Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ketara wrote:
And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.

I don't really expect much from Russians. They live in a tyrannical kleptocracy after all. It's when Americans and Europeans buy this Russian propaganda, that crimes perpetuated by our government somehow balance against those committed by Russia's or that it means American and European citizens have no moral ground on which to stand against Russia's naked imperial aggression, that I start to wonder. And I really do wonder, how people in the US and Europe can really and truly think our nations are morally equivalent to Putin's Russia. It is the worst kind of ignorant inverted-righteousness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The threat exists, because the capability to do so exists.

Pure nonsense. The fact that a neighboring power has a military at most justifies a defense budget. It cannot justify invasion.

Canada has an army, I propose that we build the Atlantic wall mk2. Except that is stretches the entire border of the US and Canada, because I expect them to invade us. I also propose the Bering straight wall, to protect Alaska from Russian invasion from Siberia.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Indeed. Our monumental feth up in Iraq (and now our ongoing feth ups in Libya, Syria and Iraq again) completely destroyed my idealism and faith in my country and Europe as "the good humanitarian guys".

We are the people who lecture Russia for its crimes in Ukraine and human rights abuses, yet cover up our programs of torture and extraordinary rendition. Who support a disorganized of Syrian rebels, many of them radicalized extremists , and some of whom evolve into ISIS. Who encouraged and directly supported the overthrow of Gadaffi, creating a power vacuum that has partly enabled the current Mediterranean migrant crisis. Who practice mass surveillance of our own societies, sometimes illegally.

See, this is where I disagree.

Yes, our governments work to the same book as the Russians. They'd be terrible Governments if they didn't. I mean, can you imagine a government infused with a righteous zeal that they know what is morally best for the rest of the world and its population? You'd be looking at a new wave of imperialism/colonialism. As things stand, our professional politicians are all trained to view the world in terms of realpolitik to a large extent, and that's no bad thing.

The difference here, is that the people, generally speaking, hold their Governments to account. We stomp and shout when the Government gets too big for its boots, and when it starts doing things like Guantanamo and Iraq, regardless of the effectiveness. When you combine that with the fact that our politicians are still ultimately raised as citizens of our countries, and thus have a certain level of our humanitarian morality inculcated into them, you have states that ARE capable of operating within the realms of realpolitik, but not following it through to its logical extremes. And that, I would argue, is the difference between us and Russia.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.

I don't really expect much from Russians. They live in a tyrannical kleptocracy after all. It's when Americans and Europeans buy this Russian propaganda, that crimes perpetuated by our government somehow balance against those committed by Russia's or that it means American and European citizens have no moral ground on which to stand against Russia's naked imperial aggression, that I start to wonder. And I really do wonder, how people in the US and Europe can really and truly think our nations are morally equivalent to Putin's Russia. It is the worst kind of ignorant inverted-righteousness.

I'm hardly in that position. But to change things, one must first understand their root causes. Simply decrying Russian actions as being 'bad' without seeking to understand why they behave the way they do, and in what sense those beliefs could be justified makes a rapprochement impossible.

 Ustrello wrote:
I also propose the Bering straight wall, to protect Alaska from Russian invasion from Siberia.

Clearly Siberia is crucial to our geopolitical defensive strategy. Let's just annex it.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.

I don't really expect much from Russians. They live in a tyrannical kleptocracy after all. It's when Americans and Europeans buy this Russian propaganda, that crimes perpetuated by our government somehow balance against those committed by Russia's or that it means American and European citizens have no moral ground on which to stand against Russia's naked imperial aggression, that I start to wonder. And I really do wonder, how people in the US and Europe can really and truly think our nations are morally equivalent to Putin's Russia. It is the worst kind of ignorant inverted-righteousness.

Oh, so you're saying we don't torture our prisoners? We don't imprison people without trial? We don't interfere in countries we have no business being for the purpose of regime change, leaving a chaotic power vacuum in our wake? We don't support radicalized extremists when it suits us, then make a U turn when that policy backfires?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The threat exists, because the capability to do so exists.

Pure nonsense. The fact that a neighboring power has a military at most justifies a defense budget. It cannot justify invasion.

