Putin's goals in our new Cold War

Discussion in 'world politics, current affairs and news' started by David Clapson, Apr 13, 2018.

  1. David Clapson

    David Clapson Well-Known Member

    We are slowly waking up to the fact that we've been in another Cold War for several years. Putin has used every trick in the book to destabilise the US, NATO, the EU and sundry former Soviet Union territories. He's a ruthless power-hungry dictator with a deep-seated need to expand Russia. Where does he want to invade next? I don't see him resting on his laurels, content with the gains he's made in the Ukraine, Crimea, Chechnya, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I don't think he would risk war with NATO by annexing a Baltic state. But I can imagine him grabbing strategic chunks of Syria and Iraq and using control of oil and gas to subjugate the West.

    Or maybe he'll grab some other country, something not on our radar.
     
  2. Teaboy

    Teaboy It definitely looks brighter over there..

    Maybe he'll replace Ant on Britain's Got Talent? I'd put nothing past him these days.
     
    Fez909, Rosemary Jest, tim and 18 others like this.
  3. Pickman's model

    Pickman's model Every man and every woman is a star

    David Clapson I can imagine him creating a legion of humunculi. Doesn't mean it's on the cards. Tell you what, have a look at charles clover's black wind white snow and when you come back we can have a decent discussion about Russian ambitions
     
    cantsin and Badgers like this.
  4. mather

    mather Well-Known Member

    What a load of old rubbish. Despite assurances to Gorbachev that it would not expand into the former USSR, NATO has done just that making any promises it makes worthless. Why should Russia trust an entity that is actively hostile to it, that has showed continued bad faith and continues to encircle it? Do you really think the USA would tolerate Mexico or Canada joining the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO)?

    As for your imagination, you can imagine all you like but it was the US that actually occupied Iraq and made off with a large portion of it's oil, not to mention everything else.
     
    Ralph Llama, camouflage, tim and 9 others like this.
  5. David Clapson

    David Clapson Well-Known Member

    Forget it, I'm not reading a book just to help you feel superior. It's a simple question - where else will he invade? Not an unreasonable thing to speculate on, given that our military and foreign office have been wrongfooted by unforeseen invasions in recent years.
     
  6. David Clapson

    David Clapson Well-Known Member

    Right. As Putin is a fair-minded democratically elected fellow, innocently defending his citizens against the perfidious Albion and her co-conspirators, where does he need to invade next?
     
    likesfish likes this.
  7. mather

    mather Well-Known Member

    I wasn't expecting your reply to have anything of substance and I was right.

    Whether Putin is a democrat or not has nothing to do with it unless you're one of those simple souls that believes that democracies don't cause wars. Since 1945 the US has been in countless wars, killing millions. It is simply an objective fact that more countries have been invaded by the US and more people killed by the US than any other world power since then.
     
  8. David Clapson

    David Clapson Well-Known Member

    What's your feeble excuse for seeing world events through the lens of USA = wicked, Putin = lovely?
     
  9. mather

    mather Well-Known Member

    Nice one, in place of any actual argument you resort to putting words into my mouth. I never said Putin was nice, and it is irrelevant if he is nice or not, that is not how politics or diplomacy work. We actively arm, support and fund the Saudi Arabian regime, a regime that not only has the world's worst human rights record but also a regime that funds and supports Islamic terrorism, terrorism that has attacked this country and killed people right here on the streets of Britain. We are in no position to lecture other countries given our relationship with the terrorist supporting Saudi regime. Not that this will stop our political establishments rush to war as these things, despite what they say, are never about 'democracy', 'human rights' or other meaningless phrases but about state power politics, geo-politics and the control of a vital area of the world with regards to access and resources.
     
  10. Pickman's model

    Pickman's model Every man and every woman is a star

    yeh you don't need to read a book to make me feel superior. or inferior. it's posts like this and your op that demonstrate your want of nous let alone the knowledge with which to make sense of events.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2018
    gawkrodger and Badgers like this.
  11. Ralph Llama

    Ralph Llama ERROR 23 : DEFAULT MODE NETWORK COMPROMISED Banned

    Russia are not the only concern here .
     
  12. elbows

    elbows WoeTimer

    Your mind, your fears, hopes and dreams, he is clearly invading those. He has already annexed your priorities.

