation, consisting of multiple people's of various ethnicities, religions, and so forth.

He sees Russia, along with some other Eastern countries, as a representative of a power collective that is inevitably at odds with the West, because of the nature of how business has been conducted in the past (and clearly the present). He believes that the world (and Russia) is better off with a structure where the West and the East push against each other, but do not actually fight against each other, commonly benefiting from this sense of competition that is never driven to actual outright conflict.

He definitely sees this structure as benefiting Russia's influence in the world, of course, as a major representative of the "other", as much as Americans benefit from being the major representative of the opposite side. But he is not necessarily a nationalist in the traditional sense. He's perhaps more comparable to a Russian neo-con or even a Hillary Clinton. He has more of an "imperial" objective, beyond even Russia itself, where Russia mostly serves as a vehicle to accomplish this goal.

A nationalist by nature is more isolationist and less interested in global power collectives, and their constant accommodation at the expense of the population.

there are different nationalists but ethnic nationalista he not. There is preference for the ethnic russians in some ways and i do not think at all he wants to bring in masses of africans or pakistanis or north africans so that makes him a 'racist' and 'nationalist' according to the western idiots. However i think it make him a race realist and realist in that area of world. Nobody in russian establishment would support doing such a stupid thing. He does not want those people in the eurasian union. I think his current actions are best about keeping demographic balance of old USSR and trying to reclaim the FSU area of influence obvious excluding the baltics.

 

[TheGreatA]

there are different nationalists but ethnic nationalista he not. There is preference for the ethnic russians in some ways and i do not think at all he wants to bring in masses of africans or pakistanis or north africans so that makes him a 'racist' and 'nationalist' according to the western idiots. However i think it make him a race realist and realist in that area of world. Nobody in russian establishment would support doing such a stupid thing. He does not want those people in the eurasian union. I think his current actions are best about keeping demographic balance of old USSR and trying to reclaim the FSU area of influence obvious excluding the baltics.

I do not think he cares that much about Africans or Pakistanis, or whoever. Not in the ethnic sense atleast, obviously. If he has shown himself unwilling to allow immigration from such countries (or continents), then it is merely because it is not in Russia's best interests at the time. If the numbers don't match up, as far as what they can bring to the table, then there's no reason to take them in.

It is fairly easy to understand Putin's thinking because he operates on pragmatism, not on "humanitarian" grounds (or an agenda hidden behind "humanitarianism"). He will adopt what is useful, and repel what is not.

I do not think Putin has any desire to reclaim areas that are populated by people unwilling to be part of the Russian federation. The problem is that there are some areas which wouldn't really mind that, populated by Russians, and when Putin pushes his agenda there, it comes off as war-mongering and dangerous to the established peace. Which to a degree it is, but there is also the point that the collapse of USSR left a lot of Russian-populated areas into the hands of other ethnic groups, which makes the situation more complex than it might appear to be to a concerned Westerner.

I'm not in favour of any territory changes whatsoever but the post-Soviet question of Russians living in lands that they no longer "own", is one that is yet to be answered. Think of the United States collapsing, and the shitshow that it would create. That is what has happened in Eastern Europe, and parts of Asia.

 

[Seaside]

I do not think he cares that much about Africans or Pakistanis, or whoever. Not in the ethnic sense atleast, obviously. If he has shown himself unwilling to allow immigration from such countries (or continents), then it is merely because it is not in Russia's best interests at the time. If the numbers don't match up then there's no reason to take them in.

It is fairly easy to understand Putin's thinking because he operates on pragmatism, not on "humanitarian" grounds (or an agenda hidden behind "humanitarianism"). He will adopt what is useful, and repel what is not.

I do not think Putin has any desire to reclaim areas that are populated by people unwilling to be part of the Russian federation. The problem is that there are some areas which wouldn't really mind that, populated by Russians, and when Putin pushes his agenda there, it comes off as war-mongering and dangerous to the established peace. Which to a degree it is, but there is also the point that the collapse of USSR left a lot of Russian-populated areas into the hands of other ethnic groups, which makes the situation more complex than it might appear to be to a concerned Westerner.

