RUSSIA CLEARLY WANTS WAR with the USA!

[frigidweirdo]

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...

But the law system has nothing to do with it here.

Kosovo left Serbia. Anyone with a fair mind would understand why. The Serbs treated the Kosovan Albanians like shit. Anyone who does that should lose the people and land. However the more powerful won't lose them.

Anyone looking at South Ossetia will see that it's the other way around. The US however didn't support South Ossetia much. What's the need? The Russians were supporting that.

As for hiding international crimes. No, I disagree. Why would the US need to hide them? They invaded Iraq? Previous examples show us that the US justifies any action and gets public support BEFORE they go in. The US with the Ukraine didn't do much at all. There was a little, but most Americans didn't care. And the US didn't go in. Russia did.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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...

But the law system has nothing to do with it here.

Kosovo left Serbia. Anyone with a fair mind would understand why. The Serbs treated the Kosovan Albanians like shit. Anyone who does that should lose the people and land. However the more powerful won't lose them.

Anyone looking at South Ossetia will see that it's the other way around. The US however didn't support South Ossetia much. What's the need? The Russians were supporting that.

As for hiding international crimes. No, I disagree. Why would the US need to hide them? They invaded Iraq? Previous examples show us that the US justifies any action and gets public support BEFORE they go in. The US with the Ukraine didn't do much at all. There was a little, but most Americans didn't care. And the US didn't go in. Russia did.

 

[charwin95]

..... What made you think US is supporting ISIS?

A-ha! You mean because I am not in the Middle East at the moment, right? The answer is: Media Sources.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881
http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-th...op-vs-billions-in-covert-military-aid/5409449
Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq | Seumas Milne
Pentagon acknowledges US ground forces supporting ISIS fight in Libya
From where do you get your notion that the US is not supporting ISIS? Your personal contacts within the Whine House?

What made you think Russia is really fighting ISIS?

You mean because I am not in Syria at this moment, correct? I guess that I have to say the answer to that is: Media Sources.
Russia Says It Will Conduct Strikes Despite Ceasefire
http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-ru...nt-america-protects-al-qaeda-and-isis/5483347
In the fight against ISIS, Russia ain’t taking no prisoners
Russia: We Used Iran Base to Launch Syria Airstrikes

What makes you think Russia is not really fighting ISIS? Your privy grapevine sources at the Pentagram?

Russia's military has been in Syria exactly one year since September. Why is it that ISIS still fully operational producing millions gallons of oil everyday? And they are strong as ever.

That's an odd thing to say.
Russia's Achievements in Anti-ISIL Campaign Ruin Washington's Reputation
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/putins-winning-in-syria-but-making-a-powerful-new-enemy/
The Syria Situation: Russian Success, American Failure | Hippo Reads
Russia’s Success In Battling ISIS Has The US Scrambling To Play Catch-up
Putin's SUCCEEDING against ISIS: US officials FINALLY admit Russia's doing the RIGHT thing
Russian airstrike successes FINALLY shame US into ramping up attacks on ISIS

And why do you think Russia hasn't made any successes in Syria? Is your brother-in-law employed by the CIA and he's passing on secret information?

Comrade. What made you think I'm not aware of those links? You make it sound that it's tucked in somewhere in Gulag that you are the only one that has access. Putin is killing few ISIS but mostly civilians.
That is right Putin entered Syria September 2015 but they concentrated in killing civilians. So why is ISIS still producing oil by the millions of gallons then sell them to Syria? They should charge both of them with war crimes.

This link happened in last 48 hours.
Russia renews heavy bombing of Syria's Aleppo

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-in-syria-killed-2000-civilians-in-six-months

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Which sums up the attitude of the right, just go and be bullies, because that's being strong. No need to use your head in any way. Use muscles, it worked well in Iraq, didn't it? Oh, wait....

 

[skye]

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

Oh, Russia knows about the pussy- in -chief, as does the rest of the world.




But Russia does not want war, nor will be the first to start a war.

 

[charwin95]

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!

Russia don't want a war? Maybe tell your president Putin thug stop supporting Syria and Iran.
That is why they want to elect Trump a weak pussy will just hand Syria to Russia. Look at his position in Syria compared to his VP? Crap.
Your buddies here making a stupid assessment that Hillary is weak will not do damn thing....... The same time you are saying that Hillary will start a war.

 

[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.......

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?

Which conspiracy theory? Hillary gave humvees to ISIS. Media is part of cover up. ISIS is in Aleppo.

