Vladimir Putin wants to annex country's who belonged to the soviet union.

**Mary The Quene** · March 31, 2014, 01:43 PM

A former advisor to Vladimir Putin has said after the annexation of Crimea, the Russian president will not stop until he's conquered Belarus, the Baltic states and Finland.Andrej Illarionov, Putin's chief economic adviser from 2000 to 2005, said claims theultimate aim is return to the days of Tsar, Nicholas II, and the Soviet Union under Stalin.
Speaking to the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, he said: "Putin’s view is that he protects what belongs to him and his predecessors.
"Parts of Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States and Finland are states where Putin claims to have ownership.
"The West’s leaders seem, from what they say, entirely to have forgotten that there are some leaders in the world who want to conquer other countries."
Dagbladet says Russia will claim the granting of independence to Finland in 1917 was an act of “treason against national interests".
As Finland is not a member of Nato, any attack on the country by Russia would not automatically trigger a military response from the group.
Dagbladet added: "It is not on Putin's agenda today or tomorrow.
"But if Putin is not stopped, the issue will be brought sooner or later. Putin has said several times that the Bolsheviks and Communists made big mistakes. He could well say that the Bolsheviks in 1917 committed treason against Russian national interests by granting Finland's independence.
"We must offer resistance by all means available."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014...n_5058483.html

**YuriVII** · March 31, 2014, 01:52 PM

Scaremongering. Mr. Illarionov has a grudge and now works for American CATO Institute in Washington DC. He crossed the line from dissident to traitor the second he took that job.

**Roma_Victrix** · March 31, 2014, 01:52 PM

Sorry, but that's a load of BS. Finland, although not a part of NATO, is still part of the European Union. As specifically stated in the Lisbon agreement back in 2009, European Union countries are obliged to offer each other mutual defense in the event of a foreign military attack, especially an outright invasion. And for that matter, the Baltic states of Lithuania, Lativia, and Estonia are NATO members who the US would come to defend in such an event.

I think Pooty-poot (as George W. Bush affectionally called Vladimir Putin) isn't insane enough to kick off WWIII with virtually the rest of Europe minus Belarus against him. Hell, I don't think he's insane at all; I think he knows how to play the political game. On a chessboard, Russia invading Finland is like giving up his queen at the beginning of the match, and invading the Baltic states is like handing your opponent your king piece on the first move.

**conon394** · March 31, 2014, 02:04 PM

Well the words of a Former adviser are a bit - thin - shall we say.

Look the Ukraine is in free fall and Crimea was an easy very low hanging fruit. It makes Putin look strong, he knows that the NATO cavalry won't come so why not. Plus it is not an obvious line to far that might discomfort China. But really Annexing NATO/EU or EU states hardly unless the price of gas and oil fall dramatically Putin has no worries and he needs time to digest the fall out from the Ukraine. Poland has already on a military spending spree and has revived a brigade w/Ukraine and lots of countries are building LGN terminals...

Unless Putin really has some need I'm just not seeing - purge or something - I just don't see any move but to wind down this show.

**Condottiere 40K** · March 31, 2014, 02:08 PM

I thought I heard that Crimea will cost the Russian tax payer twenty billion bucks, assuming Putin decides to keep Crimeans sweet by investing in their industries and refurbishing the infrastructure.

He's welcome to Belarus.

**Love Mountain** · March 31, 2014, 02:42 PM

This is why I dont take Huff seriously.

**Mary The Quene** · March 31, 2014, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Sukiyama

This is why I dont take Huff seriously.

lol it's not only huff who wrote This man

**Love Mountain** · March 31, 2014, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Helius

lol it's not only huff who wrote This man

Okay. I still dont take Huff seriously, but to address this article. I think it's ridiculous. We have seen some outlandish things done by Russia in the last few years, but nothing near what the article suggests. It's a massive hyperbole and to paint Putin as a Tsar wanna-be is stretching it by a few miles. Putin doesnt want land, he wants influence.

