RUSSIA CLEARLY WANTS WAR with the USA!

[Tehon]

Who is anyone to question whom Russia is in alignment with? The two nations have historical ties and at the present the Assad government is the only thing preventing ISIS from building a salafist principality in Syria, which is very much a threat to Russia. And what business is it of the US who governs the sovereign state of Syria anyway?

I am someone to question Russia's motives. I'm a human being. Assad might be like Saddam was, a strong man who prevented such a thing. US foreign policy has been a mess for a long time, often creating enemies to give reason to make fear and spend heavily.

What business is it of the US's? Well about as much as it is Russia's I would guess. Yes, the US likes to interfere when their oil is threatened.

What business is it of the US's? Well about as much as it is Russia's I would guess.

Morally or ethically there is no equivalence between Russian and US actions in Syria. Russia clearly stands on the high ground, the US has no business there.

No, I don't think Russia or the US has any moral high ground at all. Russia has no business being there the same as the US. Both are their for their own agendas. The US is supporting one lot of people, Russia another lot of people. Just because Russia is supporting the official leader of the country (unelected and part of a brutal regime) doesn't make it have the higher moral ground in any way.

Just because Russia is supporting the official leader of the country (unelected and part of a brutal regime) doesn't make it have the higher moral ground in any way.

Of course it does. Russia has been welcomed by the officially recognized, elected government of the sovereign state of Syria, and is defending the rule of law and the country of Syria from falling prey to US sponsored terrorism. The US has no legal basis for sponsoring civil war in Syria, it is morally reprehensible, on par with what has been done in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. The moral juxtaposition is clear.

You know Russia didn't set this sequence of events off, right. You know it was the acts of aggression perpetrated by the US that did, right. I don't understand why sensible Americans are unable/unwilling to look this thing in the face and see it for what it is.

And what does "official recognized" mean? It means they managed to convince others they should have that power. As for "elected government", seriously? The Assad regime has been passed from father to son. Oh, there is an elected parliament, well, kind of seeing as the ruling party got 200 of the 250 seats. Germany refused to accept the results and the US too, simply because it was impossible to do so. But the Assad regime has ruled since 1963 without the need for a fair election. His "election" saw him get 99.7% of the votes, only 8.6 million people voted, that's three time less than voted in the war influenced parliament elections.
Opposition to the election was not allowed. That's not an election. It's a rubber stamp.

So, do you see it for what it is?

And what does "official recognized" mean?

It means that the US has no justification for sponsoring terrorism in an attempt to overthrow the government of Syria.

So, do you see it for what it is?

What it is is none of our business. If the US wants to promote democracy, we should be using morally and ethically sound diplomatic practices, not trying to do it covertly, undermining our own democracy in the process.

There is no justification for what has been brought upon the people of Syria, and that it was wrought by my own country, secretly, is far beyond what should be deemed acceptable by Americans.

 

[gipper]

Putin doesn't need war to expand the power and wealth of the State. He has that power today.

US pols and the Oligarchy that own them need war to expand the power and wealth of the State.

See the difference?

Of course. War could be a way of gaining some Nationalist fervor if he needs it, the Ukraine was good for his popularity.

Ukraine was a coup by the US government. Putin merely responded to that coup, which was expected of him by his nation. He did not instigate it.

In the USA, the MSM works with government to shape public opinion for war. This is always been the case and continues today. Much media in the US has been very critical of Putin and Russia. However, you will find few in the MSM that will inform Americans that the coup in Ukraine was perpetrated by US operatives.

I don't believe that for a second. If Putin merely responded, then how come he suddenly responded by taking what he wanted? And he's tried the same shit with other places, like Georgia, and less successfully with places like Estonia and Latvia etc. If a guy just responds by doing what he's done before, and in that case all just "responded" then he must be a very lucky guy.

Yes, I know the media works to make opinion. It's part of the Powell Doctrine. But that doesn't mean that Putin didn't know anything or do anything. That's a real lack of logic. Even if the media is critical of Putin, that doesn't mean it's outright lies. Putin doesn't usually resort to outright lies either, they twist the truth. But you're making the assumption that I believe everything I'm told.

I do not see it as you do.

If Putin wanted to take Estonia and Latvia, he would take them. Those tiny counties could be easily overrun by the Russians in less than 24 hours.

I suspect you are not seeing the predicament NATO and US are putting Russia in. With NATO expanding to his borders (even though Clinton promised they would not in the 1990s), doing war games on his border, committing a coup in Georgia and Ukraine in an effort to install pro western dictators, it is clear what is going on. Russia and Putin are under attack by the West. The debacle in Syria is yet another example of western treachery.