    But more seriously, we'll see. I'm not a fan of the flavours of 20th century anti-imperialism that turned a blind eye to various shit done by the soviet union, nor am I a fan of all the things the Cold War was used to justify. So I'm going to have all sorts of different feelings at this time where the UN secretary general says the Cold War is back. With less safeguards and worse rhetoric from some quarters. However predicting where Putin might invade next is not really the way I will be approaching things, not least because other matters seem to be where the action is at the moment.
     
    NoXion, yield, Jeremiah18.17 and 4 others like this.
  13. Ralph Llama

    Ralph Llama ERROR 23 : DEFAULT MODE NETWORK COMPROMISED Banned

    Is he going to start ranting about bodily fluids :/
     
  14. Pickman's model

    Pickman's model Every man and every woman is a star

    if you were really interested in the subject you'd have looked into eurasianism, and found out that some parts of the former soviet union are more likely to be incorporated in the russian federation than others. crimea, yes. lithuania, no. but you're not really that fussed about it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2018
    spikey_r, yield, Badgers and 2 others like this.
  15. Pickman's model

    Pickman's model Every man and every woman is a star

    he'll be foaming at the mouth no doubt
     
    Badgers and Ralph Llama like this.
  16. seventh bullet

    seventh bullet red mullet

    We've got camouflage for that rubbish. And his position isn't about trolling for the other team. But, if you're genuine, which I doubt, then you're being played.
     
    Pickman's model likes this.
  17. seventh bullet

    seventh bullet red mullet

    Admittedly, the only thing I've found funny on a juvenile level from the likes of camo, is that meme with US/NATO complaining about Russians provocatively putting their country so close to its military bases.
     
    Pickman's model likes this.
  18. seventh bullet

    seventh bullet red mullet

    Anyway, what is this 'deep-seated need' to expand Russia? As Pickman's notes, with many parts of the FSU, it's about pushing back against NATO expansion and deliberate provocation, the most recent iteration of the very old problem the Russian ruling class has faced from western powers: encirclement, containment, and the fear of an aggressive (read war) attempt at weakening and breaking up Russia. But this is all the politics of states, in which tiny elites who control them are the only actors and everyone else disappears.
     
    NoXion likes this.
  19. Humberto

    Humberto Your world. Your life. Your debt.

    One side threatens to strike in retaliation to unacceptable violence and inhumanity, and warns Russia to be prepared. The other side lies and obfuscates, threatens escalation. And yet when this (hopefully) blows over for a while they will still be propping up the Russian ruling class and rich with save havens for their money. When will they learn not to create their own enemies by propping them up? Stop taking greasy backhanders in other words. I mean, what have they ever done for us? They behave inhumanely. This has been the situation for years, i.e. risk of escalation for getting involved. Yet our politicians didn't tackle them, ostracise them, weaken their interests. Our rulers just look foolish to me. No, I don't believe this inhumanity should be tolerated, but the fact that we are powerless, that the political rulers are powerless, and we keep edging uncomfortably close to a precipice is because they are lacking in decency themselves.
     
    coley likes this.
  20. elbows

    elbows WoeTimer

    Perhaps if we study some of Putins historical propaganda goals we might be clearer about his future goals.

     
    Ralph Llama likes this.
  21. mauvais

    mauvais change has become unavoidable

    OP, a more interesting question that doesn't necessarily require any background reading is this: what would you do if you were Russian President?
     
  22. copliker

    copliker ...

    Score 9 goals.
     
  23. 2hats

    2hats

    Come on as a surprise substitution in the 89th minute of the 2018 World Cup final and score the deciding winner for Russia?
     
    tim, campanula, sealion and 9 others like this.
  24. elbows

    elbows WoeTimer

    After the defensive wall of the opposing team seem to have an 'unusual allergic reaction' to the referees white line spray foam as Putin prepares to take the winning free kick.
     
    likesfish, Ralph Llama and coley like this.
  25. coley

    coley Well-Known Member

    While I certainly agree with the above (and most other observations on here) it still ignores the question, whats Putins end game?
    It's a given he decided to risk adventures in Syria once Obama folded on his 'red lines' and his annexation of Crimea was always a high possibility, but what's his actual aim?
    Is it just 'pushing the boat, militarily' to boost his domestic popularity, populist poker? Or is there a deeper threat?
    I've seen many articles about 'superior NATO numbers and capabilities'. Most of these articles seem to forget that most of these 'superior numbers and capabilities' are sitting on their arses on bases in the US!
    And as for the latest boondoggle, Trump threatening a useless strike on Syria, WTFF!? May should have told TTT to fuck the right off after the Iraq fiasco! and what's Macron doing rattling French sabres?
     