**caratacus** · March 31, 2014, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Sukiyama

Okay. I still dont take Huff seriously, but to address this article. I think it's ridiculous. We have seen some outlandish things done by Russia in the last few years, but nothing near what the article suggests. It's a massive hyperbole and to paint Putin as a Tsar wanna-be is stretching it by a few miles. Putin doesnt want land, he wants influence.

He had influence with Western nations he lost that after the Crimean annexation, at least in the public eye. What he does want is greater popularity with the Rusian people, which he has been losing of late. And portraying himself as the protector of Russians from radical and hostile elements, is bound to win points at home.

Although everybody is focussed on what Putin has lined up next. I'm wondering whether the greater ties to the West by Ukraine will subsequently have a knock on effect in neighbouring Belarus and spark similar demands for democratization and reform. It seems a state nobody is talking about and yet it has a long border with Ukraine and very close links to Russia.

"On 27 May 2008, Belarusian President Lukashenko said that he had named Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin the "prime minister" of the Russia-Belarus alliance. The significance of this act was not immediately clear; some incorrectly speculated that Putin would become president of a unified state of Russia and Belarus after stepping down as Russian president in May 2008" -Wikipedia

**~~AgentGB~~** · March 31, 2014, 02:58 PM

Not sure how you bunch of putin apologist can debunk a fromer advisor to Putin so easily. A close advisor that worked with Putin, is not to be passed up so quickly. It may not happen right away, but there nothing wrong with paying atention to it.

Here was an earlier thread on Ukraine, with similar responses to yourselves, of it will never happen. From 2008
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...nvaded-Ukraine

Here a another Russian defectie, which show it could be a plan long in the making, using special war.

(on russian special war, very well sourced, with lots of detailing events from history)
http://www.businessinsider.com/russi...ocation-2014-3

How to brain wash a nation. Former KGB agent

So perhaps not everything is far fetched, and it may be for the best to remain on our guard.

**Love Mountain** · March 31, 2014, 03:00 PM

Perhaps not everything is a conspiracy. You guys watch too many epics.

**~~AgentGB~~** · March 31, 2014, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Sukiyama

Perhaps not everything is a conspiracy. You guys watch too many epics.

That's a bit rich, the Kremlin obviously dosen't share your view, or they would not have accused the west of instigating the riots in ukraine through "special war"

It far less costly to conduct warfare or the taking of a country in this method, then outright frontal assault invasions. So why the hell not?

**Love Mountain** · March 31, 2014, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by AgentGB

That's a bit rich, the Kremlin obviously dosen't share your view, or they would not have accused the west of instigating the riots in ukraine through "special war"

It far less costly to conduct warfare or the taking of a country in this method, then outright frontal assault invasions. So why the hell not?

Maybe because they dont play Rome Total War? What is the objective of Russian Warmongering? Crimea and Eastern Ukraine can be explained by geopolitics, strategy, and demographics. Baltic and Finland? A thoroughly anti Russian region with a Russian minority that's unlikely to want to join Russia? Unlike Ukraine, much of Eastern and Northern Europe has a bright future and a positive outlook. Not to mention, fewer resources worth getting sanctions over. So pray tell me what motivations would be behind a massive conquest campaign.

**~~AgentGB~~** · March 31, 2014, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Sukiyama

Maybe because they dont play Rome Total War? What is the objective of Russian Warmongering? Crimea and Eastern Ukraine can be explained by geopolitics, strategy, and demographics. Baltic and Finland? A thoroughly anti Russian region with a Russian minority that's unlikely to want to join Russia? Unlike Ukraine, much of Eastern and Northern Europe has a bright future and a positive outlook. Not to mention, fewer resources worth getting sanctions over. So pray tell me what motivations would be behind a massive conquest campaign.

sigh...

Lativa & Estonia have expressed concern over Russia mild threats stated that russia ethic speakers were under threat in such areas, the same situation that led to the invasion of crimea.