But its not just "a military power". Its an entire hostile alliance of military powers, all united against you and actively trying to absorb more countries on your border.

And again, I've never said that what Russia's invasion is morally justified. Its not. Nor was our invasion of Iraq morally justified.

I'm saying its a predictable reaction to our actions.

 Ketara wrote:
Simply decrying Russian actions as being 'bad' without seeking to understand why they behave the way they do, and in what sense those beliefs could be justified makes a rapprochement impossible.

Explanation is not justification. I get that Russia has always seen and still see its immediate western neighbors as vassal states. I get that it has always seen and still sees Germany as its natural enemy. I don't think these views are justified.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
I also propose the Bering straight wall, to protect Alaska from Russian invasion from Siberia.

Clearly Siberia is crucial to our geopolitical defensive strategy. Let's just annex it.

We must protect the ethnic Americans from the Ultra-nationalist fascist Russian government.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Its an entire hostile alliance of military powers, all united against you and actively trying to absorb more countries on your border.

Again -- Russia either is or is not the USSR. NATO was created to resist Soviet aggression. The quickest way for NATO to cease existing is for Russia to join. If Russia would let go of its imperialistic worldview (which characterized pre-Soviet and Soviet era Moscow) something along these lines would not be impossible.

 Ustrello wrote:
We must protect the ethnic Americans from the Ultra-nationalist fascist Russian government.

And their Nazi puppetmasters in Berlin!

I'm hardly in that position. But to change things, one must first understand their root causes. Simply decrying Russian actions as being 'bad' without seeking to understand why they behave the way they do, and in what sense those beliefs could be justified makes a rapprochement impossible.

Thats what I'm trying to say. Just not as eloquently.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.

I don't really expect much from Russians. They live in a tyrannical kleptocracy after all. It's when Americans and Europeans buy this Russian propaganda, that crimes perpetuated by our government somehow balance against those committed by Russia's or that it means American and European citizens have no moral ground on which to stand against Russia's naked imperial aggression, that I start to wonder. And I really do wonder, how people in the US and Europe can really and truly think our nations are morally equivalent to Putin's Russia. It is the worst kind of ignorant inverted-righteousness.

Oh, so you're saying we don't torture our prisoners? We don't imprison people without trial? We don't interfere in countries we have no business being for the purpose of regime change, leaving a chaotic power vacuum in our wake? We don't support radicalized extremists when it suits us, then make a U turn when that policy backfires?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The threat exists, because the capability to do so exists.

Pure nonsense. The fact that a neighboring power has a military at most justifies a defense budget. It cannot justify invasion.

But its not just "a military power". Its an entire hostile alliance of military powers, all united against you and actively trying to absorb more countries on your border.

And again, I've never said that what Russia's invasion is morally justified. Its not. Nor was our invasion of Iraq morally justified.

I'm saying its a predictable reaction to our actions.

So is that why Georgia was offered membership into NATO? oh wait...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Its an entire hostile alliance of military powers, all united against you and actively trying to absorb more countries on your border.

Again -- Russia either is or is not the USSR. NATO was created to resist Soviet aggression. The quickest way for NATO to cease existing is for Russia to join. If Russia would let go of its imperialistic worldview (which characterized pre-Soviet and Soviet era Moscow) something along these lines would not be impossible.

 Ustrello wrote:
We must protect the ethnic Americans from the Ultra-nationalist fascist Russian government.

And their Nazi puppetmasters in Berlin!

Glory to the October revolution, 1945 best year of my life

NATO in the late 90s and early 2000s had already ceased to be an "anti-Soviet" alliance. It had in the wake of the collapse of Yugoslavia, switched itself into a peacekeeping force. Beyond that, it's purpose was becoming further limited to "if we're all allied together then we won't shoot each other" organization. By the mid 2000s it honestly looked like NATO was going to die all on its own as political positions in Europe continued downgrading NATO facilities. Then Georgia happened and everyone freaked out, especially when Russia's response when offered NATO membership was "sorry but we want to rebuild our Empire and joining NATO just won't work with that."

So yeah. Russia is kind of barking up the wrong tree if it wants to blame anyone else for the quasi-revitalization of NATO.

 Manchu wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Its an entire hostile alliance of military powers, all united against you and actively trying to absorb more countries on your border.

Again -- Russia either is or is not the USSR. NATO was created to resist Soviet aggression. The quickest way for NATO to cease existing is for Russia to join. If Russia would let go of its imperialistic worldview (which characterized pre-Soviet and Soviet era Moscow) something along these lines would not be impossible.

 Ustrello wrote:
We must protect the ethnic Americans from the Ultra-nationalist fascist Russian government.

And their Nazi puppetmasters in Berlin!

Theres no way in hell that we'd ever let Russia join. A large country like Russia joining would instantly diminish the influence of some of the bigger members like Britain, France and Germany, upsetting the balance.

And as I understand it Russia tried that in the 90's. We ignored their efforts and continued expanding NATO.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Simply decrying Russian actions as being 'bad' without seeking to understand why they behave the way they do, and in what sense those beliefs could be justified makes a rapprochement impossible.

Explanation is not justification. I get that Russia has always seen and still see its immediate western neighbors as vassal states. I get that it has always seen and still sees Germany as its natural enemy. I don't think these views are justified.

Russia, alas, does not have to justify its views to you, or to anyone else, and objectively speaking, your view is inherently no better than theirs. The historical dialectic will see it triumph or fail regardless.

I personally believe that what we are seeing here is ultimately Russia's death throes as an imperial power. It might take another fifty years and half a dozen border skirmishes like this, but raw military force is no match for the EU, NATO, and China, in the same way that the monarchism had to eventually bow out. As a cultural/social construct, Russia is working to an outmoded model once again, and will either evolve, adapt, or perish.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Its an entire hostile alliance of military powers, all united against you and actively trying to absorb more countries on your border.

Again -- Russia either is or is not the USSR. NATO was created to resist Soviet aggression. The quickest way for NATO to cease existing is for Russia to join. If Russia would let go of its imperialistic worldview (which characterized pre-Soviet and Soviet era Moscow) something along these lines would not be impossible.

 Ustrello wrote:
We must protect the ethnic Americans from the Ultra-nationalist fascist Russian government.

And their Nazi puppetmasters in Berlin!

Theres no way in hell that we'd ever let Russia join. A large country like Russia joining would instantly diminish the influence of some of the bigger members like Britain, France and Germany, upsetting the balance.

And as I understand it Russia tried that in the 90's. We ignored their efforts and continued expanding NATO.

Except it has been floated that russia join NATO by NATO members in the past. But russia has shot it down each time with one particular quote "Great powers don't join coalitions, they create coalitions"

 Ketara wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Simply decrying Russian actions as being 'bad' without seeking to understand why they behave the way they do, and in what sense those beliefs could be justified makes a rapprochement impossible.

Explanation is not justification. I get that Russia has always seen and still see its immediate western neighbors as vassal states. I get that it has always seen and still sees Germany as its natural enemy. I don't think these views are justified.

Russia, alas, does not have to justify its views to you, or to anyone else, and objectively speaking, your view is inherently no better than theirs. The historical dialectic will see it triumph or fail regardless.

I personally believe that what we are seeing here is ultimately Russia's death throes as an imperial power. It might take another fifty years and half a dozen border skirmishes like this, but raw military force is no match for the EU, NATO, and China, in the same way that the monarchism had to eventually bow out. As a cultural/social construct, Russia is working to an outmoded model once again, and will either evolve, adapt, or perish.

It'd be nice if we can avoid a direct conflict with Russia in the meantime...

 Ketara wrote:
Russia, alas, does not have to justify its views to you, or to anyone else

Sure it does. Obviously not to me personally but to the West. And not as a matter of staving off some war, either, as I'm sure you appreciate, but rather to maintain economic relations. Russians are spending money in the West for PR.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.

I don't really expect much from Russians. They live in a tyrannical kleptocracy after all. It's when Americans and Europeans buy this Russian propaganda, that crimes perpetuated by our government somehow balance against those committed by Russia's or that it means American and European citizens have no moral ground on which to stand against Russia's naked imperial aggression, that I start to wonder. And I really do wonder, how people in the US and Europe can really and truly think our nations are morally equivalent to Putin's Russia. It is the worst kind of ignorant inverted-righteousness.

