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.

 Frazzled wrote:
This thread has gone for two pages without discussion of the Swedish Bikini Team.

Because...Sweden is awesome.

(am I the only one who thinks Russian is the scariest language ever? When Grandpa talked to me as a kid in Russkie it sounded like he was threatening to invade a country).

Alternatively, he could have used it to get into Jamie Lee Curtis's pants

It's all in the inflection.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Just to note, even during the Cold War European armies weren't meant to take the war to the Soviets but move into defensive positions and hold out for US reinforcements to arrive. Budgets are going back up after Ukraine and training more heavily emphasizes inter-state warfare again. While still not super prepared, Germany, France and the UK still have sizeable militaries that together are quite significant. Of course Spain, Italy, Poland and other larger European nations aren't that far behind the big European three.

Besides its very likely Europe would join the US if NATO needs so. Afghanistan got all NATO countries afaik to go along even though that was a much less clear cut case of article 5. An invasion of the Baltics, both a NATO and EU member is a slippery slope that can't be so easily ignored as Ukraine sort of is.

The big difference in going to war against terrorists in Afghanistan and going to war against Russia is that the first carries virtually no risk to European countries while the second is likely to result in a total disruption of European society as cities are reduced to rubble and millions of military and civilian lives are lost. European countries are going to be a lot more hesitant (or rather, entirely unwilling, because the notion that countries like Germany or France would ever want to get involved in that is simply ridiculous in the modern world) to joining in a destructive war against Russia than they are to joining in an inconsequential war against terrorists in some far-away place. I think it is likely that European countries would limit themselves to providing logistical support to the US, and that the US would have to do all the fighting. Of course, Poland is the exception. I could see them willing to risk a war if they get enough support from the US.
Luckily, it is unlikely they will have to face this dilemma in the near future, because as I said, Russia is unlikely to invade anything that is garrisoned by US troops. A war with the US is not something the Kremlin is willing to risk yet.

The "yet" part in that statement is why European countries so heartily dislike Russia at the moment. Everyone knows Russia hasn't invaded yet not because it theoretically couldn't, but because the threat of military defeat is too great. Couple that with a history of authoritarianism and it boggles the mind that Russia can't see why most of its European neighbours are sceptical at best.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Just to note, even during the Cold War European armies weren't meant to take the war to the Soviets but move into defensive positions and hold out for US reinforcements to arrive. Budgets are going back up after Ukraine and training more heavily emphasizes inter-state warfare again. While still not super prepared, Germany, France and the UK still have sizeable militaries that together are quite significant. Of course Spain, Italy, Poland and other larger European nations aren't that far behind the big European three.

Besides its very likely Europe would join the US if NATO needs so. Afghanistan got all NATO countries afaik to go along even though that was a much less clear cut case of article 5. An invasion of the Baltics, both a NATO and EU member is a slippery slope that can't be so easily ignored as Ukraine sort of is.

The big difference in going to war against terrorists in Afghanistan and going to war against Russia is that the first carries virtually no risk to European countries while the second is likely to result in a total disruption of European society as cities are reduced to rubble and millions of military and civilian lives are lost. European countries are going to be a lot more hesitant (or rather, entirely unwilling, because the notion that countries like Germany or France would ever want to get involved in that is simply ridiculous in the modern world) to joining in a destructive war against Russia than they are to joining in an inconsequential war against terrorists in some far-away place. I think it is likely that European countries would limit themselves to providing logistical support to the US, and that the US would have to do all the fighting. Of course, Poland is the exception. I could see them willing to risk a war if they get enough support from the US.
Luckily, it is unlikely they will have to face this dilemma in the near future, because as I said, Russia is unlikely to invade anything that is garrisoned by US troops. A war with the US is not something the Kremlin is willing to risk yet.

No, the big difference between Afghanistan and Russia is that Afghanistan poses no risk, but Russia might have you on its shortlist of next victims. Its the security dilemma that falls heavily in favour of teaming up and standing up to the agressor next door.

Afghanistan more being brought up as an invasion of a state in response to a group who's actions led to the invocation of article 5. So the level of support for invading a country halfway around the world, that had only a small part in the responsibility of 9/11 at best, shows European countries try to uphold their commitment even in the vaguest of circumstances.