  26. ska invita

    ska invita back on the other side

    The goal is to secure and build Russia's position as a powerful pole in a multipolar world.
    Don't think invading other countries is necessary for that, but playing the grand chessboard of geopolitics with every modern tool in the box is. I don't think Russia is expansionist in the full spectrum dominance fashion of the US, but no doubt if there's room to spread some influence and power those will be taken, particularly around its borders.
    As to Russia in Syria, the middle east is on Russia's doorstep and perhaps not surprisingly considering history recent and older prefers to exert influence on the area than let the US continue with its slash and burn policies unopposed.
     
    camouflage and Ralph Llama like this.
  27. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    What exactly is the US slash and burn policy in Syria then? The only firm commitment its acted on is support of the YPG. Is that what you mean?

    edit: oh yeah and in limiting what arms the rebels could get hold of and ensuring they didn't fight the regime but nusra and isis. And bombing in support of the the regime in the east of the country. Funny that bombing wasn't so vocally opposed eh?
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2018
    tim likes this.
  28. bemused

    bemused Well-Known Member

    It's not that cold. Over a third of his exports go to the US and European counties.
     
  29. Supine

    Supine Rough Like Badger

    Geopolitically the long term aim of Russia, China and the West is access to resources like oil, gas and metals etc.
     
    Ralph Llama likes this.
  30. JuanTwoThree

    JuanTwoThree Unintended gear-stick action

    It's Russia again after the late Tsarist and Soviet Empire is no more. It's not an empire now but in fact 85% ethnic Russian again. There's a lot of 'again' in Russian history. Its dealings with other European and Asian powers has always been about access to strategic resources; in the past this was often warm-water ports.

    It obviously depended on who the other players were; Sweden, The Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, France when Napoleon prospered, Britain when Russia began to be a naval power, Germany under Prussia and then between the world wars, China under whoever, all these were at one time strategic allies or sworn enemies of Russia.

    The story I like is of the newly appointed minister of a British government who asked his permanent secretary what the policy on something or other was. He was told "My dear chap, Britain doesn't have policies, we have very long-term strategic interests". Tsarist, Soviet and post-Soviet Russia seems to be much the same.

    If you change some names and rejig it a bit there are some very familiar post WW2 Russian themes to this resumé of the Treaty of Paris 1856. In some ways it was their Versailles:

    • made the Black Sea neutral and closed it to all warships
    • forbade the building of fortifications and the presence of armaments on the shores of the Black Sea. The Black Sea became a military 'no-go' area to prevent Russia intimidating Turkey
    These two clauses restored the status quo but proved only to be a truce which lasted until 1870 when Russia began to re-fortify the Black Sea and the Allies were unable to stop them.

    • Russia was made to give up her claim to be the protector of the Sultan's Christian subjects. This was also a return to the status quo and meant the abandoning of the religious excuse to interfere in the Turkish Empire. It also proved to be a truce because Russia failed to honour this clause. In 1876 the Turks savagely crushed a Bulgarian rising using the Bashi-Bazooks. Following these 'Bulgarian Atrocities', Russia acted the part of protector of the Slavs and Christians and invaded Turkey. In Britain, the atrocities led to Gladstone's Midlothian campaign (1879). In 1878 Bismarck called the Berlin Conference which created an autonomous 'small' Bulgaria, and put Germany on the diplomatic map.
    • the Sultan was made to promise to reform his Empire and to become less dependent on the Powers. He did nothing, and the Ottoman Empire continued to crumble and disintegrate - which was the cause of the Bulgarian rising. Turkey was dismembered piecemeal in the Nineteenth Century; European areas won independence:
      • Moldavia and Wallachia became the Kingdom of Romania in 1861
      • Bulgaria became autonomous in 1878
      • Austria-Hungary took over the administration of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1878
    • Russia was made to move out of the Black Sea area by being deprived of parts of Bessarabia.
    From here:

    The Peace of Paris 1856


    It's trite to talk about History repeating itself. It doesn't exactly. Nor can you reduce all this to goodies and baddies. I think Russia has done what it has had to do, and so have the other powers, for centuries.
     
    Smoking kills likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice