All in a day’s work: Putin accuses US, UK and France of provoking ‘Russophobia’

[oxo1947]

If Cuba pays back the money they owe to US citizens,  then a discussion about this base would be ok. ----Craig

.

So is this just a little bit different from your first statement that we would leave anywhere we are not wanted...??

or can we amend it with the word   --Unless---somewhere in there...............

[Grouse]

Seems to me that diplomacy and statesmanship are skills that are being lost. The West has overwhelming hard and soft power but are we using it wisely. I don't think we are handling either Russia or China particularly well. We need to consider THEIR strategic imperatives as well as our own. For centuries, Russia has feared for its borders for good reason. Whereas Ukraine is an independent country, we were unwise IMHO to use soft power to swing them closer to the West. 

 

I tend to view Russia as more European than Asian (can't really justify that but it's the way I feel). We could have been smarter and kept them closer. Of course that's not a good strategy for the military / industrial machine. 

 

In the ME, we need to consider who are real enemies are. For me, it's the monotheist Islamists. We COULD have kept Russia on board in my view. They could have reigned in Assad without us.

 

Similarly, we need China to lean on Pyongyang. 

 

So, overall, diplomacy is the most powerful weapon in our arsenal. However, appointing Boris as Foreign Secretary was amusing but unwise. Highly intelligent, yes; diplomatic, not at all.

[Publicus]

50 minutes ago, oxo1947 said:

 

Honestly Craig sometimes your post with blind support for American military policy are laughable, other times they are just an assault on peoples sensibilities . Please at least do 1 fact check before posing .

 

The Cubans for nearly 60 years have asked the USA to leave Guantanamo Bay Base.

 

The U.S. has used the argument of Cuban sovereignty when denying ... by indicating that federal jurisdiction doesn't apply to them.wikipedia

 

 

Nope--doesn't apply to them----just everybody else....................

 

 

The position of the United States in respect of Cuban sovereignty over Cuba's territory is 100% consistent with international law.

 

The U.S. Naval Air Base at Guantanamo Bay is on the sovereign land territory of the Republic of Cuba. Period.

 

Under the terms of the treaty, the base can be terminated only by mutual agreement. Castro and his fanboyz have had to suck it up on this and they continue to have to suck it up. So do those who are simply and exclusively America haters.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, oxo1947 said:

If Cuba pays back the money they owe to US citizens,  then a discussion about this base would be ok. ----Craig

.

So is this just a little bit different from your first statement that we would leave anywhere we are not wanted...??

or can we amend it with the word   --Unless---somewhere in there...............

Yup! What's fair is fair. We're talking about a lot of money! Do some research on why the money is owed. Hopefully it will make you understand this a bit better.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Seems to me that diplomacy and statesmanship are skills that are being lost. The West has overwhelming hard and soft power but are we using it wisely. I don't think we are handling either Russia or China particularly well. We need to consider THEIR strategic imperatives as well as our own. For centuries, Russia has feared for its borders for good reason. Whereas Ukraine is an independent country, we were unwise IMHO to use soft power to swing them closer to the West. 

 

I tend to view Russia as more European than Asian (can't really justify that but it's the way I feel). We could have been smarter and kept them closer. Of course that's not a good strategy for the military / industrial machine. 

 

In the ME, we need to consider who are real enemies are. For me, it's the monotheist Islamists. We COULD have kept Russia on board in my view. They could have reigned in Assad without us.

 

Similarly, we need China to lean on Pyongyang. 

 

So, overall, diplomacy is the most powerful weapon in our arsenal. However, appointing Boris as Foreign Secretary was amusing but unwise. Highly intelligent, yes; diplomatic, not at all.

Why would Russia fear for it's borders now? I think this is just an excuse. Are they supposed to be afraid of Latvia? LOL

 

Putin is back to empire building and wants back what they lost, which is territory they stole in the first place!

[minimoi]

15 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Why would Russia fear for it's borders now? I think this is just an excuse. Are they supposed to be afraid of Latvia? LOL

 

Putin is back to empire building and wants back what they lost, which is territory they stole in the first place!

maybe because if Russia or China did 1/10th of what the USA do with their bases it would be considered as an  unexcusable move from them?