Now please don't call me a Putin lover, like the idiots on the Left. Putin is a ruthless dictator, but we must face the reality that our corrupt lying leaders in the West, want he to heal under and he won't.

They could. However Putin knows that was with Estonia and Latvia would likely lead to a war. The Ukraine was easy, he had an excuse for doing it and saw the west would be unable to go to war over it. The Ukraine isn't a part of NATO nor a part of the EU.

NATO is expanding its borders, but then again so what? The USSR fell apart a long time ago and those countries have joined the EU and become a part of something else. So Russia wants its little plebs back, well it's not going to happen, is it? Russia is making a big song and dance about it, but the reality is they're wanting to be offended. Russia isn't under attack by the West. Russia has merely lost influence and is trying to get it back and is looking for any old excuse to do so.

Syria is an example of the consequences of the Iraq War, which was the US doing what it liked. The difference was that the US was going against OPEC, and saw Iraq as an easy target. The US wouldn't invade Russia. There's no point. What would you achieve in going to war with Russia? The Cold War was perfect for the US, a common enemy it could get its allies to support, and no real threat of war due to MAD.

I know the reality of the leaders in the west. I'm no fan. However Putin is playing more games than the west is.

NATO has no reason to exist. The USSR is long gone. It should have been disbanded. Since it was not, NATO must find another enemy to keep it alive. Bingo....Russia.

You think Russia has nothing to fear from NATO, (a typical western belief entirely based on nothing) but I doubt Russians and Putin find your words reassuring.

Clinton promised not to expand NATO, then NATO expanded right up to Russian borders and regularly performs war games along that border. Stations military bases in the Baltics and throughout eastern Europe. Then, Obama/NATO commits a coup in Ukraine overthrowing an elected leader replacing him with a non-elected US puppet. This is an overt aggression in the minds of Russia. Then...the West claims Russia instigated violence in Kiev, when it was western assets...then Ukrainian rebels with Russian ties in Donbass don't like the coup and fight...the west blames Russia again....then MH17 happens and Obama and Kerry IMMEDIATELY blame Russia (clearly an attempted false flag) without EVER providing ANY evidence....then Obama places economic sanctions on Russia...an act of war.

The aggressor here is the West. Not Russia.

War is the health of the State. ALWAYS!!!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Or maybe Putin doesn't close it because not many people watch it and he doesn't see the need. Most people watch HIS TV.

You're right, but not "most". Some people watch opposite channels and translations - communists, believers - christians and muslims, right patriots and so on... Putin seems as dictator, because a lot of people wants someone, who will keep the law working....

What you think, how can anyone to force mass of people to watch TV, which they don't want to watch? If "Putin's channels" would translate something, which people don't like - they will be watchin' another channels - for example, one of a lot advertising... People watch this channels because they like to watch them - where's dictatorship here?

You look at the US with a free media, and see how many people actually get real news. It's not many. You see people believing the nonsense of the main two parties. Now, in Russia with people who aren't so different, and the media is mostly controlled, how many Russians are actually going to go out there and find the reality? Not enough, there aren't enough in the US, let alone Russia.

Where's the dictatorship? Well, I'm not using the term dictatorship, however Putin is controlling things as he wants to. He's not working under the constraints of a free and fair system.

Generally, you're right, but there are many specific details, which can seriously change the picture. I usually try to get details, because it very important in a current world, full of propaganda.

What people really know about world news? I think, not much... But I don't think also, Putin controlled media here - he don't care about this and, maybe, he don't have enough resources for this. A lot of Putin's actions here described in media in a critical style, there's a lot of popular mems with Peskov and Medvedev... Offcourse, Putin has some people, who acting in media for him - but it's just one of many sides there. So, almost all sides are painting news as they want, to keep own audience and make money or politics...

Putin controls a military and police structures - it's enough for him

Well often the details are there to be found, and will then have spin put on them. You have to separate the two.

Maybe Putin's actions are criticized in a manner that isn't too critical. You look at the media in the west, the difference between a left wing and a right wing media outlet, and often it's which stories are considered the most important, how they spin it, even if there's criticism, it can often be criticism light from one side, and absurd from the other.

I doubt just the military and police is enough for Putin.

I know about western "silent censure", but here media could not grow the same system after USSR falling So, now we really have very different sources of news, almost all working only for money from differens sponsors and making own different picture of world...