Dear Manchu, I think you may be horribly misinformed about Russia. Sure it has its faults and it is no Scandinavian welfare paradise, but it is far from tyrannical, and with a government actively fighting corruption I would not call it a kleptocracy either. Russia in the 90's was a kleptocracy, but Putin put a very definite (and violent) stop to that. That is not to say corruption is gone in Russia, quite the contrary, but the situation today is a huge improvement over even 5 years ago, let alone the 90's.

And while crimes by the Western governments do not excuse crimes by the Russian government, when one criminal calls the other out on his criminal acts, he is highly unlikely to be taken seriously. Nobody likes hypocrites.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Nobody likes hypocrites.

More like, appeals to hypocrisy convince superficial thinkers. By the way, every tyrant cracks down on corruption as a main priority. It is called, eliminating the competition.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Its an entire hostile alliance of military powers, all united against you and actively trying to absorb more countries on your border.

Again -- Russia either is or is not the USSR. NATO was created to resist Soviet aggression. The quickest way for NATO to cease existing is for Russia to join. If Russia would let go of its imperialistic worldview (which characterized pre-Soviet and Soviet era Moscow) something along these lines would not be impossible.

 Ustrello wrote:
We must protect the ethnic Americans from the Ultra-nationalist fascist Russian government.

And their Nazi puppetmasters in Berlin!

Theres no way in hell that we'd ever let Russia join. A large country like Russia joining would instantly diminish the influence of some of the bigger members like Britain, France and Germany, upsetting the balance.

And as I understand it Russia tried that in the 90's. We ignored their efforts and continued expanding NATO.

Except it has been floated that russia join NATO by NATO members in the past. But russia has shot it down each time with one particular quote "Great powers don't join coalitions, they create coalitions"

Well, the USSR actually asked to join NATO when it was first created, but the Western powers (Well, just the US to be specific) rejected this.

Also, Russia joining NATO is just extremely unrealistic. It is never going to happen unless either NATO or the Russian people change radically.

 Manchu wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Nobody likes hypocrites.

More like, appeals to hypocrisy convince superficial thinkers. By the way, every tyrant cracks down on corruption as a main priority. It is called, eliminating the competition.

Not every tyrant cracks down on corruption, and neither is everyone who cracks down on corruption a tyrant.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.

I don't really expect much from Russians. They live in a tyrannical kleptocracy after all. It's when Americans and Europeans buy this Russian propaganda, that crimes perpetuated by our government somehow balance against those committed by Russia's or that it means American and European citizens have no moral ground on which to stand against Russia's naked imperial aggression, that I start to wonder. And I really do wonder, how people in the US and Europe can really and truly think our nations are morally equivalent to Putin's Russia. It is the worst kind of ignorant inverted-righteousness.

Dear Manchu, I think you may be horribly misinformed about Russia. Sure it has its faults and it is no Scandinavian welfare paradise, but it is far from tyrannical, and with a government actively fighting corruption I would not call it a kleptocracy either. Russia in the 90's was a kleptocracy, but Putin put a very definite (and violent) stop to that. That is not to say corruption is gone in Russia, quite the contrary, but the situation today is a huge improvement over even 5 years ago, let alone the 90's.

And while crimes by the Western governments do not excuse crimes by the Russian government, when one criminal calls the other out on his criminal acts, he is highly unlikely to be taken seriously. Nobody likes hypocrites.

you realize that America and the rest of the Western powers never annexed Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan right? yeah mistakes were made but Russia took it to a whole new extreme by replicating hitlers actions pre WWII.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Not every tyrant cracks down on corruption

Yes they do. Or at least they all say that's what they're doing when they set up show trials for their political enemies, strip them of their wealth (goes where?), and imprison/execute them.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Its an entire hostile alliance of military powers, all united against you and actively trying to absorb more countries on your border.

Again -- Russia either is or is not the USSR. NATO was created to resist Soviet aggression. The quickest way for NATO to cease existing is for Russia to join. If Russia would let go of its imperialistic worldview (which characterized pre-Soviet and Soviet era Moscow) something along these lines would not be impossible.