Remember : USA since 1776 : 212 years at war...we can see the Russia are the warmongers here...and as USA had not enough, they just started to intervene in Yemen

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, minimoi said:

maybe because if Russia or China did 1/10th of what the USA do with their bases it would be considered as an  unexcusable move from them?

 

Remember : USA since 1776 : 212 years at war...we can see the Russia are the warmongers here...and as USA had not enough, they just started to intervene in Yemen

Yes, far too many!

 

 You are aware of how Russia acquired it's former satellite states? And how the civilians were treated? Please,  do some research on this. And it's still happening today. Visit Gori, Georgia.

[Guest]

Does Russia want the war?

Do our resident Russian trolls really understand what the nuclear war actually means? 

 

Here is quick introduction of collapse of the global food chain. Just in case, you have not actually noted it before. 

Yes, we all are going to <deleted>, if the shit hits the fan. 
 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

One don't think that 100-500 million people torched during the initial nuclear attack is not nothing to be afraid of. 

Maybe the aftermath actually is. 
 

 

[craigt3365]

Hmmm. And he wonders why there's Russophobia! LOL

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russian-trump-idUSKCN12C28Q?il=0

 

Quote

Americans should vote for Donald Trump as president next month or risk being dragged into a nuclear war, according to a Russian ultra-nationalist ally of President Vladimir Putin who likes to compare himself to the U.S. Republican candidate.

 

[Morch]

15 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Right, in the OP, Putin has pointed out that Britain's Foreign Minister Boris Johnson has added to the anti-Russian hysteria by calling for protests outside the Russian embassy in London.



Now then, Britain's Opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn has said that protests outside the US embassy are just as valid as any protests outside the Russian embassy.

And indeed, I think Jeremy Corbyn is totally correct. Here's the link.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/12/stop-the-war-coalition-protest-russian-embassy


Here's a quote from the Guardian newspaper.  "Jeremy Corbyn believes Boris Johnson’s focus on halting Russian airstrikes in Syria “diverts attention” from other atrocities in the country, including those committed by the US-led coalition, a spokesman for the Labour leader has said. "

Civilians killed by the Russian airstrikes, civilians killed by other atrocities committed by the US-led coalition, they're both atrocities being committed.

 

 

Russian "airstrikes".

US unspecified "atrocities".

One a relatively neutral term, the other not so much.

 

 

[Publicus]

7 hours ago, minimoi said:

maybe because if Russia or China did 1/10th of what the USA do with their bases it would be considered as an  unexcusable move from them?

Remember : USA since 1776 : 212 years at war...we can see the Russia are the warmongers here...and as USA had not enough, they just started to intervene in Yemen

 

The Russians got us surrounded.

 

Still.

 

If it wasn't the Cold War 1947 - 1991 then it's Putin as the champion of Stalin and Czarist Russian imperialism. When Putin moves in, he stays, as we see in Crimea and Ukraine.
 

Trump of course would change this. Let Putin roam.

 

The former USSR republics immediately made a bee-line to Nato and EU after the Soviet Union and Putin's KGB collapsed of their own dead weight. It all got Putin's goat. Putin and CCP Dictators in Beijing don't trust one another but they've got a lot of common ground, as in the South China Sea too.

 

Putin is determined to keep us surrounded as nobody over there has ever liked or approved of the U.S. Constitution, its republic, and its democracy. Same for the Putin fanboyz and same for the America haters. 

[Grouse]

Corbyn! How embarrassing.

[Publicus]

10 hours ago, oxo1947 said:

If Cuba pays back the money they owe to US citizens,  then a discussion about this base would be ok. ----Craig

.

So is this just a little bit different from your first statement that we would leave anywhere we are not wanted...??

or can we amend it with the word   --Unless---somewhere in there...............

 

U.S. does not need the Naval Air Station at Guantanamo Bay on the Atlantic end of Cuba. The only reason the U.S. still has the facility is that Republicans in Washington won't close the redundant base itself or the horrendous detention camp there.

 

The base was founded at the turn of the 20th century as a coaling station for the USN Atlantic fleet. Then Gitmo spent WW2 in the middle of nothing much. It spent the Cold War in ways accurately presented by Col. Jessup in the movie -- eating breakfast 3000 yards from a snoozing Cuban grunt with a rifle, nothing more. The base protects nothing but it keeps right wingers happy in Washington.