One details could distort all landscape. Putin don't controls the media (he tries, but incompetence of lot of his officials is really great). People in mass don't love him - but really vote for him, because he's a best compromise for different social groups in Russia at this time. So, if you want to see regime, closer to classic democracy - it's now here, instead of any noise of western propaganda About real "dictatoric" role of Putin in life here - you can read a lot of this mems:

Тексты:Это Путин виноват — Русский эксперт

"Cat left their children - it's a Putin's guilty"
"Smoking, drunking, don't have a wife - it's a Putin's guilty"
"Have a little dick? - it's a Putin's guilty"

and so on

P.S. Similar jokes usually used about Stalin - "Stalin is reaches to present times". Like here http://demotivation.me/images/20100410/s9whfhphmo8r.jpg
"Stalin and Beria choosing place to planting tree <to make crush of Polish president plane in 2010 >, 10 april of 1940"

No, I think the picture you present is wrong. You say Putin is too incompetent to control the media. I don't believe this for a moment. He controls most of the media.

First channel is the most popular, then Rossiya. Both state owned.

Human Rights Watch seems to think Putin has a lot of control

https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/wr2009_web.pdf


"
Civil Society
The government continues tightening control over civil society through selective implementation of the law on NGOs, restriction and censure of protected expression and the media, and harassment of activists and human rights defenders."

"
2007 amendments to the extremism law allow any politically or ideologically motivated crime to be designated extremist. Russian authorities apply these provisions to silence government critics, and in 2008 initiated cases against NGOs, activists, and independent media, including internet sites and blogs."

This suggests a different picture to the one you're trying to present. I'm asking myself why you want to present such a view.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I am someone to question Russia's motives. I'm a human being. Assad might be like Saddam was, a strong man who prevented such a thing. US foreign policy has been a mess for a long time, often creating enemies to give reason to make fear and spend heavily.

What business is it of the US's? Well about as much as it is Russia's I would guess. Yes, the US likes to interfere when their oil is threatened.

What business is it of the US's? Well about as much as it is Russia's I would guess.

Morally or ethically there is no equivalence between Russian and US actions in Syria. Russia clearly stands on the high ground, the US has no business there.

No, I don't think Russia or the US has any moral high ground at all. Russia has no business being there the same as the US. Both are their for their own agendas. The US is supporting one lot of people, Russia another lot of people. Just because Russia is supporting the official leader of the country (unelected and part of a brutal regime) doesn't make it have the higher moral ground in any way.

Just because Russia is supporting the official leader of the country (unelected and part of a brutal regime) doesn't make it have the higher moral ground in any way.

Of course it does. Russia has been welcomed by the officially recognized, elected government of the sovereign state of Syria, and is defending the rule of law and the country of Syria from falling prey to US sponsored terrorism. The US has no legal basis for sponsoring civil war in Syria, it is morally reprehensible, on par with what has been done in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. The moral juxtaposition is clear.

You know Russia didn't set this sequence of events off, right. You know it was the acts of aggression perpetrated by the US that did, right. I don't understand why sensible Americans are unable/unwilling to look this thing in the face and see it for what it is.

And what does "official recognized" mean? It means they managed to convince others they should have that power. As for "elected government", seriously? The Assad regime has been passed from father to son. Oh, there is an elected parliament, well, kind of seeing as the ruling party got 200 of the 250 seats. Germany refused to accept the results and the US too, simply because it was impossible to do so. But the Assad regime has ruled since 1963 without the need for a fair election. His "election" saw him get 99.7% of the votes, only 8.6 million people voted, that's three time less than voted in the war influenced parliament elections.
Opposition to the election was not allowed. That's not an election. It's a rubber stamp.

So, do you see it for what it is?

And what does "official recognized" mean?

It means that the US has no justification for sponsoring terrorism in an attempt to overthrow the government of Syria.

So, do you see it for what it is?

What it is is none of our business. If the US wants to promote democracy, we should be using morally and ethically sound diplomatic practices, not trying to do it covertly, undermining our own democracy in the process.

There is no justification for what has been brought upon the people of Syria, and that it was wrought by my own country, secretly, is far beyond what should be deemed acceptable by Americans.

Justification? What does that mean? That someone else has decided whether you're allowed to go bomb other people or not? It's all dodgy. Terrorism is a term that is the same thing govts do, only not done by govts, as if a govt going invading someone is somehow good, but when non-govt entities do it, it's bad.

Well too much has been done by the US govt that shouldn't be acceptable to the people, but often they don't care.

 

[2aguy]

They don't want war with the U.S....they know that they can start taking territory and the U.S. under obama or hilary will do nothing about it.....she already took Russian money while she was Secretary of State so that deal is already signed, sealed and delivered.....

 

[frigidweirdo]

Of course. War could be a way of gaining some Nationalist fervor if he needs it, the Ukraine was good for his popularity.

Ukraine was a coup by the US government. Putin merely responded to that coup, which was expected of him by his nation. He did not instigate it.

In the USA, the MSM works with government to shape public opinion for war. This is always been the case and continues today. Much media in the US has been very critical of Putin and Russia. However, you will find few in the MSM that will inform Americans that the coup in Ukraine was perpetrated by US operatives.

I don't believe that for a second. If Putin merely responded, then how come he suddenly responded by taking what he wanted? And he's tried the same shit with other places, like Georgia, and less successfully with places like Estonia and Latvia etc. If a guy just responds by doing what he's done before, and in that case all just "responded" then he must be a very lucky guy.

Yes, I know the media works to make opinion. It's part of the Powell Doctrine. But that doesn't mean that Putin didn't know anything or do anything. That's a real lack of logic. Even if the media is critical of Putin, that doesn't mean it's outright lies. Putin doesn't usually resort to outright lies either, they twist the truth. But you're making the assumption that I believe everything I'm told.

I do not see it as you do.

If Putin wanted to take Estonia and Latvia, he would take them. Those tiny counties could be easily overrun by the Russians in less than 24 hours.

I suspect you are not seeing the predicament NATO and US are putting Russia in. With NATO expanding to his borders (even though Clinton promised they would not in the 1990s), doing war games on his border, committing a coup in Georgia and Ukraine in an effort to install pro western dictators, it is clear what is going on. Russia and Putin are under attack by the West. The debacle in Syria is yet another example of western treachery.

Now please don't call me a Putin lover, like the idiots on the Left. Putin is a ruthless dictator, but we must face the reality that our corrupt lying leaders in the West, want he to heal under and he won't.

They could. However Putin knows that was with Estonia and Latvia would likely lead to a war. The Ukraine was easy, he had an excuse for doing it and saw the west would be unable to go to war over it. The Ukraine isn't a part of NATO nor a part of the EU.

NATO is expanding its borders, but then again so what? The USSR fell apart a long time ago and those countries have joined the EU and become a part of something else. So Russia wants its little plebs back, well it's not going to happen, is it? Russia is making a big song and dance about it, but the reality is they're wanting to be offended. Russia isn't under attack by the West. Russia has merely lost influence and is trying to get it back and is looking for any old excuse to do so.

Syria is an example of the consequences of the Iraq War, which was the US doing what it liked. The difference was that the US was going against OPEC, and saw Iraq as an easy target. The US wouldn't invade Russia. There's no point. What would you achieve in going to war with Russia? The Cold War was perfect for the US, a common enemy it could get its allies to support, and no real threat of war due to MAD.

I know the reality of the leaders in the west. I'm no fan. However Putin is playing more games than the west is.

NATO has no reason to exist. The USSR is long gone. It should have been disbanded. Since it was not, NATO must find another enemy to keep it alive. Bingo....Russia.

You think Russia has nothing to fear from NATO, (a typical western belief entirely based on nothing) but I doubt Russians and Putin find your words reassuring.

Clinton promised not to expand NATO, then NATO expanded right up to Russian borders and regularly performs war games along that border. Stations military bases in the Baltics and throughout eastern Europe. Then, Obama/NATO commits a coup in Ukraine overthrowing an elected leader replacing him with a non-elected US puppet. This is an overt aggression in the minds of Russia. Then...the West claims Russia instigated violence in Kiev, when it was western assets...then Ukrainian rebels with Russian ties in Donbass don't like the coup and fight...the west blames Russia again....then MH17 happens and Obama and Kerry IMMEDIATELY blame Russia (clearly an attempted false flag) without EVER providing ANY evidence....then Obama places economic sanctions on Russia...an act of war.

The aggressor here is the West. Not Russia.

War is the health of the State. ALWAYS!!!

Not really. NATO is like the US and its allies come together. After the Cold War ended there was plenty of reason to keep it going.

What you're saying has actually happened with ISIS and the "War on Terror" which was used to keep the allies happy and together.

Russia was a nothingness for the US, they might want Russia weak, but it didn't help the right and their being tough on stuff rhetoric going. The Ukraine happened because there has been an internal fight within the country over whether to go west or east, the native Ukrainians wanting west, the Russians the east, and they wanted the Crimea back. Who gained from the Ukraine? Russia. The US didn't go in and fight, didn't do much at all. Much less than they have done to OPEC countries. The US sort of seemed like it didn't actually care that much.

Why shouldn't Obama put economic sanctions against Russia? Russia went and took the land of another country. They did something similar in Georgia. Somehow you've managed to ignore the fact that it's happened twice, and somehow it's the American's fault the second time. Then whose fault was it the first time if it clearly wasn't Russia's fault?

 

[tyroneweaver]

Putin doesn't have the money to start shit with us.

He's just flapping his wings and making noise to scare the candyasses.

Just for your QHC. I served during Vietnam. Now we have Mormon missionaries in the country.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Putin doesn't have the money to start shit with us.