I'm not in favour of any territory changes whatsoever but the post-Soviet question of Russians living in lands that they no longer "own", is one that is yet to be answered.

i never said reclaim those old lands i mean form something like USSR again be Russian led. Russian stragestists and top brass all want this. You got to be foolish to think they are not motivate by this and also be foolish to think they actually think the africans or pakis as useful to the country. Hint the rest of the world know race is a factor except this weird social experiment you guys do in west were you now even saying that GENDER not exist. LOL

degenerate nations giving fucking 5 year old sex changes!

 

[wonderbread]

What is he after?
In his ideal world what is it that would make him happy?
Is there a lot of things or just a few?
America to vanish off the face of the planet? All of Europe? I'm sure he'd love those 2 things but they aren't going to happen any time soon.
So with America around and NATO in existence what would he like to happen to keep him content and in a good mood for a long time?

Like Trump, he feeds off his ego. There is no enough for him. Or Trump. Russia will be better off when he stops breathing. The US also doesn’t need that type of person in the oval either.

 

[TheGreatA]

i never said reclaim those old lands i mean form something like USSR again be Russian led. Russian stragestists and top brass all want this. You got to be foolish to think they are not motivate by this and also be foolish to think they actually think the africans or pakis as useful to the country. Hint the rest of the world know race is a factor except this weird social experiment you guys do in west were you now even saying that GENDER not exist. LOL

degenerate nations giving fucking 5 year old sex changes!

I think you misunderstood my points. I never said you said these things.

I don't think Putin wants another USSR because he understood its failures, deriving from the lack of a true uniting factor between the peoples, beyond an engineered one (mostly Stalin's terror and communist brain-washing). The moment that the Soviets loosened their grip, and grew soft, the entire structure collapsed.

He would certainly want more territories but only if they are populated by Russians and easily governed. Attempting to govern areas which were populated by men unwilling to ever submit to Soviet rule, is what largely led to its failure (see the occupation of Afghanistan). Putin saw all of this first-hand, and is a clever enough man to not repeat the mistakes. He wants governing to be an easy task, he hates any sort of disharmony that might lead to rebellion.

The race thing may or may not be a factor, but the greater factor at the end of the day is that these men are not educated, and are thus unlikely to be productive. We can argue as to why they aren't educated (and whether it is because of race, colonialism, or whatever), but that's really beside the point and only harmful to the discussion itself. The reality is that these men aren't going to be all that useful. Thus, nothing but harm is going to be done, if they are allowed in, to a country where a degree of education is required to be successful. And that's why a ruler like Putin doesn't put them first in line over someone from Europe or Asia, who is going to be more productive, probably, to the Russian federation.

 

[MicroBrew]

I wouldn't call him a nationalist, atleast not in the Russian sense. He acknowledges Russia's status as a federation, consisting of multiple people's of various ethnicities, religions, and so forth.

He sees Russia, along with some other Eastern countries, as a representative of a power collective that is inevitably at odds with the West, because of the nature of how business has been conducted in the past (and clearly the present). He believes that the world (and Russia) is better off with a structure where the West and the East push against each other, but do not actually fight against each other, commonly benefiting from this sense of competition and one-upmanship that is never driven to actual outright conflict.

He definitely sees this structure as benefiting Russia's influence in the world, of course, as a major representative of the "other", as much as Americans benefit from being the major representative of the opposite side. But he is not necessarily a nationalist in the traditional sense. He's perhaps more comparable to a Russian neo-con or even a Hillary Clinton. He has more of an "imperial" objective, beyond even Russia itself, where Russia mostly serves as a vehicle to accomplish this goal.

A nationalist by nature is more isolationist and less interested in global power collectives, and their constant accommodation at the expense of the population. Putin, on the other hand, thrives on foreign policy, and less so in domestic issues.