We have heard all the arguments about unwilling before, hell they even bandied them about before WW2: "Why die for Danzig?". Problem is that letting the Russians 'have' the Baltics so to speak is that it presents the slippery slope of where it will end. Sure Germany might be less excited to intervene, but Poland wouldn't. But once Poland goes it becomes a serious interest to Germany (because if Poland loses suddenly Russia is Germany's next door neighbour again) and so on. Providing logistical support for the whole US army alone would already present a de-facto declaration of war, one that Russia can't ignore as Europe would function as a safe base for the US that the Russians couldn't touch. But it is also in the best geopolitical interest to Europe to make sure the US wins and Russia loses in an invasion of the Baltics situation. The idea of all being in it together disappeared for a while after 1989, but its making a comeback. Thinking Europe would just step aside is a very unrealistic expectation if the wider consequences of not intervening are taken into account.

But I agree on that it won't happen anywhere in the near future. Direct conflict is of no interest to either party. Ukraine is a safe option so to speak, but the Baltics aren't worth it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The "yet" part in that statement is why European countries so heartily dislike Russia at the moment. Everyone knows Russia hasn't invaded yet not because it theoretically couldn't, but because the threat of military defeat is too great. Couple that with a history of authoritarianism and it boggles the mind that Russia can't see why most of its European neighbours are sceptical at best.

Oh, I am pretty sure most Russians perfectly understand why many Europeans don't like them. Certainly the Kremlin does. The feelings are mutual, after all. Russians fear a Western invasion, the West fears a Russian invasion. I guess this has been this way since at least the 19th century:

Interesting cartoon. Europeans are all people while Russia is an animal. And who is the chap on the porch having a wonderful time watching the hostilities supposed to represent?

 feeder wrote:
Interesting cartoon. Europeans are all people while Russia is an animal. And who is the chap on the porch having a wonderful time watching the hostilities supposed to represent?

Based on the flag (Chinese dragon on a yellow field) and the caricature on the porch I would guess Qing dynasty China.

That cartoon is about the Russian attempts to seize parts of Manchuria from Qing China to expand its influence in the East. The other powers are standing between the Russian bear and its target. The original title is "The Latest Chinese Wall", and it's clearly anti-Russian, hence why only Russia is an animal.

In the end, the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05 was fought largely as a result of both countries having an interest in Manchuria. Japan won, which ended the Russian ambitions depicted in the cartoon for the time being.

 Frazzled wrote:
This thread has gone for two pages without discussion of the Swedish Bikini Team.

Because...Sweden is awesome.

(am I the only one who thinks Russian is the scariest language ever? When Grandpa talked to me as a kid in Russkie it sounded like he was threatening to invade a country).

try hungarian, ....and as for sweden, IKEA is a reason to invade, to halt it once and for all!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Russia is not the Soviet Union anymore which wanted to spread the World Revolution across Europe. The Russian Federation has zero interest in any parts of Europe that are not former parts of Russia/USSR.

Uhh, no.

Please explain your in-depth knowledge of Russia's plans for world domination.

Anna Kournikova...thats pretty much it,.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The "yet" part in that statement is why European countries so heartily dislike Russia at the moment. Everyone knows Russia hasn't invaded yet not because it theoretically couldn't, but because the threat of military defeat is too great. Couple that with a history of authoritarianism and it boggles the mind that Russia can't see why most of its European neighbours are sceptical at best.

Oh, I am pretty sure most Russians perfectly understand why many Europeans don't like them. Certainly the Kremlin does. The feelings are mutual, after all. Russians fear a Western invasion, the West fears a Russian invasion. I guess this has been this way since at least the 19th century:

maybe because russia is rarely the one who starts the fight??

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The "yet" part in that statement is why European countries so heartily dislike Russia at the moment. Everyone knows Russia hasn't invaded yet not because it theoretically couldn't, but because the threat of military defeat is too great. Couple that with a history of authoritarianism and it boggles the mind that Russia can't see why most of its European neighbours are sceptical at best.

