Is Putin really crazy, like #45 crazy, or is it mental deterioration?

[Anonymous]

Putin might not be "crazy" but he has definitely lost the plot and is not the brilliant strategist that some people built him up to be.

[Anonymous]

USE THE REPORT BUTTON ON ANY REVISIONIST POST.

Thank you.

There are trolls on all the Ukraine threads trying to distract others with inflammatory anti-NATO views and wielding a knowledge of history that's about as accurate as Putin's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Foreign rulers who defy western imperialism and aggression are by and large made out by the west to be insane, mentally disturbed or crazy. The list is long.

No, I am neither a Putin sympathizer nor a Russian troll. Just an observer of history.

What western aggression did Vlad defy as he made his land grab in Ukraine?

You're obviously late to the game.

Every President since Reagan has advanced the push for NATO expansion towards Russia's borders. The US spent $5 billion in 2014 to install what is now the Zelensky puppet regime. See under: assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland's "f**k the EU."

After the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, NATO issued a statement that Ukraine and Georgia would become part of NATO. That has never been rescinded. At that time, Putin made it unequivocally clear that Russia viewed NATO is an existential threat.

And obviously Russia has the right to dictate other countries' defense policies to them and then invade them when they don't comply with Russian demands.

Yes, clearly Russian president thinks so. Is our president or all before this one having the same delusions? Or is it true that the U.S. can and does dictate others? Might is right, no?

[Anonymous]

NATO is a defensive alliance of countries who have begged to be part of it. You have a warped view of Western aggression. Putin does not get to dictate how other people in the world live, their vision for the future and who they align themselves with.

It would behoove Putin, China and any other macho authoritarian regimes to work on influencing others instead of trying to crush them in submission in a life they don't desire.

NATO is both a defensive AND an offensive alliance. All NATO defensive installations are easily and quickly converted to offensive positions.

Neither does the US "get to dictate how other people in the world live, their vision for the future or who they align themselves with." The US has been doing that globally since Vietnam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Foreign rulers who defy western imperialism and aggression are by and large made out by the west to be insane, mentally disturbed or crazy. The list is long.

No, I am neither a Putin sympathizer nor a Russian troll. Just an observer of history.

What western aggression did Vlad defy as he made his land grab in Ukraine?

You're obviously late to the game.

Every President since Reagan has advanced the push for NATO expansion towards Russia's borders. The US spent $5 billion in 2014 to install what is now the Zelensky puppet regime. See under: assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland's "f**k the EU."

After the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, NATO issued a statement that Ukraine and Georgia would become part of NATO. That has never been rescinded. At that time, Putin made it unequivocally clear that Russia viewed NATO is an existential threat.

That's the position coming straight from the Kremlin. Your "facts" are bogus. 2014 had Poroshenko defeat Tymoshenko. Zelenskyy defeated Poroshenko in free and fair elections with 73% of the vote. Calling it a "coup" or "installed puppet" does not even remotely bear any resemblance to reality.

That position is completely, delusionally backwards. Russia is the only existential threat here. The US did not attack or seize any lands in Europe. They only used diplomacy. Russia proved they are hostile aggressors that cannot be trusted in 2008 with Georgia, and again in 2014 with Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, and now again in 2022 with the rest of Ukraine. Maybe Putin wants to project his own paranoia onto NATO but ultimately he is the one who is the existential threat to his neighbors.

I suggest you learn about the events of 2014 in Ukraine. Until then, stay comfortable living with the revisionism and pro-western bias of the US media, courtesy of the US State Department.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NATO is a defensive alliance of countries who have begged to be part of it. You have a warped view of Western aggression. Putin does not get to dictate how other people in the world live, their vision for the future and who they align themselves with.

It would behoove Putin, China and any other macho authoritarian regimes to work on influencing others instead of trying to crush them in submission in a life they don't desire.

NATO is both a defensive AND an offensive alliance. All NATO defensive installations are easily and quickly converted to offensive positions.

Neither does the US "get to dictate how other people in the world live, their vision for the future or who they align themselves with." The US has been doing that globally since Vietnam.

This is factually incorrect. NATO's treaty is based on article 5 and the principle of collective defense. NATO has never initiated a conflict or war.

Vietnam was a proxy war between the East and West blocks.

The US uses plenty of propaganda sure, but the nations that chose to align with it do so fully aware of it. Because ultimately they much prefer that relationship and the mutual benefits they enjoy. Russia provides no benefits, it's what you would call a "taker nation"

p.s.

I am an immigrant so i have seen the US's role from multiple perspectives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Foreign rulers who defy western imperialism and aggression are by and large made out by the west to be insane, mentally disturbed or crazy. The list is long.

No, I am neither a Putin sympathizer nor a Russian troll. Just an observer of history.

What western aggression did Vlad defy as he made his land grab in Ukraine?

You're obviously late to the game.