He's just flapping his wings and making noise to scare the candyasses.

Just for your QHC. I served during Vietnam. Now we have Mormon missionaries in the country.

Are you intimating the same thing can happen in Russia, for instance, in the next 50 years, with continued instability in the ME? It will probably take more than two hundred years, where there would be any kind of stability returning to the ME, for example the stability before the war on terror, with Saddam Hussein and Khadafy in place and the Taliban with full sovereignty.

 

[GLASNOST]

NATO.....After the Cold War ended there was plenty of reason to keep it going ......

¨
Rubbish.

 

[charwin95]

What made you think US is supporting ISIS?

By leaving about 2000 Humvees to them. As Wikileaks said, it was performed by Hillary's order...

What made you think Russia is really fighting ISIS? When there's a lot of evidence they are killing more civilians than ISIS.

Ha-ha, not only Russia, every country would seems "strange" and "non-transparent", if you don't switch on a logic...

What's the benefit for Russia to spend ammunition (which costs money) for the civilians, absolutely non-significant for Russia? We are even not EU, migrants is not our problem.
Russia came to Syria to solve own problems - infiltration of ISIS terrorists and preachers through Turkey to the muslim regions of Caucas and Povolzh'e...

Do you know, how the media makes this "civilians"? ISIS don't have military uniform - so, they finding dead corpses, and hiding their weapon before the newsmaking...

1. That is incorrect. Hillary did not gave the humvees as a gift to ISIS. Actually 2,300 Humvees to be exact. Iraqi army abandoned their military installations when ISIS attacked Mosul in 2014 taking all vehicles they can find.

2. What's the benefit for Putin? They are making billions selling arms to Syria and Iran. Which they use these arms to terrorize other countries. At the end of the day.... Putin support terrorism. Do you think Putin is doing all these for free?

3. Putin thug is in Syria for one thing only. To make sure Assad will remain in power and nothing more. It's not because of ISIS. Both Assad and Putin should be charge of war crimes.

4. Are you saying that the media is part of the conspiracy in Aleppo? Is Aleppo under control of ISIS? Are you aware that there are independent Human Right Observatory in Syria? Why is that there are no news coming from Russia about your conspiracy theory? Think about this before you answer all my questions.......

 

[Sbiker]

You're right, but not "most". Some people watch opposite channels and translations - communists, believers - christians and muslims, right patriots and so on... Putin seems as dictator, because a lot of people wants someone, who will keep the law working....

What you think, how can anyone to force mass of people to watch TV, which they don't want to watch? If "Putin's channels" would translate something, which people don't like - they will be watchin' another channels - for example, one of a lot advertising... People watch this channels because they like to watch them - where's dictatorship here?

You look at the US with a free media, and see how many people actually get real news. It's not many. You see people believing the nonsense of the main two parties. Now, in Russia with people who aren't so different, and the media is mostly controlled, how many Russians are actually going to go out there and find the reality? Not enough, there aren't enough in the US, let alone Russia.

Where's the dictatorship? Well, I'm not using the term dictatorship, however Putin is controlling things as he wants to. He's not working under the constraints of a free and fair system.

Generally, you're right, but there are many specific details, which can seriously change the picture. I usually try to get details, because it very important in a current world, full of propaganda.

What people really know about world news? I think, not much... But I don't think also, Putin controlled media here - he don't care about this and, maybe, he don't have enough resources for this. A lot of Putin's actions here described in media in a critical style, there's a lot of popular mems with Peskov and Medvedev... Offcourse, Putin has some people, who acting in media for him - but it's just one of many sides there. So, almost all sides are painting news as they want, to keep own audience and make money or politics...

Putin controls a military and police structures - it's enough for him

Well often the details are there to be found, and will then have spin put on them. You have to separate the two.

Maybe Putin's actions are criticized in a manner that isn't too critical. You look at the media in the west, the difference between a left wing and a right wing media outlet, and often it's which stories are considered the most important, how they spin it, even if there's criticism, it can often be criticism light from one side, and absurd from the other.

I doubt just the military and police is enough for Putin.

I know about western "silent censure", but here media could not grow the same system after USSR falling So, now we really have very different sources of news, almost all working only for money from differens sponsors and making own different picture of world...