Oh, I am pretty sure most Russians perfectly understand why many Europeans don't like them. Certainly the Kremlin does. The feelings are mutual, after all. Russians fear a Western invasion, the West fears a Russian invasion. I guess this has been this way since at least the 19th century:

maybe because russia is rarely the one who starts the fight??

 djones520 wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:
I could see EU/US be willing to sacrifice the baltic states, but I dont think a Germany led EU would be willing to sacrifice Denmark as that would give them a land border with a (in this scenario) super-aggressive Russia

The US has a not insignificant amount of forces stationed in the Baltic States right now (FYI, apparently they find being called the Baltic States offensive). I don't think we tend to place our troops in harms way for area's we're willing to sacrifice.

So do a rotating contingent of other NATO armies.

Plus we're running their air policing, too (currently it's Italian typhoons, who took over a couple weeks ago from Belgian F-16s).

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Your stance surprises me, because having talked to Russians about the very subject, the people tend to view Russia's 'strong' actions on the world stage very favorable. Compared to the traditional American stance, Russians seem to take pride in the power their country can exert. They certainly have a more favorable view of the Syrian war than Americans do. Likewise it's hard to find anyone who feels like Russia shouldn't take the entrity of the Ukraine or Georgia just to demonstrate how much you shouldn't mess with their country.

They do. Russia a very militaristic place. A lot of Russians are great fans of having the Russian army invade places just to show everyone who is boss. But most Russians also understand that this kind of behaviour doesn't really make other people like them. Not that they care about being disliked of course. Most Russians tend to dislike many other countries as well, for various reasons.
It does vary from place to place though. Muscovites for example are (relatively speaking) very liberal and cosmopolitan, while the place where I grew up, Sevastopol, is probably one of the most xenophobic, hardcore nationalist places in all of Russia. Seriously, when the referendum happened, people started to go out in the streets to beat up Tatars and Ukrainians. I am ambivalent towards Russian nationalism. One one hand I I love Russia and want to see it restored to greatness, I take pride in displays of Russian strength. But on the other hand I am really frightened by the more extreme things that happened in Crimea and how quickly nationalism of any kind can devolve to extremism and hate of others. I am half Dutch and have lived in the West for more than half of my life. What if once they are done with the Tatars they decide that I am 'foreign' too and come after me next? (okay, that may not be entirely likely, but you get the point.)

 Iron_Captain wrote:

They do. Russia a very militaristic place. A lot of Russians are great fans of having the Russian army invade places just to show everyone who is boss. But most Russians also understand that this kind of behaviour doesn't really make other people like them. Not that they care about being disliked of course. Most Russians tend to dislike many other countries as well, for various reasons.
It does vary from place to place though. Muscovites for example are (relatively speaking) very liberal and cosmopolitan,

So much that they look down on people from "lesser" parts of Russia to the point of racism. God forbid if you look too Asian or from the Caucasus.

I know urban elitism is a thing in all major cities, but Moscow takes the prize.

jouso wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

They do. Russia a very militaristic place. A lot of Russians are great fans of having the Russian army invade places just to show everyone who is boss. But most Russians also understand that this kind of behaviour doesn't really make other people like them. Not that they care about being disliked of course. Most Russians tend to dislike many other countries as well, for various reasons.
It does vary from place to place though. Muscovites for example are (relatively speaking) very liberal and cosmopolitan,

So much that they look down on people from "lesser" parts of Russia to the point of racism. God forbid if you look too Asian or from the Caucasus.

I know urban elitism is a thing in all major cities, but Moscow takes the prize.

Looking down on people from other parts of Russia is not limited to Muscovites though. And it should be noted that Muscovites themselves are looked down upon in most of the rest of the country. Really, it is kinda a miracle that Russia ever managed to become and stay a unified country. Which is why we need a strong leader like Putin to keep it that way.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Really, it is kinda a miracle that Russia ever managed to become and stay a unified country.

Looking down on those hicks with the funny accent is OK but openly hating foreigners is the real thing.

 Frazzled wrote:
This thread has gone for two pages without discussion of the Swedish Bikini Team.

Because...Sweden is awesome.

(am I the only one who thinks Russian is the scariest language ever? When Grandpa talked to me as a kid in Russkie it sounded like he was threatening to invade a country).

IDK. I've always thought that anything in translated into German inherently suddenly becomes much more sinister sounding

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The "yet" part in that statement is why European countries so heartily dislike Russia at the moment. Everyone knows Russia hasn't invaded yet not because it theoretically couldn't, but because the threat of military defeat is too great. Couple that with a history of authoritarianism and it boggles the mind that Russia can't see why most of its European neighbours are sceptical at best.

