Putin would not be alive without western cancer treatment

Status
Not open for further replies.
gpmj12

gpmj12

Active member
Vladimir Putin has reportedly been receiving Western treatment for his cancer to be able to continue directing his troops in the Ukraine war.

It’s been claimed the Russian leader, who turned 70 years old more than two months ago, is fighting both pancreatic and prostate cancer, as well as Parkinson’s disease.

His supposed health battle has been the central focus of his public appearances, with President Putin seen at times uncontrollably shaking, twitching and fidgeting.

Russian historian and analyst Valery Solovey believes Western medicine is allegedly being used to slow the spread of cancer and prolong President Putin’s life.

“I can say that without (foreign) treatment he would definitely not have been in the public life in the Russian Federation,” he said to Ukraine media.

“He uses the most advance treatments (and) target therapy which Russian cannot provide him with.”

Mr Solovey believes the medical care President Putin has received is not available in Russia and added the treatment was “too successful”.

But he noted “the end is already in sight, even according to the doctors who are curating this treatment” as medicine could only help for so long.

A leaked email citing Kremlin sources in November claimed the Russian strongman was in the early stages of Parkinson’s and battling two types of cancer.

The security services insider said the health battle would be denied in “every possible way and hidden”, according to The Sun who viewed the messages.

“Putin is regularly stuffed with all kinds of heavy steroids and innovative painkilling injections to stop the spread of pancreatic cancer,” the person said.

“It not only causes a lot of pain, Putin has a state of puffiness of the face and other side effects - including memory lapses.”

It was also reported the Russian leader had fallen down a flight of stairs and soiled himself earlier this month, a claim his office argued was “completely untrue”.

Mr Solovey also claimed 2023 would likely be President Putin’s final year in power before he voluntarily steps down or is forced to hand the reigns to someone else.

He suggested the likely successor would be little-known Russian Agriculture Minister Dmitry Patrushev, 45, son of his trusted security aide Nikolai Patrushev.

“Yes, it will. On top of that, it might happen as soon as the spring,” the historian and analyst told a YouTube channel.

"Putin is now having his last chance, I would say.

“If he doesn’t make use of it, the elites will not only turn away from him for good… they will turn into action.”

It comes after the Russian strongman declared in a new interview he was “ready to negotiate” with all parties about potential “solutions” to end the Ukraine war conflict.

“We are ready to negotiate with everyone involved about acceptable solutions, but that is up to them - we are not the ones refusing to negotiate, they are,” he said blaming the West in a Rossiya 1 state television interview aired on Christmas Day.

The Russian leader doubled down on his decision to invade the neighbouring country as he believed the US was trying to split Moscow apart.

 
I’m reminded here of how both Lenin and Stalin were done in by health problems, and Lenin was a fairly young man when he died.

I pray that Putin will recover from his afflictions, and will find a way in all of this, to do the right thing and stop that horrible war. I understand why Russia would feel threatened by an independent Ukraine on their border that they cannot control — it would be something like, mutatis mutandis, Texas seceding from the United States and developing close ties with Russia or China — but an offensive war isn’t the answer, least of all when innocent civilians are killed indiscriminately. It has to stop.
 
Last edited:
Yes divine intervention and a metanoia of some sort on Putin’s part would be the most ideal outcome.

I don’t understand the sentiment though that Russia is somehow justified against an 'independent Ukraine?? What do you mean by that?
 
I don’t mean that Russia is justified in making war against Ukraine. I simply mean that Russia is justified in having concerns that Ukraine — which has historic ties to Russia going back over a thousand years — is cozying up to the West, and if Ukraine had her wishes, would even be a member of NATO and the European Union. Russia has historically been dead-set against having adversarial powers on her borders, to the extent that she can prevent it, indeed, everything west of China (about which Russia can do nothing) was taken in by the USSR to provide a phalanx of countries to keep Russia from being bordered by adversaries, a cordon sanitaire of sorts. This is echoed in Mackinder’s theory of the “heartland” and the “world island”.

Russia doesn’t want adversaries on her doorstep any more than any other country would. The US has only Canada and Mexico, and aside from a leaky southern border across which people in search of a better life come, you couldn’t ask for two better neighbors. Poland, on the other hand, had Germany and Russia. That wasn’t always too pleasant.
 
Last edited:
It’s a fact of life that people, neighbours, states, countries have opposing cultures and ideologies to deal with. The Christian and frankly, civilised response to that fact, is why borders exist. Borders are a sign of respect in an environment of freedom and peace.

Are you or are you not supporting a different ideology of unprovoked cross border usurping to resolve what borders have already resolved?
 
I am not supporting such a thing, and I thought this was clear from my comments. “Having concerns” such as I described is not the same thing as crossing the border of a perceived adversary and engaging in acts of war. Fortifying that border and having military installations in place to protect the homeland from invasion is totally within the rights of any sovereign nation. If Russia had done that and only that, I would not have a problem in the world with it. I have a huge problem with what Putin has done.
 
Your basic empathy with Putin is revolting. He doesn’t represent the Russian people and is objectively a sociopath with all the consequent attributes. A liar, a manipulator, a deceiver, con artist.

For example in February here is what his spokesman said on 20 February…

Russia has no plans of any “invasion” of Ukraine and is not implementing it now, Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov said in an interview with CBS.

“There are no such plans,” he said.

“The leadership of our country has repeatedly declared and continues to declare its readiness to continue solving outstanding problems through diplomacy. <…> Every state has the right to protect its territory and borders. The Russian Federation, the United States, or any other country is no exception. Russian troops are on our sovereign territory. We don’t threaten anyone. Why do other countries try to dictate to us where can we deploy our troops and how many. I would like to emphasize once again that this is our own territory. Can one even imagine that Russia will demand the U.S. not to deploy its troops in Alaska or Florida? I am sure that such a requirement would be unacceptable for the United States.,” he said.

Three days later on February 24, Putin launches a large scale invasion of Ukraine.

How do you interpret that with an empathetic feeling for Putin?
 
Last edited:
gpmj12 said:
Your basic empathy with Putin is revolting. He doesn’t represent the Russian people and is objectively a sociopath with all the consequent attributes. A liar, a manipulator, a deceiver, con artist.
Click to expand...
How you are interpreting my defense of a country having concerns over a potential adversary on its border, as a “basic empathy with Putin” (your assessment of him is the same as mine), is beyond me. Russia has similar concerns over being bordered by the three Baltic states that are now members of NATO, with Finland soon to follow. Russia would have those concerns no matter whom the leader might be — any country in her circumstances would, again, imagine an independent Texas allied with Russia or China (or even North Korea for that matter), and what the concerns of the US would be. Ditto for a New Zealand armed with Chinese, Russian, or DPRK missiles, and what Australia would think of that, to use a somewhat looser hypothetical example (several hundred miles of water as opposed to a line on a map).
 
I’m reminded of Isaiah 5 21

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

You comment with empathy about what Russia under Putin experiences…
HomeschoolDad said:
Fortifying that border and having military installations in place to protect the homeland from invasion is totally within the rights of any sovereign nation.
Click to expand...
At the same time you comment without any empathy for the position of Ukraine under Zelenski who you say is…
HomeschoolDad said:
…cozying up to the West, and if Ukraine had her wishes, would even be a member of NATO and the European Union.
Click to expand...
This is just twisting reality which in fact is that Ukraine is only appealing to the West, NATO and the EU, in order to protect against the autocratic, immoral usurper who has no respect for the sovereignty of anyone else.

You can see merit by your ‘concern’ for Russia…
HomeschoolDad said:
Fortifying that border and having military installations in place to protect the homeland from invasion is totally within the rights of any sovereign nation.
Click to expand...
But fail to have concern for Ukraine who has even more justification to protect her sovereign rights from pure evil.
 
Last edited:
Both countries have legitimate concerns.

This said, the incursion of Russia into Ukraine was utterly unjustified, brutal, and immoral. If areas close to the Russian border are overwhelmingly Russian and want to be part of Russia, let them go, and leave the rest of the country alone.

Russia is not a particularly well-liked country by any of her western or southern neighbors, for obvious historical reasons, and whatever concept Russia (and her lapdog Belarus) have of a “greater Russia”, the fact is, Ukraine wants to be an independent country and Russia needs to respect that. Russia will do well to stay on her side of the border, not do anything to upset her neighbors, and be the huge, mutually beneficial trading and resources partner that her geography dictates. Clearly that hasn’t happened.

If it weren’t for Russia’s nuclear arsenal, Ukraine and NATO would have ended this war a long time ago. That’s really all Russia has.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top