I meant nationalist as someone who cares for Russia as a nation, and not a Slavic Russian nationalist.

 

[Bald1]

Let me start by saying that I´m much against EU and the obvious goal of interference what countries shoud and not do, the idea of a centralized ray of power is very alien to me.

That said, if EU can stabilize with economic carrots to lesser countries, then I am positive to EU.

The poor and racist EU-countries are many, but to name the worst of the worst in comparsion to what they get in EU-support and what they do in return, I will name the obvious ones. Poland, Slovenia, Latvia and Lithuania.

You remember the flood of refugees? I don´t have the exact numbers but I think Latvia welcomed 30 refugees in total. Origin country of escape is unknown to me. If we stay on the same country, I can give another reason to why they belong to the poorer section of EU. Latvia get an average of 3 636 SEK (453 USD) per inhabitant from EU. Compare it with Sweden, THAT will lose 2 539 SEK (316 USD) per inhabitant to be a member of this club.

Where did you read in my post who have started large scale wars? I´m ambivalent with EU and some of the countries within. Me, together with the majority of the population in countries such as mine and Germany are very irritated with the, eat the cake and have it left mentality, that is brooding in many countries. And if you follow the news from Europe, you can see a ocean of examples of how racist it has become. A big reason to this is the countries I listed before who just think EU is a social welfare institution and the irony of all this, is that countires that were not known for racist agenda has grown rapidly becuase the common citizen have been asking " Why the hell can´t those countries take some of the burden?"

So yes, irritation to our members in EU has made rasicm towards the refugees instead. When we are unable to channel our frustration to our politicians doing a proper job in Brussels, going after those racist governments in those said EU-countries, then we must dislike the unknown, and in this event it´s the muslim refugees.

I´m very positive if all the countries had been cool with each other and took their share of refugees, then we would not have had this negative disussion regarding muslims all day long.

It´s not very long ago we had a war going on in Jugoslavia, and when I look on the map and see how close Ukraine is to me, then I am all up for EU to keep the bad apples in check. It will always be cheaper to have peace then war, hence why I´m a supporter of EU rather than not.

I don´t know if you know this guy named Geert Hofstede? I have read some of his books and 2 of them are Cultures and Organisations and Masculinity and Femininity. He is the creator of the concept cultural dimensions. Check him out and you will find for your self what masculine countries we can find in EU. I will give you one hint... The new era of the mighty country Poland.

I'm on mobile so can't tackle this paragraph by paragraph. Just bear with me an it will make sense.

Yeah, the EUs style of governance is goofy to say the least. Unelected central powers dictating to those "racist" countries who they must let in from outside of the EU. That's a dictatorship.

Those poor and racist countries aren't racist, but they are poor (in the case of the V4). What they are, is a people who were, in the case of Poland, sold out and betrayed by the west to keep CCCP at arms lenght. No wonder they're poor, as they've just begun recovering from decades of Communist rule siphoning off resources. And instead of allowing themselves time to rise to your level you'd rather them take on more burdens? But, of course, you as a Swede wouldn't know anything about poverty and hardship, being insulated and protected by the policies that made them so.

Speaking of buffer states (excuding Latvia and Lithuania, as I'm not educated enough to talk about them), is it any wonder they voted against the refugee quota? Only a few decades after gaining independence, a far removed, unelected leadership demands they open their doors to an incompatible people who practice a religion they wared against for centuries. This idea goes against human nature in a fundamental level. Do you think migrants would willingly stay in those places within the Schengen zone, or move on to greener pastures in Germany, France or Sweden?

As for masculinity and your apparently negative view of it. It's only one dimension of our humanity. To paint it in such an apparently negative light is telling. Yes, it has destructive tendencies. Destructive in an opposite way from the estrogen fueled naivety of your culture. You want to nurture those who see you as weak, and that's just as sef destructive as the masculine combative tendency. Look towards the middle east, Africa and the Stans for truly harmful masculinity, the exact places migrants are coming from, not in Europe, as your neighbors aren't as different as those you're welcoming with open arms.