Oh, I am pretty sure most Russians perfectly understand why many Europeans don't like them. Certainly the Kremlin does. The feelings are mutual, after all. Russians fear a Western invasion, the West fears a Russian invasion. I guess this has been this way since at least the 19th century:

maybe because russia is rarely the one who starts the fight??

Russia did start that one - not that there were [sarcasm]any problems[/sarcasm] stemming from imperial Japan's involvement that would come back to bite the world in the nether regions later.

Your stance surprises me, because having talked to Russians about the very subject, the people tend to view Russia's 'strong' actions on the world stage very favorable. Compared to the traditional American stance, Russians seem to take pride in the power their country can exert. They certainly have a more favorable view of the Syrian war than Americans do. Likewise it's hard to find anyone who feels like Russia shouldn't take the entrity of the Ukraine or Georgia just to demonstrate how much you shouldn't mess with their country.

The Russians are tired of being "proud" of tanks, bombs and guns. Yes, this is a return of strength after the collapse of the 90s. But weapons must serve the people, not the oligarchs. What is the use of saber rattling, if this does not help improve your their life? People's thoughts are too confused by the lack of ideology. We are celebrating the victory parade. But we condemn Stalin's time, planned economic system and bolshevism. We officially have a government that destroyed old one with the tanks in 1993. On November 7 in Moscow, we had a parade in honor of the parade that was in 1941. But it can not be called a parade in honor of the 1917 revolution. This is hushed up. Parade in honor of parade? Pfff... It turns out that pieces of our history are torn out. Putin talks about patriotism. But why patriotism, if the government does not provide its functions properly and life is more like an under occupation?
Well, only fools and fascists in such conditions will rejoice if Russia openly yearns for war with someone just for the sake of war.
Of course, with the exception of efforts to oppose the NATO bases surrounding it and countries influenced by the Russophobic US policy which specifically provoke conflict.

 thekingofkings wrote:
Lots of Russians have differing opinions, there are well over 100 million of them. But the Issues in China were not caused by Russia. Europeans had been carving it up for quite a while, so had the US. Something about that cartoon, there is a reason all those other soldiers were there facing the bear, and it was not out of any compassion for China. The Russo-Japanese war was just waiting to happen, unfortunately for Russia it was not at a really optimal time, and its duration was short enough for Japan to win. Throughout its history Russia has been invaded more often by its neighbors than the other way around. I have no love for Russia or its people, but I do respect them, they are proud and rightly so.

To be fair, the decades before and after the Russo-Japanese war weren't optimal either. Russia sort of underwent its own 'sick man of Europe' phase due to the lack of modernization/industrialisation for such war efforts. On that note even if the war had lasted longer its unlikely Russia would have won from Japan. The war was virtually next door to Japan while Russia had to transport everything over the Trans-Siberian railroad. Now the Japanese war effort was far from perfect, but it would have taken some effort for them to make themselves lose. Both sides were pretty overstretched by the end of the conflict, but Russia was in no position to really make a comeback in 1905 (kind of reflected in WW1). In fact, the Tsar even prolonged the war for just long enough to suffer some more heavy defeats.

Also has been invaded more often by its neighbors than the other way around? What period are you thinking of? Or just from roughly the Muscovy period? Because taken from Tsarist Russia the number of invasions versus being invaded are pretty even.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
The Russians are tired of being "proud" of tanks, bombs and guns. Yes, this is a return of strength after the collapse of the 90s. But weapons must serve the people, not the oligarchs. What is the use of saber rattling, if this does not help improve your their life?

But sadly that saber rattling (and occasional military interventions) is what you're being offered. Soviet military hardware is nothing if not durable so the great leaders can easily use some of it in a foreign land to make the people forget that there's stuff to fix at home. That fixing would cost real cash though, not Soviet Rubles. It's cheaper to get involved in a little foreign conflict compared to giving war veteran widows a jar of salted gherkins each month.

It's even sadder when you live next door and actually meet ordinary Russians who happen to work here or own a little summer place. Generous, helpful and polite people, to my knowledge, even if my Russian language is non-existent. Fine people put to shame by leaders needing to show power by causing troubles in poorer neighboring countries, to put it politely. We all would be better off if Russia was run well, especially the poor Russians who have to put up with all the mismanagement! It could use it's power so much better than wasting men and gear on silly border conflicts, but the leaders saw a greater benefit (for them) in making a show of force of the great Russian Empire! And yet almost all of the former USSR republics and Warsaw Pact members still have reason to work with Russia in some way - why not make that way interesting and worth doing instead of showing muscles and forcing them? Who knows how great chiefs in Kremlin think...

Spetulhu wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:
The Russians are tired of being "proud" of tanks, bombs and guns. Yes, this is a return of strength after the collapse of the 90s. But weapons must serve the people, not the oligarchs. What is the use of saber rattling, if this does not help improve your their life?

But sadly that saber rattling (and occasional military interventions) is what you're being offered. Soviet military hardware is nothing if not durable so the great leaders can easily use some of it in a foreign land to make the people forget that there's stuff to fix at home. That fixing would cost real cash though, not Soviet Rubles. It's cheaper to get involved in a little foreign conflict compared to giving war veteran widows a jar of salted gherkins each month.

It's even sadder when you live next door and actually meet ordinary Russians who happen to work here or own a little summer place. Generous, helpful and polite people, to my knowledge, even if my Russian language is non-existent. Fine people put to shame by leaders needing to show power by causing troubles in poorer neighboring countries, to put it politely. We all would be better off if Russia was run well, especially the poor Russians who have to put up with all the mismanagement! It could use it's power so much better than wasting men and gear on silly border conflicts, but the leaders saw a greater benefit (for them) in making a show of force of the great Russian Empire! And yet almost all of the former USSR republics and Warsaw Pact members still have reason to work with Russia in some way - why not make that way interesting and worth doing instead of showing muscles and forcing them? Who knows how great chiefs in Kremlin think...

Sadly enough, Russia would need to fundamentally change before that can become reality. Russia has never been run well, it has been focused on military might ever since a nice Muscovite called Ivan Grozny tore down the Veche bell of Novgorod, symbol of participatory government and legal rights, to establish a ruthless, hegemonic empire based on conquest (he also massacred the entire city). Many Russian leaders have come and gone, empires have risen and fallen, but the basic nature of Russian government has never changed since that time. And the ordinary people? Well, the vast majority of Russians approve of their leaders. Putin is the most popular leader in Russian history... They say every nation gets the government it deserves, and I am afraid for Russia that is true. As my grandfater always said: "Kiryushka! Can you believe it? The whole country is going to hell! We are a strong people! Strong people need strong leaders!" after which he would inevitably go in a long rant about how kids like me don't get disciplined enough anymore. Great man he was...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:
The Russians are tired of being "proud" of tanks, bombs and guns. Yes, this is a return of strength after the collapse of the 90s. But weapons must serve the people, not the oligarchs. What is the use of saber rattling, if this does not help improve your their life?

But sadly that saber rattling (and occasional military interventions) is what you're being offered. Soviet military hardware is nothing if not durable so the great leaders can easily use some of it in a foreign land to make the people forget that there's stuff to fix at home. That fixing would cost real cash though, not Soviet Rubles. It's cheaper to get involved in a little foreign conflict compared to giving war veteran widows a jar of salted gherkins each month.

It's even sadder when you live next door and actually meet ordinary Russians who happen to work here or own a little summer place. Generous, helpful and polite people, to my knowledge, even if my Russian language is non-existent. Fine people put to shame by leaders needing to show power by causing troubles in poorer neighboring countries, to put it politely. We all would be better off if Russia was run well, especially the poor Russians who have to put up with all the mismanagement! It could use it's power so much better than wasting men and gear on silly border conflicts, but the leaders saw a greater benefit (for them) in making a show of force of the great Russian Empire! And yet almost all of the former USSR republics and Warsaw Pact members still have reason to work with Russia in some way - why not make that way interesting and worth doing instead of showing muscles and forcing them? Who knows how great chiefs in Kremlin think...