 

Castro was in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 but as a lawyer and head of state Fidel well knows he's got a signed treaty mutually agreed by two sovereign governments (in 1903). His bro Raul knows also that in the present thaw there are thousands of military personnel at Gitmo with lots of US Cash Dollars for when Raul says they can enter nearby towns during shore leave. And even better, when USN personnel on shore leave get delivered by USN transport ships to Havana. 

 

Meanwhile Beijing has yet to plant a tree in Nicaragua much less build its own Nicaragua canal across twice the area of the current Panama Canal. Putin wants to reestablish the KGB's old intelligence facility on the north side of Cuba facing the USA but the jungle is quite overgrown there as U.S. very recent satellite photos show up close and precisely. 

 

Which brings us back to the OP which informed us Putin got himself boxed in to have to veto a proposed Security Council resolution to stop the aerial bombing of Aleppo (the slow and dimwitted Putin has only now discovered nobody's as treacherous as the French). Yet it may be true that the Libertarian for Potus Gov. Gary Johnson could fumble Aleppo in almost equally bad ways. As to Donald Trump, he wants to keep open Camp Delta with a reserved suite for Hillary but then Donald is doing a lot of howling at the moon lately. 

[Xircal]

Does Putin really think that after annexing Crimea that we're all going to just sit down and be friends again?

 

He's supporting Al-Assad not because he likes the guy but because he wants to protect Russia's only base in the Med in the Syrian port of Tartus. Russia signed a deal with Cyprus to allow its ships to use Cypriot ports, but other than those there are no other Russian naval facilities anywhere other than in Crimea. .

 

Western forces try to avoid civilian casualties wherever possible, but Russia doesn't and just drops bombs on any target it deems appropriate regardless of whether ISIS is occupying the area or not.

 

I suspect though that Putin is taking the opportunity to step up the bombing campaign while US attention is concentrated on the upcoming election next month especially considering all the controversy surrounding Trump.

 

Blocking a UN Resolution proposed by France and Spain to end hostilities in Syria hasn't done his stock any good either so he only has himself to blame for the animosity directed at both himself and Russia.

[Publicus]

 

Putin fanboyz have been carrying on for endless years and most recently about Syria that Putin and the Russians don't give a crap about civilian casualties. 

 

Trump expresses the same Putin/Russian attitude when he says to "go after their families" and to "bomb the shit out of 'em" to include carpet bombing their cities, towns, villages. 

 

War criminals of a feather flock together.

[tonbridgebrit]

10 hours ago, Grouse said:

Corbyn! How embarrassing.

That's your opinion, but he is the Leader of the Opposition in parliament. Also, the majority of people in Britain simply don't want Britain to be involved in any airstrikes in Syria. Parliament voted AGAINST joining in with America on airstrikes in Syria.

Are YOU also against any British involvement in airstrikes in Syria ?  I certainly am.

 

[derator01]

Please stick to the topic and abide by forum rules. 

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

That's your opinion, but he is the Leader of the Opposition in parliament. Also, the majority of people in Britain simply don't want Britain to be involved in any airstrikes in Syria. Parliament voted AGAINST joining in with America on airstrikes in Syria.

Are YOU also against any British involvement in airstrikes in Syria ?  I certainly am.

 

 

Corbyn has effectively emasculated the opposition and is allowing the Con party a free hand. He means well but is not bright enough. Labour can never win an election with him at the helm.

 

But, back to your point. With 20/20 hindsight, invading Iraq was a bad mistake.

 

I am very anti Muslim and do want to see the destruction of ISIS. So it is correct for us to help out with our high tech precision weaponry.

 

I do not support the idea of the USA backing other Islamic outfits.

 

Its an iniquitous situation but I think we need to deal with Assad and the Russians. 

 

So, in conclusion, I support bombing ISIS but not Assad's noxious regime.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

That's your opinion, but he is the Leader of the Opposition in parliament. Also, the majority of people in Britain simply don't want Britain to be involved in any airstrikes in Syria. Parliament voted AGAINST joining in with America on airstrikes in Syria.

Are YOU also against any British involvement in airstrikes in Syria ?  I certainly am.

 

 

By itself, being the Leader of the Opposition got little to do with being or not being an embarrassment. Claims regarding the wishes of the Majority of people in Britain are all very fine, just need to back them up with something.

 

And back to reality - the UK does conduct military operations and airstrikes in Syria. Approved by Parliament (your reference is to an earlier vote): 

 

MPs approve motion on ISIL in Syria

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2015/december/mps-debate-motion-on-isil-in-syria/

 

Syria air strikes: MPs authorise UK action against Islamic State

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34989302

 

Airstrikes in Syria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Shader#Airstrikes_in_Syria

 

[craigt3365]

5 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

That's your opinion, but he is the Leader of the Opposition in parliament. Also, the majority of people in Britain simply don't want Britain to be involved in any airstrikes in Syria. Parliament voted AGAINST joining in with America on airstrikes in Syria.

Are YOU also against any British involvement in airstrikes in Syria ?  I certainly am.

 

Most of us are against air strikes in Syria.  Thus, we'd like Russia to also stop.  Don't you agree?

[Grouse]

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Most of us are against air strikes in Syria.  Thus, we'd like Russia to also stop.  Don't you agree?

 

The most important thing is to hold back Islam. If that means supping with the devil, so be it.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

 

The most important thing is to hold back Islam. If that means supping with the devil, so be it.

Nothing wrong with Islam. It's radical Islam that's the problem.  Saudi Arabia and Iran.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Nothing wrong with Islam. It's radical Islam that's the problem.  Saudi Arabia and Iran.

 

I am relaxed about Iran, the Saudis are bad news. Sorry to say I am not at all keen on Muslims. They can do as they like in their home countries but I don't want them anywhere near me thank you.

[tonbridgebrit]

20 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

I am relaxed about Iran, the Saudis are bad news. Sorry to say I am not at all keen on Muslims. They can do as they like in their home countries but I don't want them anywhere near me thank you.

Grouse, the OP is about how Putin reckons that UK, US and France are provoking Russiaphobia.
Okay, I think Putin is right, and I reckon Boris Johnson is ridiculous in trying to get people to do a protest outside the Russian Embassy, bearing in mind that Boris Johnson has said nothing to encourage demonstrations outside the American Embassy.

Okay, so you're against Washington backing Islamic fundamentalists ? Great, I reckon that Washington should stop backing any groups in Syria. I'm convinced that all the groups that Washington are backing are actually classified as Muslim fundamentalists by the media, if the media was to put the spotlight onto them. Muslim groups who do not accept democracy, and who want to bring in Sharia Law if they are in charge, well, THOSE groups are regarded as "Muslim fundamentalists" by the media. Well, actually, the media gives them that label if the media feels like it. And indeed, the rebels who are against Assad, most of them can be classified as Islamic fundamentalists if the media actually wanted to do it.

You don't reckon Assad should be bombed, but you reckon ISIS should be ?

You wrote about being relaxed about Iran, but you reckon the Saudis are bad news ?   Well, the Saudis are involved in supporting some of the rebels who are against Assad.

I certainly reckon the best thing to do, is to leave Syria alone, let Assad and Russia remove ISIS. And then let Assad and Russia remove the other rebels. Some guys calling themselves the Al-Nusra Front (they are Al-Qaeda's branch in Syria) are carrying out most of the action being done by the other rebels (rebels who are not ISIS).

So yes, I reckon it's absurd for Britain to join in with this display of "Russiaphobia", bearing in mind that it is Putin and Russia who are vital in helping Assad remove ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front.

 

 

[Grouse]

10 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Grouse, the OP is about how Putin reckons that UK, US and France are provoking Russiaphobia.
Okay, I think Putin is right, and I reckon Boris Johnson is ridiculous in trying to get people to do a protest outside the Russian Embassy, bearing in mind that Boris Johnson has said nothing to encourage demonstrations outside the American Embassy.