 Ustrello wrote:
We must protect the ethnic Americans from the Ultra-nationalist fascist Russian government.

And their Nazi puppetmasters in Berlin!

Theres no way in hell that we'd ever let Russia join. A large country like Russia joining would instantly diminish the influence of some of the bigger members like Britain, France and Germany, upsetting the balance.

And as I understand it Russia tried that in the 90's. We ignored their efforts and continued expanding NATO.

Except it has been floated that russia join NATO by NATO members in the past. But russia has shot it down each time with one particular quote "Great powers don't join coalitions, they create coalitions"

Well, the USSR actually asked to join NATO when it was first created, but the Western powers (Well, just the US to be specific) rejected this.

Also, Russia joining NATO is just extremely unrealistic. It is never going to happen unless either NATO or the Russian people change radically.

 Manchu wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Nobody likes hypocrites.

More like, appeals to hypocrisy convince superficial thinkers. By the way, every tyrant cracks down on corruption as a main priority. It is called, eliminating the competition.

Not every tyrant cracks down on corruption, and neither is everyone who cracks down on corruption a tyrant.

They asked in 1954, NATO was formed in 1949. Also showing a willingness ≠ asking for membership, plus Molotov most likely would of used that as a way to disrupt NATO. As shown by forcing America to an observer status and stop the formation of the EDC.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.

I don't really expect much from Russians. They live in a tyrannical kleptocracy after all. It's when Americans and Europeans buy this Russian propaganda, that crimes perpetuated by our government somehow balance against those committed by Russia's or that it means American and European citizens have no moral ground on which to stand against Russia's naked imperial aggression, that I start to wonder. And I really do wonder, how people in the US and Europe can really and truly think our nations are morally equivalent to Putin's Russia. It is the worst kind of ignorant inverted-righteousness.

Dear Manchu, I think you may be horribly misinformed about Russia. Sure it has its faults and it is no Scandinavian welfare paradise, but it is far from tyrannical, and with a government actively fighting corruption I would not call it a kleptocracy either. Russia in the 90's was a kleptocracy, but Putin put a very definite (and violent) stop to that. That is not to say corruption is gone in Russia, quite the contrary, but the situation today is a huge improvement over even 5 years ago, let alone the 90's.

And while crimes by the Western governments do not excuse crimes by the Russian government, when one criminal calls the other out on his criminal acts, he is highly unlikely to be taken seriously. Nobody likes hypocrites.

you realize that America and the rest of the Western powers never annexed Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan right? yeah mistakes were made but Russia took it to a whole new extreme by replicating hitlers actions pre WWII.

Replicating Hitler's actions? Sure... Anyone who annexes a strategically important part of enemy territory is Hitler, right?
Afaik, Putin has not been rounding up Jews or sending political opponents to death camps, so I would be more careful with such comparisons.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.

I don't really expect much from Russians. They live in a tyrannical kleptocracy after all. It's when Americans and Europeans buy this Russian propaganda, that crimes perpetuated by our government somehow balance against those committed by Russia's or that it means American and European citizens have no moral ground on which to stand against Russia's naked imperial aggression, that I start to wonder. And I really do wonder, how people in the US and Europe can really and truly think our nations are morally equivalent to Putin's Russia. It is the worst kind of ignorant inverted-righteousness.

Dear Manchu, I think you may be horribly misinformed about Russia. Sure it has its faults and it is no Scandinavian welfare paradise, but it is far from tyrannical, and with a government actively fighting corruption I would not call it a kleptocracy either. Russia in the 90's was a kleptocracy, but Putin put a very definite (and violent) stop to that. That is not to say corruption is gone in Russia, quite the contrary, but the situation today is a huge improvement over even 5 years ago, let alone the 90's.

And while crimes by the Western governments do not excuse crimes by the Russian government, when one criminal calls the other out on his criminal acts, he is highly unlikely to be taken seriously. Nobody likes hypocrites.

you realize that America and the rest of the Western powers never annexed Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan right? yeah mistakes were made but Russia took it to a whole new extreme by replicating hitlers actions pre WWII.

