5 ms·

From your link [1]. He [Putin] became briefly close to President George W Bush - who even claimed to have glimpsed Putin's soul - until the Iraq War drove them

From your link [1]. He [Putin] became briefly close to President George W Bush - who even claimed to have glimpsed Putin's soul - until the Iraq War drove them apart. In Iraq, Putin insisted that international law must be upheld - no invasion could be allowed without approval from the United Nations Security Council, and that approval was not forthcoming. This is also Putin and it is not singular. If you listen to his speeches, he often demands that international laws and treaties should be upheld and he became increasingly frustrated over the years that this was not done. Maybe you can argue that this was his only option out of a position of weakness, but never the less he did this. Putin wanting to recapture and rebuild a past empire is a very new narrative without much supporting evidence over all those years.

V__ 4y ago
> he became increasingly frustrated over the years that this was not done. This may be true, but I think it's more likely that he doesn't care about it at all. He is an opportunist, and back then the best opportunity was to criticize the U.S. and Europe by insisting on international law. Today, he is saying Europe is a fascist Nazi oppressor.
- dghughes 4y ago
  > He is an opportunist And a manipulator. He's the person who gossips in the background. He tells someone that guy over there just called you a name, and then says the same to the first guy. He's the type of person we all hate.
  - dghughes 4y ago
    Putin I meant if that wasn't clear. Not Gorbachev.
- ajvs 4y ago
  - V__ 4y ago
    Sure, there are some, but calling it plenty while Putin's private paramilitary army is the Wagner Group is willfully disingenuous.
  - simonh 4y ago
    Every country has unsavoury elements within it, but attacking a country with a Jewish president for being fascist, because there are a few thousand racists in the south, is bullshit. Especially when you're at the same time busily funding and promoting fascist and racist groups all over Europe and the US, as Russia has been.
    - pydry 4y ago
      Zelensky asked the few thousand fascists/nazis to lay down their arms for a cease fire - in order to fulfil his primary campaign promise of ending the donbass war. They refused and called him a traitor. Being Jewish they probably called him a few other names too. He tacitly accepted this insubordination without a fuss, as far as I can see. These days he lavishes Azov with praise. In which other countries does this happen?
      - simonh 4y ago
        Russia has had problems with insubordination too, with soldiers refusing to fight. Frankly I don't see how it makes any difference. None of that makes Ukraine a fascist state. Nor does it change the fact that when it suits it's own interests, Russia promotes and funds fascists. Clearly none of this has anything to do with fascism, Russia didn't send massive columns of armoured vehicles and thousands of troops at Kyiv over Azov battalion.
        pydry 4y ago
        Im not sure you could argue that Ukraine is overall a fascist state. Zelensky isnt secretly one of them and lord knows they werent good at winning elections when they ran either. However, with a lot of fascists rewarded with government posts after their performance in maidan and an entire fascist batallion somehow having the independence to defy a presidential order to stand down in a war, it's pretty clear that fascists hold a significant level of power in Ukraine.
- danbruc 4y ago
  I think it depends on what exactly you mean with it all. Upholding international law was most likely in his best interests, with Russia in its weak state this was probably the best option to stay relevant and have influence. If you mean that he believed that upholding international law is the right thing to do independent of Russia situation, that is something I can not say. Maybe someone who really studied Putin could make an educated guess at this.
  - philistine 4y ago
    The international organization where his country happens to have a permanent seat should decide the fate of the invasion! No need for further study, this is simple politics.
theelous3 4y ago
So when putin claims casus belli over another nation's land due to previous ownership a whole bunch of times, you just disregard it because of something he _didn't_ say years ago? The tactic of "rules for thee but not for me" is as old as time. The implication that putin wants russia to actually be held to the same standards as he is trying to get other nations held to - all the while fomenting war on his borders and ignoring eight bajillion commitments and treaties - is laughable.
- danbruc 4y ago
  I just read the entire address by Putin [1] after the invasion started - it's all about NATO expansion, historical borders or something along that lines make no real appearance in the entire thing. I know that he supposedly said things more in line with your point on other occasions but I never came across something that convincingly provided support for this point of view. Can you provide sources? [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-24/full-transcript-vladimir-putin-s-televised-address-to-russia-on-ukraine-feb-24 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-24/full-tran...
  - caskstrength 4y ago
    Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Russians_and_Ukrainians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Rus...
    - danbruc 4y ago
      I read the entire thing [1], well I just skimmed the historical section until the 20th century. I do not see how this can be read as Ukraine is part of Russia end must be conquered back. For the current situation the most relevant part is probably the one dealing with the recent history, say the fall of the USSR or maybe even only past 2014. Unfortunately I am in no position to judge what is laid out and reading up on all the events would probably take weeks and figuring out the actual truth might still be quite hard. [1] http://www.en.kremlin.ru/misc/66182 http://www.en.kremlin.ru/misc/66182
qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
He joined the checheyna war instantly after coming into office. Actions speak louder then a million voices. The empires resurection was part of day one and all else was blatant lies, in public to hypnotize the chickens. Part of those lies also was, to become as "spokesman" for all sorts of internal oppossition, left and right alike.
throwaway894345 4y ago
I don’t think opposing someone else’s war is much of a credit to him, or evidence against the idea that he is motivated to Make Russia Great Again. It seems more like he wants International Law to bind others but not himself.
- danbruc 4y ago
  He was not completely opposing it, he just demanded to follow the law - you make your case in front of the UN and get it sanctioned. And in this case you should get credit for opposing it as it was all made up bullshit. Making Russia great again is also perfectly fine if it means to rebuild the economy, improve living standards, and similar things. Making it greater again, i.e. extending the territory with force is of course a different matter. How well Russia followed the laws and treaties itself, I can not judge, I only know that Putin often said, we are fulfilling our obligations even though the US or someone else does this or that. See for example the speech at the 2007 Munich security conference [1]. How true this all is, I can not tell, I would have to become a full time fact checker. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ58Yv6kP44 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ58Yv6kP44
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    > He was not completely opposing it, he just demanded to follow the law - you make your case in front of the UN and get it sanctioned. And in this case you should get credit for opposing it as it was all made up bullshit. Well, as you point out, he doesn't get credit for opposing the Iraq War because he wasn't opposed to it (he just wanted Bush to ask his permission). He also doesn't get credit for upholding the value of International Law because he only does so when it suits him, which is essentially my point. > How well Russia followed the laws and treaties itself, I can not judge Sure you can. Russia regularly flouts International Law and it's currently in the process of doing so. > Making Russia great again is also perfectly fine if it means to rebuild the economy, improve living standards, and similar things. Making it greater again, i.e. extending the territory with force is of course a different matter. Right, but we're talking specifically about extending the territory with force.
  - 4y ago
raxxorraxor 4y ago
People evidently did not care about the war being UN-sanctioned or not. The rule was removed at that point, although with the structure of the UN and its security council it was perhaps inevitable that people start to ignore it. Especially with history in mind it is quite clear that Russia would take any right that former competitors took themselves. Having lost the cold war or not is secondary it seems. Of course any argument will be used to the largest opportunistic degree. Putin may have believed that invasions now always need to be sanctioned and there was a time where it probably looked like that. That Putin wants to rebuild past empires is something he openly espouses himself now. Although I do believe this is directed towards the domestic population. I also think Russia did believe that the US tried to topple government in Ukraine and saw a need to react.
fennecfoxy 4y ago
Ah yes, plenty of respecting international law when it has come to assassinations etc in foreign countries. Putin only care about international law where it is in his own interests.