Sadly enough, Russia would need to fundamentally change before that can become reality. Russia has never been run well, it has been focused on military might ever since a nice Muscovite called Ivan Grozny tore down the Veche bell of Novgorod, symbol of participatory government and legal rights, to establish a ruthless, hegemonic empire based on conquest (he also massacred the entire city). Many Russian leaders have come and gone, empires have risen and fallen, but the basic nature of Russian government has never changed since that time. And the ordinary people? Well, the vast majority of Russians approve of their leaders. Putin is the most popular leader in Russian history... They say every nation gets the government it deserves, and I am afraid for Russia that is true. As my grandfater always said: "Kiryushka! Can you believe it? The whole country is going to hell! We are a strong people! Strong people need strong leaders!" after which he would inevitably go in a long rant about how kids like me don't get disciplined enough anymore. Great man he was...

I like him already.

I think Putin is not a very strong leader. In words, he says one thing, but does something else. He's a shield between the various forces outside and inside, which he holds back and does not let him clash with each other.
In order to be strong, he lacks a clear political line. It is blurred, his actions are not predictable. Censorship and the creation of the Russian Guard say that he is preparing for something.
A strong politician must have allies. Now everyone around is angry. In response - Swaying weapons and anti-American demagoguery. And did not the Russian government destroy its country, its heritage, destroy its army, its idea and principles, and give the Americans their allies, territories before that? What can Russia offer to other countries now? Nothing. What did Putin do in 15 years? Nothing.
World media is completely lost and controlled from America. They can say anything, and this is immediately perceived as truth. Attempts to show another point of view or refutation are called as "fake from Kremlin bots". Obviously, the exercises in Sweden are preparations for a fictional Russian invasion. The reason is not required. In media, Russia is already so blackened that it is already perceived as an "evil" of legends that does not require the motivation of its actions. It is obvious that in a hypothetical conflict, Sweden will be used by NATO. And if there is Sweden, Sweden also uses Finland.

Let's keep "America is in control of everything convincing the world Russia are evilx10000000" posts to a minimum. Or better yet, to 0. This thread is already a trainwreck of random ramblings about whether or not Russia is going to invade and I'm tempted to close it, don't tip my hand.

I think you might have to define 'strong' too. Its fairly easy to be a dictator. Anyone who is ruthless and doesn't care about people can be one. Lock up opposition, censor the media, etc etc, all easy to do if you lack morality.

Being strong is able to face criticism. Be open about your successes and failures, air the dirty laundry so to speak. Allow others to suggest, and even replace you, and for you to go gracefully. That is a strong person.

So no, Putin is not a strong person. He is as frail and weak of a person as he looks.

Some people seem to admire him. I do not. I admire those like Washington who could have very well been our first King, but never forgot what he was fighting for, and turned his sword into Congress.

On the other hand, Putin is so corrupt that he HAS to remain in office for his own well being. God forbid a more liberal leader were to come into power and review what Putin has stolen from his country, Putin's ass would probably end up in jail. He knows this. The Chinese communist party knew this during the Tiananmen Square riots, and the fear of themselves being arrested is why they sent in the troops. Decisions like these do not show a strong individual, but a fearful one.

Frail and weak people do not become head of the secret services and leader of Russia. Navigating the byzantine labyrinth of Russian politics to reach the top requires a very strong person. The system automatically weeds out the weak. It is a system in which you simply can not admit failure. To do so would be suicide.

Then he is a slave to the system.

It is far easier to dismiss someone's life with a wave of a hand than it is to opening debate the pros and cons of your decisions. Putin takes the easy one.

KTG17 wrote:
I think you might have to define 'strong' too. Its fairly easy to be a dictator. Anyone who is ruthless and doesn't care about people can be one. Lock up opposition, censor the media, etc etc, all easy to do if you lack morality.

Being strong is able to face criticism. Be open about your successes and failures, air the dirty laundry so to speak. Allow others to suggest, and even replace you, and for you to go gracefully. That is a strong person.

So no, Putin is not a strong person. He is as frail and weak of a person as he looks.

Some people seem to admire him. I do not. I admire those like Washington who could have very well been our first King, but never forgot what he was fighting for, and turned his sword into Congress.

On the other hand, Putin is so corrupt that he HAS to remain in office for his own well being. God forbid a more liberal leader were to come into power and review what Putin has stolen from his country, Putin's ass would probably end up in jail.

You perfectly described Donald Trump with your post.

You are saying if Trump had he freedom to do as he chose? I guess we can speculate.

its a good thing the US public is strong enough to ensure presidents don't have that power.

I guess that also says something about Russia.

Saw a story today about how Russia has outlawed the only real candidate against Putin from running. How... quaint.