The Baltic states are now working together with poland, using there military to help strengthren there borders and combat any said invasion.

The problem is "Trojan Horse" no civilized nation would set there army upon rioting civilians, that can potentially over throw a goverment, like what we saw in Kiev & Crimea, and varies admin buildings across Ukraine, making it very easy for said army to walk in behind claiming to be intervening/peace keeping etc. From a outside country claiming to be protecting ethics living within the region.

The west is playing total war, Putin is playing paradox games. Anyway, im not getting into a spiral debate with you like you do with Snuggins. That detracts from the orignal point of the OP, or the nifty post on this first page by me, with substantial sources backing up the OP.

**Love Mountain** · March 31, 2014, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by AgentGB

sigh...

Lativa & Estonia have expressed concern over Russia mild threats stated that russia ethic speakers were under threat in such areas, the same situation that led to the invasion of crimea.

The Baltic states are now working together with poland, using there military to help strengthren there borders and combat any said invasion.

That's great. Eastern Europe integration is good news. Hopefully the Baltic and Poland can form strong economic and social ties. Greater regional integration is a win-win all around.

The problem is "Trojan Horse" no civilized nation would set there army upon rioting civilians, that can potentially over throw a goverment, like what we saw in Kiev & Crimea, and varies admin buildings across Ukraine, making it very easy for said army to walk in behind claiming to be intervening/peace keeping etc. From a outside country claiming to be protecting ethics living within the region.

The west is playing total war, Putin is playing paradox games. Anyway, im not getting into a spiral debate with you like you do with Snuggins. That detracts from the orignal point of the OP, or the nifty post on this first page by me, with substantial sources backing up the OP.

I don't play spiral debates with snuggans. I'm not going to comment on my conversations with him other than reminding everyone how extreme his Anti-Russian bias is. I'm not questioning whether Russia can do it. I am questioning why. Why would Putin want to re-create an empire composed of people that hate it? Everything Putin has done points to two things. He values Russia's territorial integrity, and he values Russian interests. This has been consistent with all of his actions. Kuril Islands, Chechnya, South Ossetia, Transnistria, and Crimea. Russians in the Baltic are unlikely to want to join Russia, not to mention that they are unlikely to be oppressed. There is fierce anti-Russian sentiment in the area but not to the point of polarization.

Originally Posted by caratacus

He had influence with Western nations he lost that after the Crimean annexation, at least in the public eye. What he does want is greater popularity with the Rusian people, which he has been losing of late. And portraying himself as the protector of Russians from radical and hostile elements, is bound to win points at home.

This has only served to detract many Russians away from Putin. My father, who's fiercely anti-Putin, agrees that Crimea is probably better off with Russia, while calling Putin bat-

insane. Russians haven't forgotten Georgia and Putin hasn't increased his popularity a whole lot. Russians tolerate Putin because they see him as a source of stability, with many still remembering the disastrous Yeltsin years. The more Putin acts like a maniac, the more people will hate him for it. Just because pro-Putin crowds make the most noise it doesn't mean that Putin's getting more popular.

Although everybody is focussed on what Putin has lined up next. I'm wondering whether the greater ties to the West by Ukraine will subsequently have a knock on effect in neighbouring Belarus and spark similar demands for democratization and reform. It seems a state nobody is talking about and yet it has a long border with Ukraine and very close links to Russia.

Maybe, but I doubt it. Ukraine was a den. Most Belorussians are probably wary of the violence that follow the revolution. This is just my opinion though, I have no idea about the situation in Belarus and their view on all this.

"On 27 May 2008, Belarusian President Lukashenko said that he had named Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin the "prime minister" of the Russia-Belarus alliance. The significance of this act was not immediately clear; some incorrectly speculated that Putin would become president of a unified state of Russia and Belarus after stepping down as Russian president in May 2008" -Wikipedia

Lol.