Bloomberg on Putin: How Putin Became the Symbol of Russian Power

[Mormolyce]

Putin doesn't really control Russia, he just maintains an effective facade of doing so. The place is riddled with crime and corruption.

He also took power during a romantic period when Russia was in the doldrums over becoming a modern capitalist society and longed for the old Soviet days. He's the public face of an anachronism that will not survive him.

I've been saying this for many years now: Putin is one of the best politicians / strategists / leaders to currently walk the face of this earth.

I can't agree with your interpretation of the word "best".

Not that I would use that word to describe any politician, that's like picking the best of a series of venereal diseases.

- - - Updated - - -

And this weak, desperate Russia managed to upend two massive elections.

You've correctly identified that a developed country being successfully suckered by a sad, washed up old has-been like Russia is humiliating.

It's really a fault of the system, the people and the state of partisan politics in the US that allowed it to occur.

[Skroe]

And this weak, desperate Russia managed to upend two massive elections. And forced the name Kremlin back onto the lips of Americans pinning all the blame on Russia. (Because every vote was decided by the Russians, apparently. Every non Hillary vote was the work of the Russians.)

Putin thanks you for fearing him and his country and reminding everyone a joke made this happen.

Because America's leaders has spent the past 17 years obsessed with Islamic radicalism and non-state actors and not taking conventional state threats seriously enough. Vladmir Putin's victory on 11/9/2017 started on 9/11/2001, when the United States decided to essentially transition to a single-issue security policy, that issue being islamic radicalism.

It has done this despite years of warnings by experts and the military.

It did it because fighting terrorism is cheap and easy and fighting Russia (or China) is expensive and hard. Special Operations and drones are cheap compared to infantry divisions and strategic bombers.

It did this because the implications that history had not ended and the West had not won for all time, threatened individuals domestic policy agendas on both sides of the asile, over the past 17 years. Because ensuring our adversaries are on their knees is expensive.


Vladmir Putin and Russia capitalized on American delusions about our security. 17 years of calling Russia our "partner" when they should have been called, as they are now, our adversary, since at least 2008. It may have been Vladmir Putin who pulled the trigger, but America was the one that pointed the gun at it's foot all by itself. Because we've come from being a deathly serious country that would do anything to win, to being a non-serious one that takes our victories and leads for granted.

[Ulmita]

Well i guess Russia could be worse. It could be like USA. Oh well noone is perfect.

At least they aint goign aroudn killing millions in middle east and around the globe.

[Skroe]

Well i guess Russia could be worse. It could be like USA. Oh well noone is perfect.

At least they aint goign aroudn killing millions in middle east and around the globe.

Yeah, it's real rough being the richest, most powerful and most technologically advanced country in the history of mankind, surrounded by two oceans and two friendly neighbors and home to enormous amounts of resources.

It's a rough lot fate handed us.

[Dextroden]

Because America's leaders has spent the past 17 years obsessed with Islamic radicalism and non-state actors and not taking conventional state threats seriously enough. Vladmir Putin's victory on 11/9/2017 started on 9/11/2001, when the United States decided to essentially transition to a single-issue security policy, that issue being islamic radicalism.

It has done this despite years of warnings by experts and the military.

It did it because fighting terrorism is cheap and easy and fighting Russia (or China) is expensive and hard. Special Operations and drones are cheap compared to infantry divisions and strategic bombers.

It did this because the implications that history had not ended and the West had not won for all time, threatened individuals domestic policy agendas on both sides of the asile, over the past 17 years. Because ensuring our adversaries are on their knees is expensive.


Vladmir Putin and Russia capitalized on American delusions about our security. 17 years of calling Russia our "partner" when they should have been called, as they are now, our adversary, since at least 2008. It may have been Vladmir Putin who pulled the trigger, but America was the one that pointed the gun at it's foot all by itself. Because we've come from being a deathly serious country that would do anything to win, to being a non-serious one that takes our victories and leads for granted.

I don't know. Obama's pissing match with Putin doesn't paint that picture of partnership you want to present. And the whole "Assad is a Russian puppet we're trying to overthrow" thing. And planning a pointless no fly zone.

Stay with me for three seconds. In what universe does daring Russia to cross lines help any fucking thing in Syria? You don't think they will immediately test that zone to either make us look stupid when we don't shoot them or justify whatever nonsense they'll try after having planes justifiably shut down.

Remember Putin crying about Human rights after the bombing?

[Ulmita]

Yeah, it's real rough being the richest, most powerful and most technologically advanced country in the history of mankind, surrounded by two oceans and two friendly neighbors and home to enormous amounts of resources.