Okay, so you're against Washington backing Islamic fundamentalists ? Great, I reckon that Washington should stop backing any groups in Syria. I'm convinced that all the groups that Washington are backing are actually classified as Muslim fundamentalists by the media, if the media was to put the spotlight onto them. Muslim groups who do not accept democracy, and who want to bring in Sharia Law if they are in charge, well, THOSE groups are regarded as "Muslim fundamentalists" by the media. Well, actually, the media gives them that label if the media feels like it. And indeed, the rebels who are against Assad, most of them can be classified as Islamic fundamentalists if the media actually wanted to do it.

You don't reckon Assad should be bombed, but you reckon ISIS should be ?

You wrote about being relaxed about Iran, but you reckon the Saudis are bad news ?   Well, the Saudis are involved in supporting some of the rebels who are against Assad.

I certainly reckon the best thing to do, is to leave Syria alone, let Assad and Russia remove ISIS. And then let Assad and Russia remove the other rebels. Some guys calling themselves the Al-Nusra Front (they are Al-Qaeda's branch in Syria) are carrying out most of the action being done by the other rebels (rebels who are not ISIS).

So yes, I reckon it's absurd for Britain to join in with this display of "Russiaphobia", bearing in mind that it is Putin and Russia who are vital in helping Assad remove ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front.

 

 

 

Very good piece. I applaud your well reasoned discussion.

 

It is a pity that TV limits discussions to two posts. One loses the gist of the discussion.

 

My view is that the sensible way forward is for Syria to remain a multi cultural state. Yes, Assad is a bad bastard, but I would not want see any Islamist outfits taking over.

 

Did you see this weekend's Dateline London? The Russian chap was spot on. Syria is a side show for Russia. Ukraine is the flash point. It was a mistake to move EU and NATO "tanks" on to Russia's back lawn. There was an opportunity to get Russia into our tent but we screwed that up!

[Grouse]

I would have thought a behind closed doors chat with Russia should be: Look, if you and your friend Assad don't give Aleppo a break, we will have to use force. We don't want to do that. We'll keep out of the way if you put Assad on a leash. Deal?

[Grouse]

And another thing, it's not so long ago that USA armed the mujahideen with Stinger missiles in their fight against the USSR in Afghanistan. They then morphed into the Taliban!

 

ISIS are mainly using American weaponry as I understand it.

 

I think I can understand Russian angst. For our part, we need to be very clear who our real enemies are. I think we can co-exist with Russia. I am much more concerned about the creep of Islam.

Edited October 16, 2016 by Grouse

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

I certainly reckon the best thing to do, is to leave Syria alone, let Assad and Russia remove ISIS. And then let Assad and Russia remove the other rebels. Some guys calling themselves the Al-Nusra Front (they are Al-Qaeda's branch in Syria) are carrying out most of the action being done by the other rebels (rebels who are not ISIS).

So yes, I reckon it's absurd for Britain to join in with this display of "Russiaphobia", bearing in mind that it is Putin and Russia who are vital in helping Assad remove ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front.

With all the information that's been provided,  you still don't seem to understand this isn't about getting rid IS to Russia. It's about maintaining their cash flow from Syria,  keeping the gas pipeline to Europe from being built,  and bolstering their standing in the ME. They don't care about Assad, as they've already said.

 

As has been pointed out many times, Russia isn't just bombing IS. Too many civilian deaths prove that. Thus, Boris' comments.

 

As for Russophobia,  he's got a point . Sadly,  Putin has created this. Going after US election data, invading Ukraine,  Georgia,  Moldova,  ets. Subs off the coast of several European countries.  Airspace incursions too many times to mention.  Wow.

[Morch]

On 10/16/2016 at 11:33 AM, Grouse said:

I would have thought a behind closed doors chat with Russia should be: Look, if you and your friend Assad don't give Aleppo a break, we will have to use force. We don't want to do that. We'll keep out of the way if you put Assad on a leash. Deal?

 

Problem is there's no big stick. Or more correctly, no stick that fits the situation.

 

I very much doubt that the US will threat nuclear war over Syria, and it does not have the conventional means to dislodge or even leverage the Russians into doing anything, at the moment. The only applicable leverage is economic, what with Russia's economy not doing that great.

 

IMO, things will drag on like this until the new US president is in the White House. Then some sort of diplomatic solution will be reached. Of course, by then the Russians and Assad will consolidate their position further, so the main purpose of the US would be damage control and face saving.