Your post reeks of judgment without understanding coming from high up out of an ivory tower built by a homogenous society insulated from struggle for too long. Don't worry, you'll get a taste of the shit sandwich your never-ending compulsive altruism is feeding you. Good luck.

 

[TheGreatA]

I'm on mobile so can't tackle this paragraph by paragraph. Just bear with me an it will make sense.

Yeah, the EUs style of governance is goofy to say the least. Unelected central powers dictating to those "racist" countries who they must let in from outside of the EU. That's a dictatorship.

Those poor and racist countries aren't racist, but they are poor (in the case of the V4). What they are, is a people who were, in the case of Poland, sold out and betrayed by the west to keep CCCP at arms lenght. No wonder they're poor, as they've just begun recovering from decades of Communist rule siphoning off resources. And instead of allowing themselves time to rise to your level you'd rather them take on more burdens? But, of course, you as a Swede wouldn't know anything about poverty and hardship, being insulated and protected by the policies that made them so.

Speaking of buffer states (excuding Latvia and Lithuania, as I'm not educated enough to talk about them), is it any wonder they voted against the refugee quota? Only a few decades after gaining independence, a far removed, unelected leadership demands they open their doors to an incompatible people who practice a religion they wared against for centuries. This idea goes against human nature in a fundamental level. Do you think migrants would willingly stay in those places within the Schengen zone, or move on to greener pastures in Germany, France or Sweden?

As for masculinity and your apparently negative view of it. It's only one dimension of our humanity. To paint it in such an apparently negative light is telling. Yes, it has destructive tendencies. Destructive in an opposite way from the estrogen fueled naivety of your culture. You want to nurture those who see you as weak, and that's just as sef destructive as the masculine combative tendency. Look towards the middle east, Africa and the Stans for truly harmful masculinity, the exact places migrants are coming from, not in Europe, as your neighbors aren't as different as those you're welcoming with open arms.

Your post reeks of judgment without understanding coming from high up out of an ivory tower built by a homogenous society insulated from struggle for too long. Don't worry, you'll get a taste of the shit sandwich your never-ending compulsive altruism is feeding you. Good luck.

The crude reality is that the immigrants wouldn't stay in countries like Latvia, Poland, etc. anyway, because they do not have as many social services to offer. No established bases for Muslim immigrants to move into, no communities, no mosques, relatively little accommodation for random religious practises by the state, no incentive whatsoever.

Hypothetically, if someone immigrated into the United States as an example, why would they move into a poorer region, if they can, at any time (according to EU's own rule of free movement), move to a more lucrative piece of land, capable of offering more? It does not make any sense.

The flow of immigrants was destined for places like Germany or Sweden, regardless of whether Poland, Latvia, or whoever, took a share of their immigrants or not. It is foolish to be angry at them, because they are not really the source of the problem.

The only reason anyone would be angry at them, is because they cannot come to terms with the problem as it actually exists. Therefore they need some sort of "racist" countries to blame for everything that has happened, to inhibit themselves from coming to conclusions that might lead them to a crisis of faith.

What does it matter if Poland took 5000 or more refugees, Germany would have still taken over 1 million, and Sweden hundreds of thousands. It does not decrease their burden in any way whatsoever, even less so considering that those 5000 would likely move to Sweden or Germany as soon as they were capable. Even if they took 50 000, it wouldn't have mattered one bit.

Poland already took around 1 million immigrants fleeing from Ukraine. So it is a lie to say that they haven't taken part. The problem is that the narrative is so completely controlled by EU-fetishists, pushing their various agendas, that it's difficult for people to get the real scoop of things. Especially in countries like Sweden, Finland, Germany, etc. who are completely immersed into the union, and mostly only ever get the EU's side of the story.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

A new Soviet Union, but more fascist and less communist.