Replicating Hitler's actions? Sure... Anyone who annexes a strategically important part of enemy territory is Hitler, right?
Afaik, Putin has not been rounding up Jews or sending political opponents to death camps, so I would be more careful with such comparisons.

Just assassinating political rivals

 Ustrello wrote:
Just assassinating political rivals

And managing homophobic pogroms.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Just assassinating political rivals

And managing homophobic pogroms.

Stripping people of their wealth and forcing them into house arrest.

Freeing the ethnic Russians suffering in Crimea.....any of this sounding fething familiar? All we need now is for some ridiculous British PM to make a horribly timed speech about Peace in our Time and we're there.

Oppressing the tartars, letting herr kadryov..I mean kadryov run wild in chechnya

Ustrello wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.

I don't really expect much from Russians. They live in a tyrannical kleptocracy after all. It's when Americans and Europeans buy this Russian propaganda, that crimes perpetuated by our government somehow balance against those committed by Russia's or that it means American and European citizens have no moral ground on which to stand against Russia's naked imperial aggression, that I start to wonder. And I really do wonder, how people in the US and Europe can really and truly think our nations are morally equivalent to Putin's Russia. It is the worst kind of ignorant inverted-righteousness.

Dear Manchu, I think you may be horribly misinformed about Russia. Sure it has its faults and it is no Scandinavian welfare paradise, but it is far from tyrannical, and with a government actively fighting corruption I would not call it a kleptocracy either. Russia in the 90's was a kleptocracy, but Putin put a very definite (and violent) stop to that. That is not to say corruption is gone in Russia, quite the contrary, but the situation today is a huge improvement over even 5 years ago, let alone the 90's.

And while crimes by the Western governments do not excuse crimes by the Russian government, when one criminal calls the other out on his criminal acts, he is highly unlikely to be taken seriously. Nobody likes hypocrites.

you realize that America and the rest of the Western powers never annexed Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan right? yeah mistakes were made but Russia took it to a whole new extreme by replicating hitlers actions pre WWII.

Replicating Hitler's actions? Sure... Anyone who annexes a strategically important part of enemy territory is Hitler, right?
Afaik, Putin has not been rounding up Jews or sending political opponents to death camps, so I would be more careful with such comparisons.

Just assassinating political rivals

When did he do so? The vast majority of Putin's rivals, especially the influential ones, are still alive and kicking.

Manchu wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Just assassinating political rivals

And managing homophobic pogroms.

No such thing happens in Russia. Homosexuals enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals. This so-called 'anti-gay law' only banned public advertising of homosexuality to kids. Homosexuality is still fully legal, as evidenced by the gay clubs in virtually every Russian town.
That is not to say Russia is not homophobic, but that is on the street level. There is no official policy set by Putin that manages the killings of gay people. You are just being ridiculous here.

Ustrello wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Just assassinating political rivals

And managing homophobic pogroms.

Stripping people of their wealth and forcing them into house arrest.

For legitimate crimes. This happens in the West too.

Ghazkuul wrote:Freeing the ethnic Russians suffering in Crimea.....any of this sounding fething familiar? All we need now is for some ridiculous British PM to make a horribly timed speech about Peace in our Time and we're there.

Crimea had nothing to do with the suffering of ethnic Russians. Crimeans had been calling for a Russian annexation ever since they got seperated, but Putin always conveniently ignored them.
The annexation of Crimea was purely out of geopolitical motives

Ustrello wrote:Oppressing the tartars, letting herr kadryov..I mean kadryov run wild in chechnya

Tatars are not opressed at all. Quite the contrary, they are an old and respected element of Russian society. They even got their own republic, and their language and culture etc. enjoys special protection and official status in both Tatarstan and Crimea.
And Kadyrov is only allowed to run wild because quite frankly he is the only thing that keeps Chechnya stable. Kadyrov sure as hell is a lot better than the radical islamic terrorists that came before him.

Also, I am not aware Hitler opressed Tatars or stabilised Chechnya.

Crimeans were not calling for annexation by Russia. Russia citizens who moved to Crimea during the Soviet Union were calling for it. Try again 15 year old.