It's a rough lot fate handed us.

What this even has to do with your country going around killing non stop?

Also, the most powerfull is debadable. I don't see you doing anything to your "sworn / existensial" enemy other than cry cry cry =)

[Dextroden]

Yeah, it's real rough being the richest, most powerful and most technologically advanced country in the history of mankind, surrounded by two oceans and two friendly neighbors and home to enormous amounts of resources.

It's a rough lot fate handed us.

I remember all our friends saying they might not be allies if Trump won. That was fun.

[Thepersona]

Well i guess Russia could be worse. It could be like USA. Oh well noone is perfect.

At least they aint goign aroudn killing millions in middle east and around the globe.

Ruskies are aalso killing people in the middle east, around the globe... and inside russia

[Skroe]

I don't know. Obama's pissing match with Putin doesn't paint that picture of partnership you want to present. And the whole "Assad is a Russian puppet we're trying to overthrow" thing. And planning a pointless no fly zone.

Let's be very clear about something. If America wanted to make life hard for Russia, it could in ways it wasn't close to doing.
-Obama did not sell advanced / heavy weapons to Ukraine
-Obama did not give anti-aircraft weapons to Rebels in Syria
-Obama did not toss Russia out of swift
-Obama did not mass-seize the oligarchs extensive US based assets or deport their family members.

These are options Obama had before him, and he did not do them, despite the fact that it would implement a high cost on Russia. Instead he sent MREs and second hand, unarmored humvees to Ukraine, and TOW Missiles to Syria... and did sectoral sanctions - severe but phased in - only after Russians shot down MH17.

Oh and on top of that, before the Pentagon basically went rogue and killed the idea on the grounds of it being terrible(by bombing 60 Syrians in September), John Kerry and Obama invited Russia into their intelligence gathering /sharing/coordination network for Syria and the broader middle east.

In other words, Obama did the minimum amount to hit Russia back because he really didn't want to spend any focus on state-to-state conflict. He is also the President that removed the last armored brigades from Europe (now returned). He is also the President that was winding up a full-scale withdrawl from Europe before Russia basically forced that cancellation. he is also the President that attempted to cut the Army down to 420,000 (from 560,000 when he took office). He is also the President that cut the number of combat Brigades in the Army by a third, and the number of armored brigades in half.

Stay with me for three seconds. In what universe does daring Russia to cross lines help any fucking thing in Syria? You don't think they will immediately test that zone to either make us look stupid when we don't shoot them or justify whatever nonsense they'll try after having planes justifiably shut down.

Remember Putin crying about Human rights after the bombing?

I got news for you: the US military doesn't give a rats ass about ISIS. It never has and it never will.

It does the ISIS campaign because it is ordered to. But it is doing it on the cheap. It is doing the minimum amount required. Why? Because it is much more focused on repairing it's readiness and returning to its conventional deterrence role to be able to fight a country like Russia or China. It may be bombing Raqqa, but it's thinking Poland, and it's thinking the South China Sea. Bombing ISIS is it's hobby, deterring Russia and China is it's job.

Every dollar spent bombing ISIS is a dollar NOT spent on turning an over-numerous Stryker brigade into a Heavy Armor brigade, or a dollar not spent on modernizing the F-15C fleet (at the cost of $60 million per fighter).

This is why everything involving "World War III" in Syria has and continues to be beyond fanciful. The US military has no interest in Syria beyond following exactly what civilian policy makers have laid out before it, which is to kill ISIS. And Russia in no way helps in that regard.

If Russia was insane, and did challenge US forces, the US military would rightfully defend itself, but as we've had entire threads over, Russia's military capacity in Syria is very limited (about 30 aircraft, 10 of which are fighters, and 110 anti-air missiles), and it's ability to project power out of Russia is already entirely tapped between Syria and Ukraine. Russia would not seek to escalate anything over anything that happens in Syria, because it knows it could not win.

- - - Updated - - -

What this even has to do with your country going around killing non stop?

Also, the most powerfull is debadable. I don't see you doing anything to your "sworn / existensial" enemy other than cry cry cry =)

I don't particularly care about my country going around killing non-stop against our enemies. If you want to stop the US from pressing its agenda, go join some insurgent army. You'll get shot to death or droned like everybody else. I'll send flowers.

Yeah, we've done nothing except move more and more military assets to Eastern Europe the past 7 months. You know, the one thing that actually incenses Russia more than anything.

And the words "INF Treaty violation" are on every Senator's lips. You ready for the US to put nuclear AGM-86 ALCMs in Europe full time? Because that's the most likely response in the short term. I want to point out again, I've been saying the INF Treaty violation is as big a deal, if not larger, than Crimea, since around 2012. That's finally happening.