One details could distort all landscape. Putin don't controls the media (he tries, but incompetence of lot of his officials is really great). People in mass don't love him - but really vote for him, because he's a best compromise for different social groups in Russia at this time. So, if you want to see regime, closer to classic democracy - it's now here, instead of any noise of western propaganda About real "dictatoric" role of Putin in life here - you can read a lot of this mems:

Тексты:Это Путин виноват — Русский эксперт

"Cat left their children - it's a Putin's guilty"
"Smoking, drunking, don't have a wife - it's a Putin's guilty"
"Have a little dick? - it's a Putin's guilty"

and so on

P.S. Similar jokes usually used about Stalin - "Stalin is reaches to present times". Like here http://demotivation.me/images/20100410/s9whfhphmo8r.jpg
"Stalin and Beria choosing place to planting tree <to make crush of Polish president plane in 2010 >, 10 april of 1940"

No, I think the picture you present is wrong. You say Putin is too incompetent to control the media. I don't believe this for a moment. He controls most of the media.

First channel is the most popular, then Rossiya. Both state owned.

Human Rights Watch seems to think Putin has a lot of control

https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/wr2009_web.pdf


"
Civil Society
The government continues tightening control over civil society through selective implementation of the law on NGOs, restriction and censure of protected expression and the media, and harassment of activists and human rights defenders."

"
2007 amendments to the extremism law allow any politically or ideologically motivated crime to be designated extremist. Russian authorities apply these provisions to silence government critics, and in 2008 initiated cases against NGOs, activists, and independent media, including internet sites and blogs."

This suggests a different picture to the one you're trying to present. I'm asking myself why you want to present such a view.

Offcourse, I present my view to advance my plans to conquer a whole world

I like to learn different point of views directly from different people here, without media filters. In exchange for it I'm trying to present, what I see here, in Russia, as eyewitness. It's not a secret, US is really world force №1 and all "independent" organizations from HRW to WADA are under US government control and doing, what ordered to them. If you seriously believe them - it's just an illustration, any critical approach has own borders...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Russia is cool. We should touch penises.

Isn't that how you got AIDS in the first place?

I mean Russia. Unless you are cool with the idea.

How would you do that with an entire nation?

 

[GLASNOST]

Offcourse, I present my view to advance my plans to conquer a whole world

Очень забавно.

 

[Sbiker]

Ukraine was a coup by the US government. Putin merely responded to that coup, which was expected of him by his nation. He did not instigate it.

In the USA, the MSM works with government to shape public opinion for war. This is always been the case and continues today. Much media in the US has been very critical of Putin and Russia. However, you will find few in the MSM that will inform Americans that the coup in Ukraine was perpetrated by US operatives.

I don't believe that for a second. If Putin merely responded, then how come he suddenly responded by taking what he wanted? And he's tried the same shit with other places, like Georgia, and less successfully with places like Estonia and Latvia etc. If a guy just responds by doing what he's done before, and in that case all just "responded" then he must be a very lucky guy.

Yes, I know the media works to make opinion. It's part of the Powell Doctrine. But that doesn't mean that Putin didn't know anything or do anything. That's a real lack of logic. Even if the media is critical of Putin, that doesn't mean it's outright lies. Putin doesn't usually resort to outright lies either, they twist the truth. But you're making the assumption that I believe everything I'm told.

I do not see it as you do.

If Putin wanted to take Estonia and Latvia, he would take them. Those tiny counties could be easily overrun by the Russians in less than 24 hours.

I suspect you are not seeing the predicament NATO and US are putting Russia in. With NATO expanding to his borders (even though Clinton promised they would not in the 1990s), doing war games on his border, committing a coup in Georgia and Ukraine in an effort to install pro western dictators, it is clear what is going on. Russia and Putin are under attack by the West. The debacle in Syria is yet another example of western treachery.

Now please don't call me a Putin lover, like the idiots on the Left. Putin is a ruthless dictator, but we must face the reality that our corrupt lying leaders in the West, want he to heal under and he won't.

They could. However Putin knows that was with Estonia and Latvia would likely lead to a war. The Ukraine was easy, he had an excuse for doing it and saw the west would be unable to go to war over it. The Ukraine isn't a part of NATO nor a part of the EU.

NATO is expanding its borders, but then again so what? The USSR fell apart a long time ago and those countries have joined the EU and become a part of something else. So Russia wants its little plebs back, well it's not going to happen, is it? Russia is making a big song and dance about it, but the reality is they're wanting to be offended. Russia isn't under attack by the West. Russia has merely lost influence and is trying to get it back and is looking for any old excuse to do so.

Syria is an example of the consequences of the Iraq War, which was the US doing what it liked. The difference was that the US was going against OPEC, and saw Iraq as an easy target. The US wouldn't invade Russia. There's no point. What would you achieve in going to war with Russia? The Cold War was perfect for the US, a common enemy it could get its allies to support, and no real threat of war due to MAD.

I know the reality of the leaders in the west. I'm no fan. However Putin is playing more games than the west is.

NATO has no reason to exist. The USSR is long gone. It should have been disbanded. Since it was not, NATO must find another enemy to keep it alive. Bingo....Russia.