V__ 4y ago

> he became increasingly frustrated over the years that this was not done. This may be true, but I think it's more likely that he doesn't care about it at all. He is an opportunist, and back then the best opportunity was to criticize the U.S. and Europe by insisting on international law. Today, he is saying Europe is a fascist Nazi oppressor.

dghughes 4y ago
> He is an opportunist And a manipulator. He's the person who gossips in the background. He tells someone that guy over there just called you a name, and then says the same to the first guy. He's the type of person we all hate.
- dghughes 4y ago
  Putin I meant if that wasn't clear. Not Gorbachev.
ajvs 4y ago
- V__ 4y ago
  Sure, there are some, but calling it plenty while Putin's private paramilitary army is the Wagner Group is willfully disingenuous.
- simonh 4y ago
  Every country has unsavoury elements within it, but attacking a country with a Jewish president for being fascist, because there are a few thousand racists in the south, is bullshit. Especially when you're at the same time busily funding and promoting fascist and racist groups all over Europe and the US, as Russia has been.
  - pydry 4y ago
    Zelensky asked the few thousand fascists/nazis to lay down their arms for a cease fire - in order to fulfil his primary campaign promise of ending the donbass war. They refused and called him a traitor. Being Jewish they probably called him a few other names too. He tacitly accepted this insubordination without a fuss, as far as I can see. These days he lavishes Azov with praise. In which other countries does this happen?
    - simonh 4y ago
      Russia has had problems with insubordination too, with soldiers refusing to fight. Frankly I don't see how it makes any difference. None of that makes Ukraine a fascist state. Nor does it change the fact that when it suits it's own interests, Russia promotes and funds fascists. Clearly none of this has anything to do with fascism, Russia didn't send massive columns of armoured vehicles and thousands of troops at Kyiv over Azov battalion.
      - pydry 4y ago
        Im not sure you could argue that Ukraine is overall a fascist state. Zelensky isnt secretly one of them and lord knows they werent good at winning elections when they ran either. However, with a lot of fascists rewarded with government posts after their performance in maidan and an entire fascist batallion somehow having the independence to defy a presidential order to stand down in a war, it's pretty clear that fascists hold a significant level of power in Ukraine.
danbruc 4y ago
I think it depends on what exactly you mean with it all. Upholding international law was most likely in his best interests, with Russia in its weak state this was probably the best option to stay relevant and have influence. If you mean that he believed that upholding international law is the right thing to do independent of Russia situation, that is something I can not say. Maybe someone who really studied Putin could make an educated guess at this.
- philistine 4y ago
  The international organization where his country happens to have a permanent seat should decide the fate of the invasion! No need for further study, this is simple politics.