And it's not debatable. But you're entitled to your delusions.

- - - Updated - - -

I remember all our friends saying they might not be allies if Trump won. That was fun.

Don't kid yourself. That hasn't nearly played out.

In general by dehumanizing latin american citizens coming to the US, by making our interests with Latin America mostly about (1) keeping them out of our country and (2) drugs, Trump's driving them into China's waiting arms. Yes, China... the country on the move in our backyard.

China is shopping for a port that would eventually becoming a naval base in Latin America. If I were Mexico, I'd use that as a bargaining chip. More likely than Mexico it will be Nicaragua, Ecuador and/or Venezuela.

[Dextroden]

Alright. War with Russia is a waste of time, Skroe has informed me. Plus, they are stretched thin, says Skroe. Why are we rallying against our "partner" and preparing to strike at them? It's a local power. Why in the fuck would they attack Europe when they couldn't hold whatever they moved into?

- - - Updated - - -

Let's be very clear about something. If America wanted to make life hard for Russia, it could in ways it wasn't close to doing.
-Obama did not sell advanced / heavy weapons to Ukraine
-Obama did not give anti-aircraft weapons to Rebels in Syria
-Obama did not toss Russia out of swift
-Obama did not mass-seize the oligarchs extensive US based assets or deport their family members.

These are options Obama had before him, and he did not do them, despite the fact that it would implement a high cost on Russia. Instead he sent MREs and second hand, unarmored humvees to Ukraine, and TOW Missiles to Syria... and did sectoral sanctions - severe but phased in - only after Russians shot down MH17.

Oh and on top of that, before the Pentagon basically went rogue and killed the idea on the grounds of it being terrible(by bombing 60 Syrians in September), John Kerry and Obama invited Russia into their intelligence gathering /sharing/coordination network for Syria and the broader middle east.

In other words, Obama did the minimum amount to hit Russia back because he really didn't want to spend any focus on state-to-state conflict. He is also the President that removed the last armored brigades from Europe (now returned). He is also the President that was winding up a full-scale withdrawl from Europe before Russia basically forced that cancellation. he is also the President that attempted to cut the Army down to 420,000 (from 560,000 when he took office). He is also the President that cut the number of combat Brigades in the Army by a third, and the number of armored brigades in half.




I got news for you: the US military doesn't give a rats ass about ISIS. It never has and it never will.

It does the ISIS campaign because it is ordered to. But it is doing it on the cheap. It is doing the minimum amount required. Why? Because it is much more focused on repairing it's readiness and returning to its conventional deterrence role to be able to fight a country like Russia or China. It may be bombing Raqqa, but it's thinking Poland, and it's thinking the South China Sea. Bombing ISIS is it's hobby, deterring Russia and China is it's job.

Every dollar spent bombing ISIS is a dollar NOT spent on turning an over-numerous Stryker brigade into a Heavy Armor brigade, or a dollar not spent on modernizing the F-15C fleet (at the cost of $60 million per fighter).

This is why everything involving "World War III" in Syria has and continues to be beyond fanciful. The US military has no interest in Syria beyond following exactly what civilian policy makers have laid out before it, which is to kill ISIS. And Russia in no way helps in that regard.

If Russia was insane, and did challenge US forces, the US military would rightfully defend itself, but as we've had entire threads over, Russia's military capacity in Syria is very limited (about 30 aircraft, 10 of which are fighters, and 110 anti-air missiles), and it's ability to project power out of Russia is already entirely tapped between Syria and Ukraine. Russia would not seek to escalate anything over anything that happens in Syria, because it knows it could not win.

- - - Updated - - -


I don't particularly care about my country going around killing non-stop against our enemies. If you want to stop the US from pressing its agenda, go join some insurgent army. You'll get shot to death or droned like everybody else. I'll send flowers.

Yeah, we've done nothing except move more and more military assets to Eastern Europe the past 7 months. You know, the one thing that actually incenses Russia more than anything.

And the words "INF Treaty violation" are on every Senator's lips. You ready for the US to put nuclear AGM-86 ALCMs in Europe full time? Because that's the most likely response in the short term. I want to point out again, I've been saying the INF Treaty violation is as big a deal, if not larger, than Crimea, since around 2012. That's finally happening.

And it's not debatable. But you're entitled to your delusions.

- - - Updated - - -



Don't kid yourself. That hasn't nearly played out.

In general by dehumanizing latin american citizens coming to the US, by making our interests with Latin America mostly about (1) keeping them out of our country and (2) drugs, Trump's driving them into China's waiting arms. Yes, China... the country on the move in our backyard.