You think Russia has nothing to fear from NATO, (a typical western belief entirely based on nothing) but I doubt Russians and Putin find your words reassuring.

Clinton promised not to expand NATO, then NATO expanded right up to Russian borders and regularly performs war games along that border. Stations military bases in the Baltics and throughout eastern Europe. Then, Obama/NATO commits a coup in Ukraine overthrowing an elected leader replacing him with a non-elected US puppet. This is an overt aggression in the minds of Russia. Then...the West claims Russia instigated violence in Kiev, when it was western assets...then Ukrainian rebels with Russian ties in Donbass don't like the coup and fight...the west blames Russia again....then MH17 happens and Obama and Kerry IMMEDIATELY blame Russia (clearly an attempted false flag) without EVER providing ANY evidence....then Obama places economic sanctions on Russia...an act of war.

The aggressor here is the West. Not Russia.

War is the health of the State. ALWAYS!!!

Not really. NATO is like the US and its allies come together. After the Cold War ended there was plenty of reason to keep it going.

What you're saying has actually happened with ISIS and the "War on Terror" which was used to keep the allies happy and together.

Russia was a nothingness for the US, they might want Russia weak, but it didn't help the right and their being tough on stuff rhetoric going. The Ukraine happened because there has been an internal fight within the country over whether to go west or east, the native Ukrainians wanting west, the Russians the east, and they wanted the Crimea back. Who gained from the Ukraine? Russia. The US didn't go in and fight, didn't do much at all. Much less than they have done to OPEC countries. The US sort of seemed like it didn't actually care that much.

Why shouldn't Obama put economic sanctions against Russia? Russia went and took the land of another country. They did something similar in Georgia. Somehow you've managed to ignore the fact that it's happened twice, and somehow it's the American's fault the second time. Then whose fault was it the first time if it clearly wasn't Russia's fault?

What's wrong? US advanced own case law system as world law. Excellent, let's play with it. Kosovo left the Serbia unilaterally and claim their independence - US supported this. It's a precedent. Since February 2008 US MUST support also South Osetia, leaving Georgia and Crimea, leaving Ukraine. In other case US government violates own laws. And all complaints against Russia about Crimea and South Osetia, sanctions, propaganda - it's all devoted to hide a fact of international crime...

 

[Sbiker]

What made you think US is supporting ISIS?

By leaving about 2000 Humvees to them. As Wikileaks said, it was performed by Hillary's order...

What made you think Russia is really fighting ISIS? When there's a lot of evidence they are killing more civilians than ISIS.

Ha-ha, not only Russia, every country would seems "strange" and "non-transparent", if you don't switch on a logic...

What's the benefit for Russia to spend ammunition (which costs money) for the civilians, absolutely non-significant for Russia? We are even not EU, migrants is not our problem.
Russia came to Syria to solve own problems - infiltration of ISIS terrorists and preachers through Turkey to the muslim regions of Caucas and Povolzh'e...

Do you know, how the media makes this "civilians"? ISIS don't have military uniform - so, they finding dead corpses, and hiding their weapon before the newsmaking...

1. That is incorrect. Hillary did not gave the humvees as a gift to ISIS. Actually 2,300 Humvees to be exact. Iraqi army abandoned their military installations when ISIS attacked Mosul in 2014 taking all vehicles they can find.

2. What's the benefit for Putin? They are making billions selling arms to Syria and Iran. Which they use these arms to terrorize other countries. At the end of the day.... Putin support terrorism. Do you think Putin is doing all these for free?

3. Putin thug is in Syria for one thing only. To make sure Assad will remain in power and nothing more. It's not because of ISIS. Both Assad and Putin should be charge of war crimes.

4. Are you saying that the media is part of the conspiracy in Aleppo? Is Aleppo under control of ISIS? Are you aware that there are independent Human Right Observatory in Syria? Why is that there are no news coming from Russia about your conspiracy theory? Think about this before you answer all my questions.......

1. Offcouse, she didn't gave a scissors to ISIS leader to cut red ribbon on a pack with Humvees. Offcourse, it was just an accident, because US usually stores a thousands of new Humvees in every large town at MiddleEast region )))

2. They making billions selling arms - and they spend arms for free - it's obvious, they don't want to be too rich... And for the terrorizing other countries it's enough to Putin to say "Boo" in his microphone...

3. Oh, Assad... Why Putin loves Assad too much?... It's interesting question - if Assad and Putin could say, they are gays and loving each others - would the all world society claim them, as "good" and cancel all sanctions and operations against Russia and Syria, to upkeep progressive moral and relations? For the freedom and liberty?

4. Which conspiracy theory of mine do you mean?

 

[frigidweirdo]

NATO.....After the Cold War ended there was plenty of reason to keep it going ......