theelous3 4y ago

So when putin claims casus belli over another nation's land due to previous ownership a whole bunch of times, you just disregard it because of something he _didn't_ say years ago? The tactic of "rules for thee but not for me" is as old as time. The implication that putin wants russia to actually be held to the same standards as he is trying to get other nations held to - all the while fomenting war on his borders and ignoring eight bajillion commitments and treaties - is laughable.

danbruc 4y ago
I just read the entire address by Putin [1] after the invasion started - it's all about NATO expansion, historical borders or something along that lines make no real appearance in the entire thing. I know that he supposedly said things more in line with your point on other occasions but I never came across something that convincingly provided support for this point of view. Can you provide sources? [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-24/full-transcript-vladimir-putin-s-televised-address-to-russia-on-ukraine-feb-24 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-24/full-tran...
- caskstrength 4y ago
  Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Russians_and_Ukrainians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Rus...
  - danbruc 4y ago
    I read the entire thing [1], well I just skimmed the historical section until the 20th century. I do not see how this can be read as Ukraine is part of Russia end must be conquered back. For the current situation the most relevant part is probably the one dealing with the recent history, say the fall of the USSR or maybe even only past 2014. Unfortunately I am in no position to judge what is laid out and reading up on all the events would probably take weeks and figuring out the actual truth might still be quite hard. [1] http://www.en.kremlin.ru/misc/66182 http://www.en.kremlin.ru/misc/66182

qikInNdOutReply 4y ago

He joined the checheyna war instantly after coming into office. Actions speak louder then a million voices. The empires resurection was part of day one and all else was blatant lies, in public to hypnotize the chickens. Part of those lies also was, to become as "spokesman" for all sorts of internal oppossition, left and right alike.

throwaway894345 4y ago

I don’t think opposing someone else’s war is much of a credit to him, or evidence against the idea that he is motivated to Make Russia Great Again. It seems more like he wants International Law to bind others but not himself.

danbruc 4y ago
He was not completely opposing it, he just demanded to follow the law - you make your case in front of the UN and get it sanctioned. And in this case you should get credit for opposing it as it was all made up bullshit. Making Russia great again is also perfectly fine if it means to rebuild the economy, improve living standards, and similar things. Making it greater again, i.e. extending the territory with force is of course a different matter. How well Russia followed the laws and treaties itself, I can not judge, I only know that Putin often said, we are fulfilling our obligations even though the US or someone else does this or that. See for example the speech at the 2007 Munich security conference [1]. How true this all is, I can not tell, I would have to become a full time fact checker. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ58Yv6kP44 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ58Yv6kP44
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > He was not completely opposing it, he just demanded to follow the law - you make your case in front of the UN and get it sanctioned. And in this case you should get credit for opposing it as it was all made up bullshit. Well, as you point out, he doesn't get credit for opposing the Iraq War because he wasn't opposed to it (he just wanted Bush to ask his permission). He also doesn't get credit for upholding the value of International Law because he only does so when it suits him, which is essentially my point. > How well Russia followed the laws and treaties itself, I can not judge Sure you can. Russia regularly flouts International Law and it's currently in the process of doing so. > Making Russia great again is also perfectly fine if it means to rebuild the economy, improve living standards, and similar things. Making it greater again, i.e. extending the territory with force is of course a different matter. Right, but we're talking specifically about extending the territory with force.
- 4y ago

raxxorraxor 4y ago

People evidently did not care about the war being UN-sanctioned or not. The rule was removed at that point, although with the structure of the UN and its security council it was perhaps inevitable that people start to ignore it. Especially with history in mind it is quite clear that Russia would take any right that former competitors took themselves. Having lost the cold war or not is secondary it seems. Of course any argument will be used to the largest opportunistic degree. Putin may have believed that invasions now always need to be sanctioned and there was a time where it probably looked like that. That Putin wants to rebuild past empires is something he openly espouses himself now. Although I do believe this is directed towards the domestic population. I also think Russia did believe that the US tried to topple government in Ukraine and saw a need to react.

fennecfoxy 4y ago

Ah yes, plenty of respecting international law when it has come to assassinations etc in foreign countries. Putin only care about international law where it is in his own interests.