China is shopping for a port that would eventually becoming a naval base in Latin America. If I were Mexico, I'd use that as a bargaining chip. More likely than Mexico it will be Nicaragua, Ecuador and/or Venezuela.

If everyone thinks China is the way to go, they should do that instead of just threatening it. Cause that sounds vaguely like "I'm moving to Canada if Trump wins". If they want to threaten the relationship, they must not be happy. Why stick with us?

Also. Does threatening to end an alliance with a nation if one candidate wins count as foreign influence? I'm legit curious how much foreign entities are allowed to affect an election.

[Ulmita]

I don't particularly care about my country going around killing non-stop against our enemies. If you want to stop the US from pressing its agenda, go join some insurgent army. You'll get shot to death or droned like everybody else. I'll send flowers.

Yeah, we've done nothing except move more and more military assets to Eastern Europe the past 7 months. You know, the one thing that actually incenses Russia more than anything.

And the words "INF Treaty violation" are on every Senator's lips. You ready for the US to put nuclear AGM-86 ALCMs in Europe full time? Because that's the most likely response in the short term. I want to point out again, I've been saying the INF Treaty violation is as big a deal, if not larger, than Crimea, since around 2012. That's finally happening.

And it's not debatable. But you're entitled to your delusions.

You aint bringing nukes to Europe and the troops you send are laughable.

They even meddled in your election and you stood there and took it like men. All you do is some barking.

Thats what power looks like Skroe.

[Deleted]

And this weak, desperate Russia managed to upend two massive elections. And forced the name Kremlin back onto the lips of Americans pinning all the blame on Russia. (Because every vote was decided by the Russians, apparently. Every non Hillary vote was the work of the Russians.)

Putin thanks you for fearing him and his country and reminding everyone a joke made this happen.

Don't confuse Putin's tactical strength with Russia's (lack of) strategic strength.
As Skroe points out, Russia has declined in the last 17 years - Some of it is not entirely Putin's direct fault (the poor economy) but some of it is, like, Russia of 2000 had a lot of goodwill around the globe - Putin has squandered all of it.

[Baneth]

Ulmita, even though you are homophobic- would you gobble Putin's cock if it meant that you would become a true full-blooded russian (instead of, you know, a greek) and be granted russian citizenship?

Serious question.

[Ulmita]

Ulmita, even though you are homophobic- would you gobble Putin's cock if it meant that you would become a true full-blooded russian (instead of, you know, a greek) and be granted russian citizenship?

Serious question.

No, but i was thinking of writting him a letter asking for one.

[Shalcker]

Don't Russian leaders always have very high approval ratings while in power, and then when they're no longer in power their approval/popularity drops like a rock?

Yeltsin had 3% approval rating at some point, so clearly it's false.

- - - Updated - - -

7. Yeltsin and the other corrupt Russian leadership see that Putin refused to testify and they said "THAT'S OUR MAN" because they were all afraid of prison if an honest man came into power.

8. And then they killed the fledgling Russian democracy.

It got killed before that in 1996, when Yeltsin with Western help and widespread fraud (to which West turned blind eye) stole presidential election from Communists... and then when Communists refused to fight for real results too.

If Democracy actually won Russia would belong to either Communists or Nationalists right now. Instead it belongs to Opportunists without ideology. And that's why West can't allow actual Democracy to win here, and prefer to push fringe politicians that would push Western agenda ignoring wishes of broad population (that is, more opportunists just like the ones already in power, quite similar to their beloved Yeltsin).

[Shibito]

Ah ulmita threads featuring shalcker, i come for the discussion i stay for the comedy

[Noradin]

If Democracy actually won Russia would belong to either Communists or Nationalists right now. Instead it belongs to Opportunists without ideology. And that's why West can't allow actual Democracy to win here, and prefer to push fringe politicians that would push Western agenda ignoring wishes of broad population (that is, more opportunists just like the ones already in power, quite similar to their beloved Yeltsin).

So you agree that Putin is a symbol of Russian weakness?

[Mafic]

I've been saying this for many years now: Putin is one of the best politicians / strategists / leaders to currently walk the face of this earth.
There is no comparison to him anywhere (maybe Merkel comes close) and especially in the USA. Obama wasn't a match for him, Trump is definatelly not, Hillary definately not, Sanders lol. All in all USA doesn't have a politician in his magnitude and it didn't matter who won the elections. Noone was capable of facing him.

I completely agree with Bloomberg's view but i'll take it a notch further. He is a symbol of power period.

I have to admit that was an honest point of view of Putin which is rare these days in western media.