¨
Rubbish.

Rubbish? Why? The world doesn't just stop being a dangerous place. They reduced military funding, but you don't just get rid of your allies simply because the main enemy has disappeared. The rise of Russia again, the rise of China, the rise of ISIS, what happened in Yugoslavia, all the problems have shown that NATO still has a purpose for the Americans and its allies.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yup it's great the U.S. elected a weak leader who knew nothing about foreign relations



https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/russia-us-want-confrontation-youll-162932320.html

 

[frigidweirdo]

You look at the US with a free media, and see how many people actually get real news. It's not many. You see people believing the nonsense of the main two parties. Now, in Russia with people who aren't so different, and the media is mostly controlled, how many Russians are actually going to go out there and find the reality? Not enough, there aren't enough in the US, let alone Russia.

Where's the dictatorship? Well, I'm not using the term dictatorship, however Putin is controlling things as he wants to. He's not working under the constraints of a free and fair system.

Generally, you're right, but there are many specific details, which can seriously change the picture. I usually try to get details, because it very important in a current world, full of propaganda.

What people really know about world news? I think, not much... But I don't think also, Putin controlled media here - he don't care about this and, maybe, he don't have enough resources for this. A lot of Putin's actions here described in media in a critical style, there's a lot of popular mems with Peskov and Medvedev... Offcourse, Putin has some people, who acting in media for him - but it's just one of many sides there. So, almost all sides are painting news as they want, to keep own audience and make money or politics...

Putin controls a military and police structures - it's enough for him

Well often the details are there to be found, and will then have spin put on them. You have to separate the two.

Maybe Putin's actions are criticized in a manner that isn't too critical. You look at the media in the west, the difference between a left wing and a right wing media outlet, and often it's which stories are considered the most important, how they spin it, even if there's criticism, it can often be criticism light from one side, and absurd from the other.

I doubt just the military and police is enough for Putin.

I know about western "silent censure", but here media could not grow the same system after USSR falling So, now we really have very different sources of news, almost all working only for money from differens sponsors and making own different picture of world...

One details could distort all landscape. Putin don't controls the media (he tries, but incompetence of lot of his officials is really great). People in mass don't love him - but really vote for him, because he's a best compromise for different social groups in Russia at this time. So, if you want to see regime, closer to classic democracy - it's now here, instead of any noise of western propaganda About real "dictatoric" role of Putin in life here - you can read a lot of this mems:

Тексты:Это Путин виноват — Русский эксперт

"Cat left their children - it's a Putin's guilty"
"Smoking, drunking, don't have a wife - it's a Putin's guilty"
"Have a little dick? - it's a Putin's guilty"

and so on

P.S. Similar jokes usually used about Stalin - "Stalin is reaches to present times". Like here http://demotivation.me/images/20100410/s9whfhphmo8r.jpg
"Stalin and Beria choosing place to planting tree <to make crush of Polish president plane in 2010 >, 10 april of 1940"

No, I think the picture you present is wrong. You say Putin is too incompetent to control the media. I don't believe this for a moment. He controls most of the media.

First channel is the most popular, then Rossiya. Both state owned.

Human Rights Watch seems to think Putin has a lot of control

https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/wr2009_web.pdf


"
Civil Society
The government continues tightening control over civil society through selective implementation of the law on NGOs, restriction and censure of protected expression and the media, and harassment of activists and human rights defenders."

"
2007 amendments to the extremism law allow any politically or ideologically motivated crime to be designated extremist. Russian authorities apply these provisions to silence government critics, and in 2008 initiated cases against NGOs, activists, and independent media, including internet sites and blogs."

This suggests a different picture to the one you're trying to present. I'm asking myself why you want to present such a view.

Offcourse, I present my view to advance my plans to conquer a whole world

I like to learn different point of views directly from different people here, without media filters. In exchange for it I'm trying to present, what I see here, in Russia, as eyewitness. It's not a secret, US is really world force №1 and all "independent" organizations from HRW to WADA are under US government control and doing, what ordered to them. If you seriously believe them - it's just an illustration, any critical approach has own borders...

I also don't trust the US government, nor do I trust the Russian govt. I see what the US govt has done and is doing, under Obama they are far more restrained than under the Republicans, although US "interests" are still at play even then.

However saying that the US is bad, doesn't mean that Russia is good. The reality is that Russia, China and the US are going to be the bain of the world for a long time to come.

 

[skye]

Russia doesn't want war with USA.


But if that witch Clinton is elected, she is the one who is going to start a war with Russia!

 

[9thIDdoc]

Russia just knows our pussy-in-chief is intimidated so they are pushing the advantage that gives them while they can.