Every President since Reagan has advanced the push for NATO expansion towards Russia's borders. The US spent $5 billion in 2014 to install what is now the Zelensky puppet regime. See under: assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland's "f**k the EU."

After the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, NATO issued a statement that Ukraine and Georgia would become part of NATO. That has never been rescinded. At that time, Putin made it unequivocally clear that Russia viewed NATO is an existential threat.

Why do all these countries prefer joining NATO? Russia is just such a nice neighbor, never caused any trouble, never annexed any territories, never did any ethnic cleaning, never armed separatists and caused misery and devastation. I just can’t think of any reason why they’d want to be in NATO. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Foreign rulers who defy western imperialism and aggression are by and large made out by the west to be insane, mentally disturbed or crazy. The list is long.

No, I am neither a Putin sympathizer nor a Russian troll. Just an observer of history.

What western aggression did Vlad defy as he made his land grab in Ukraine?

You're obviously late to the game.

Every President since Reagan has advanced the push for NATO expansion towards Russia's borders. The US spent $5 billion in 2014 to install what is now the Zelensky puppet regime. See under: assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland's "f**k the EU."

After the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, NATO issued a statement that Ukraine and Georgia would become part of NATO. That has never been rescinded. At that time, Putin made it unequivocally clear that Russia viewed NATO is an existential threat.

And obviously Russia has the right to dictate other countries' defense policies to them and then invade them when they don't comply with Russian demands.

Yes, clearly Russian president thinks so. Is our president or all before this one having the same delusions? Or is it true that the U.S. can and does dictate others? Might is right, no?

The US didn't invade Ukrania. Perhaps you are having the delusions?

[Anonymous]

I seriously doubt Putin is 'crazy' but I don't think this war was well thought out at all. Now he has no easy way out to save face. What's his actual plan?

It seems like he doesn't really have one unless it's to just conquer Ukraine and install a puppet government that will collapse as soon as they lose Russian support like the post Soviet Union eastern block. There's no way Russia can prop up a bunch of countries while it's own economy is in the toilet.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone else read the Kamil Galeev argument in favor of being a lot more aggressive with Putin, to keep him from, essentially, bullying the United States?

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1498692916511924232.html

I was against anything that could trigger nuclear war before I read the article, but a lot more open to us being more aggressive after I read it.

But, this guy has other essays up about why he didn't think Putin would annex Ukraine, so, he's not psychic.

Anyhow, I was wondering what other people thought of the essay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I seriously doubt Putin is 'crazy' but I don't think this war was well thought out at all. Now he has no easy way out to save face. What's his actual plan?

It seems like he doesn't really have one unless it's to just conquer Ukraine and install a puppet government that will collapse as soon as they lose Russian support like the post Soviet Union eastern block. There's no way Russia can prop up a bunch of countries while it's own economy is in the toilet.

It was planned by Putin and a handful of his circle for years. He wanted it to be a secret and allegedly most of the Russian state apparatus was not brought in and caught flat footed.

Given history of past Russian leaders he will not back down until Russia is devastated. It took 5 million dying of starvation for Lenin to allow US humanitarian aid/food kitchens to be set up in Russia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else read the Kamil Galeev argument in favor of being a lot more aggressive with Putin, to keep him from, essentially, bullying the United States?

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1498692916511924232.html

I was against anything that could trigger nuclear war before I read the article, but a lot more open to us being more aggressive after I read it.

But, this guy has other essays up about why he didn't think Putin would annex Ukraine, so, he's not psychic.

Anyhow, I was wondering what other people thought of the essay.

It will come to that eventually. A “loss” in this war will only radicalize the already brainwashed Russian masses.

Our best option might be complete decoupling from these regimes 😔

[Anonymous]

Someone already pointed to the Aleksandr Dugin’s 1997 text Foundation of Geopolitics - here’s the Wiki summary for all the folks who didn’t bother googling it. It’s very clear that Putin has been following the Dugin playbook for decades now:

In Foundations of Geopolitics, Dugin calls for the United States and Atlanticism to lose their influence in Eurasia, and for Russia to rebuild its influence through annexations and alliances.[2]

The book declares that "the battle for the world rule of Russians" has not ended and Russia remains "the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution". The Eurasian Empire will be constructed "on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us."[9]

Military operations play relatively little role. The textbook advocates a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia's gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries.[9]

The book states that "the maximum task [of the future] is the 'Finlandization' of all of Europe".[9]

In Europe:

Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad Oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term "Moscow–Berlin axis".[9]
France should be encouraged to form a bloc with Germany, as they both have a "firm anti-Atlanticist tradition".[9]
The United Kingdom, merely described as an "extraterritorial floating base of the U.S.", should be cut off from Europe.[9]
Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast".[9]
Estonia should be given to Germany's sphere of influence.[9]
Latvia and Lithuania should be given a "special status" in the Eurasian–Russian sphere.[9]
Poland should be granted a "special status" in the Eurasian sphere.[9]
Romania, North Macedonia, Serbia, "Serbian Bosnia" and Greece – "Orthodox collectivist East" – will unite with "Moscow the Third Rome" and reject the "rational-individualistic West".[9]
Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[9]
In the Middle East and Central Asia:

The book stresses the "continental Russian–Islamic alliance" which lies "at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy". The alliance is based on the "traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization".
Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term "Moscow–Tehran axis".[9]
Armenia has a special role: It will serve as a "strategic base," and it is necessary to create "the [subsidiary] axis Moscow-Yerevan-Teheran". Armenians "are an Aryan people ... [like] the Iranians and the Kurds".[9]
Azerbaijan could be "split up" or given to Iran.[9]
Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable.[9]
Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.[9]
The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including "the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)" and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan).[9]
In East and Southeast Asia:

China, which represents a danger to Russia, "must, to the maximum degree possible, be dismantled". Dugin suggests that Russia start by taking Tibet–Xinjiang–Inner Mongolia–Manchuria as a security belt.[1] Russia should offer China help "in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam), the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia" as geopolitical compensation.[9]
Russia should manipulate Japanese politics by offering the Kuril Islands to Japan and provoking anti-Americanism.[9]
Mongolia should be absorbed into Eurasia-Russia.[9]
The book emphasizes that Russia must spread anti-Americanism everywhere: "the main 'scapegoat' will be precisely the U.S."

In the United States:

Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics".[9]
The Eurasian Project could be expanded to South and Central America.[9]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone already pointed to the Aleksandr Dugin’s 1997 text Foundation of Geopolitics - here’s the Wiki summary for all the folks who didn’t bother googling it. It’s very clear that Putin has been following the Dugin playbook for decades now:

In Foundations of Geopolitics, Dugin calls for the United States and Atlanticism to lose their influence in Eurasia, and for Russia to rebuild its influence through annexations and alliances.[2]

The book declares that "the battle for the world rule of Russians" has not ended and Russia remains "the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution". The Eurasian Empire will be constructed "on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us."[9]

Military operations play relatively little role. The textbook advocates a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia's gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries.[9]

The book states that "the maximum task [of the future] is the 'Finlandization' of all of Europe".[9]

In Europe:

Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad Oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term "Moscow–Berlin axis".[9]
France should be encouraged to form a bloc with Germany, as they both have a "firm anti-Atlanticist tradition".[9]
The United Kingdom, merely described as an "extraterritorial floating base of the U.S.", should be cut off from Europe.[9]
Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast".[9]
Estonia should be given to Germany's sphere of influence.[9]
Latvia and Lithuania should be given a "special status" in the Eurasian–Russian sphere.[9]
Poland should be granted a "special status" in the Eurasian sphere.[9]
Romania, North Macedonia, Serbia, "Serbian Bosnia" and Greece – "Orthodox collectivist East" – will unite with "Moscow the Third Rome" and reject the "rational-individualistic West".[9]
Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[9]
In the Middle East and Central Asia:

The book stresses the "continental Russian–Islamic alliance" which lies "at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy". The alliance is based on the "traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization".
Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term "Moscow–Tehran axis".[9]
Armenia has a special role: It will serve as a "strategic base," and it is necessary to create "the [subsidiary] axis Moscow-Yerevan-Teheran". Armenians "are an Aryan people ... [like] the Iranians and the Kurds".[9]
Azerbaijan could be "split up" or given to Iran.[9]
Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable.[9]
Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.[9]
The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including "the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)" and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan).[9]
In East and Southeast Asia:

China, which represents a danger to Russia, "must, to the maximum degree possible, be dismantled". Dugin suggests that Russia start by taking Tibet–Xinjiang–Inner Mongolia–Manchuria as a security belt.[1] Russia should offer China help "in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam), the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia" as geopolitical compensation.[9]
Russia should manipulate Japanese politics by offering the Kuril Islands to Japan and provoking anti-Americanism.[9]
Mongolia should be absorbed into Eurasia-Russia.[9]
The book emphasizes that Russia must spread anti-Americanism everywhere: "the main 'scapegoat' will be precisely the U.S."

In the United States:

Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics".[9]
The Eurasian Project could be expanded to South and Central America.[9]

They seem to have done a good job with that one. We are being played by a man with a plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Neither. If you look back at his illustrious career from bombing residential buildings across Russia, the Chechen war, all the meddling in Europe, wars in Georgia & Ukraine, and lending a hand in other conflicts, he's neither crazy nor senile. He's continuing with his modus operandi but is being more arrogant about it from all the wealth he amassed and his "success". He feels he can whatever. Is that madness? May be. But the modus operandi is the same it's been the past 30 years.

The madness of US and EU- all parties and all administrations- has been in hoping he could be contained. They have had the benefits of access to markets and “western” luxuries and vacations while not abiding to the principles of liberal democracy.