Putin and Russia have Achieved What They Set Out To Do, Haven’t They??

Putin is an ex-KGB man. He’s an expert on subterfuge. It’s all about power. Putin wanted to gain control of Russia. He did. He wanted to strengthen his grip. He did. He wanted to re-establish Russia as a powerful world force. He has. He is a very rich powerful man.

The West missed a golden opportunity didn’t we?

At the end of the Cold War we should have welcomed Russia in from the cold, set up more trading links, diplomatic links and reduced all threats.

We didn’t do that. Our fear of socialism/communism prevented that.

As the USSR collapsed we courted those satellite states. We moved NATO bases to the borders of Russia. We moved missile sites onto their borders. We came an even bigger threat.

The way I see it Russia was forced to act.

They had to take Crimea in order to have that sea port. The Ukraine was a response to NATO aggression.

I’m not sure how the US would feel if Russia was similarly setting up missile sites in Cuba for instance – Oh yes – I forgot. They be prepared to have a third world war to stop it.

Russia and Putin set out to destabilise Europe and the USA. It’s all about power, right?

There have been cyber attacks, assassinations, nerve agents, intrusions into air-space and interventions into elections.

How much effect has Russian actions had on the referendum? On the election of Trump?

It’s hard to say isn’t it? What is not in doubt is that they have had some coordinated influence. They have seized the chaos caused by terrorism and mass immigration to help create further chaos and undermine the West. It’s all about power, right??

What could be better than Trump and Brexit for Putin? Not a lot.

In two elections NATO is weakened, alliances are split, the EU and Britain are enfeebled and Trump is creating division and hatred. It’s almost as if Putin planned it!

8 thoughts on “Putin and Russia have Achieved What They Set Out To Do, Haven’t They??

  1. Opher, two questions for you.
    Who was it that started the Balkans War?
    Who and what would we have been “welcoming”?

    1. The war in the Balkans?? Yugoslavia?? Between Croatia and Serbia?? What has that got to do with it?
      It seems to me that we could have welcomed a cordial relationship with Russia which would have brought us closer together and avoided threats that has led to this worsening of relationship and a new cold war.

      1. I see that these two simple questions did nothing for your train of thought.
        Do a time frame analysis.
        When did the USSR collapse?
        Who was behind the Balkans conflict, feeding, supplying and stirring it up into an explosion?
        When did the Balkans conflict begin?
        Or did you think it all started all of a sudden all by itself?
        And you think the west was in any position to be shaking hands?

        You might like to peruse further Russian interference in US elections from 1919.
        This didn’t start happening quite as recently as you portray.

        What could have been better for Putin?
        Clinton, obviously and Israel not being there sitting central middle east.

      2. Eric – so you think Russia was behind the break up of Yugoslavia? It had been simmering all century. The ethnic mix was volatile. Tito kept a lid on it. When he was gone it brewed up. Your view of Russian interference is a bit fanciful in my view.
        Yes I do think the West had an opportunity to bring Russia in from the cold. The fear of communism was so inbred they couldn’t do it. Instead they tried to muscle in on the freed states and made matters much worse. A bit of stupidity in my view.
        No – I am not saying Russia was perfect by any means. I’m saying there was an opportunity squandered. No state is perfect – least of all the West.

      3. Well that’s the way it goes. You see it your way and we see it our way. But I’d question who is feeding you information versus who is feeding us.
        Consider that Tito was bankrupt and had nothing to buy so much as a stick of dynamite with.
        Obviously the ethnic mix was volatile. That’s a no-brainer. There wouldn’t of been anything close to the severity had that not existed.
        You’re mistaken thinking it had been simmering all century. It was stirred into fruition by Russian agent provocateurs, plain and simple, since 1980.
        Tito died in 1980. Upon his death virtually everything relating to Titoism went into rapid decline and this included home security values. The Russian agents had a field day. The Russians had some unfinished business to conduct relating to Yugoslavia’s split from USSR in 1948. This was not necessarily related to Khrushchev’s relationship with Tito, which was cordial. There is the 1953 Tito poisoning Stalin theory.

      4. Thanks for that Eric. So you think it was Russians who were fermenting the trouble. The State of Yugoslavia was an artificial one created by the Germans in the Second World War. The ethnic tension were there from the beginning. It didn’t take much stirring did it?

  2. A lot, a mountain of Russian weapons reached the region in the 80’s post-Tito. That tells us something.
    No, not Germany in WW2. They had nothing to do with that. The Axis powers simply invaded in `41 for two years, that was all, then got kicked out in `43. Italians mainly and they lost heavily.
    It went like this:
    1918 – The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was formed immediately after WW1
    1929 – renamed Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
    1943 – proclaimed as Democratic Federal Yugoslavia by the Partisan resistance.
    1945 – when the monarchy was abolished after WW2, it was renamed again as Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia which was at the same time as acquisition of three territories from Italy.
    1945 – Yugoslav Partisans banned the public promotion of nationalism
    1963 – it was renamed again as Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, made up of six socialist republics.
    1974 – Croatian uprising demanding Serbian powers be reduced. Tito, a Croat himself reduced Serbian powers by creating autonomous provinces which held the same voting power as the republics.
    1980’s – Following Tito’s death the region fell into economic and political crisis and the rise of nationalism leading to war.

    A lot of lessons are to be learned from these attempts to amalgamate such a variety of ethnic groups that are also of different religions. This was Europe’s answer to India and we know the bloodbath that was with Muslim vs Hindu and Sikh.
    Tito had controlled adverse reactions from any one of these six republics using tyranny and execution of any uprising leadership.

    Never has there been a successful nation with peaceful dual leadership arrangements with Muslims and non-Muslims of equal political powers. It’s anathema to Islam, regardless.
    This could be where the UK stands in about 2040, if not sooner. No doubt about it.
    I’m not talking in terms here of Muslim terrorist threats or anything to do with that as it’s spot in the ocean. I’m talking about the magnitude of Islam and it’s all encompassing grasp over everything. It suffocates very quickly.

    All Putin need do is sit quietly and watch Europe Islamify itself by it’s own volition. The Russians needn’t lift a finger. Then it’s rich picking time.

I'd like to hear from you...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.