Sorry comrade...... 1 to 4 you have not proven anything to make your buddy Putin a good guy. Try again.

 

[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!

Russia don't want a war? Maybe tell your president Putin thug stop supporting Syria and Iran.
That is why they want to elect Trump a weak pussy will just hand Syria to Russia. Look at his position in Syria compared to his VP? Crap.
Your buddies here making a stupid assessment that Hillary is weak will not do damn thing....... The same time you are saying that Hillary will start a war.

Russia is destroying ISIS in Syria...... haven't you heard?

As opposed to Rotten Clinton and Obama's position of arming ISIS terrorists and protecting them.

Wake up!

 

[GLASNOST]

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.

1). You didn't watch the video.
2). The ONLY danger to the world after the end of the Cold War was NATO (read USA) and what it has created ever since.
3). You don't know what the word ally means.

 

[GLASNOST]

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

I do not agree with your underlying theme, but your 'in your face' fundamental theme is, of course, absolutely correct. But then I must tell you (and your like-minded compañeros) that when Trumpo or Humpo moves into the Whine House (they are equally stupid, predictable, and manipulatable) , Putin is going to have a field day!

 

[GLASNOST]

Comrade. What made you think I'm not aware of those links? You make it sound that it's tucked in somewhere in Gulag that you are the only one that has access. Putin is killing few ISIS but mostly civilians.
That is right Putin entered Syria September 2015 but they concentrated in killing civilians. So why is ISIS still producing oil by the millions of gallons then sell them to Syria? They should charge both of them with war crimes.

This link happened in last 48 hours.
Russia renews heavy bombing of Syria's Aleppo

Russian airstrikes in Syria killed 2,000 civilians in six months

Oh no Comrade Charwin25, you have it all wrong.

 

[GLASNOST]

Russia don't want a war? ......... That is why they want to elect Trump a weak pussy ........ Your buddies here making a stupid assessment that Hillary is weak will not do damn thing....... The same time you are saying that Hillary will start a war.

Dear Comrade Charwin25, what is your problem? You can vote for who you like. Has anyone said that you cannot vote for the female cuckold? It's not going to make any difference, but please yourself. The outcome will be the same. The outside world (particularly Russia) is watching in disbelief as your 2 "brightest" flail their arms like children throwing a tantrum. The puppet show is what America has to look forward to every 4 years, as the rest of the world smiles when you offer chocolate and increasingly plots your downfall, due to your own national creed and stupidity,

 

[GLASNOST]

But the law system has nothing to do with it here

Ladies and gentlemen! I present to you The Selective Anarchist!

 

[Sbiker]

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.

Yeah, governments are bad, but details again

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...

But the law system has nothing to do with it here.

Kosovo left Serbia. Anyone with a fair mind would understand why. The Serbs treated the Kosovan Albanians like shit. Anyone who does that should lose the people and land. However the more powerful won't lose them.

Anyone looking at South Ossetia will see that it's the other way around. The US however didn't support South Ossetia much. What's the need? The Russians were supporting that.

As for hiding international crimes. No, I disagree. Why would the US need to hide them? They invaded Iraq? Previous examples show us that the US justifies any action and gets public support BEFORE they go in. The US with the Ukraine didn't do much at all. There was a little, but most Americans didn't care. And the US didn't go in. Russia did.

What? Law is a main principle in international politics. US used the law principle for a century, to get world domination... But if US want now to change game rule to brute force competition - so, don't ask anymore, who really wants war...

What do you know about Osetia and Georgia? I was there both, and also was in Abhasia. Georgians and Osetin - are gladly people, but saving mutual offenses for a centuries and dreaming about genocide. When NATO upkept Georgia, they tried to kill all civilians in Osetia - Russia just prevented it. So were with Crimea - your media didn't say about "Nazi train of death" to Crimea and nazi strike to Crimean bus group with a lot of deads...Or trying to perform terroristic acts by Ukraine special forces in Crimea... It a 100% similar situation, like Kosovo.

As for other Ukraine - there are no any Russian soldiers there... except a lot of volunteers... Putin cannot prevent them (if he try - we can elect another "Putin"...), the volunteers are learning to fight and receiving experience - to enlarge conscription reserv for Russia forces in future global war... ))

 

[Sbiker]

..... What made you think US is supporting ISIS?

A-ha! You mean because I am not in the Middle East at the moment, right? The answer is: Media Sources.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881
http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-th...op-vs-billions-in-covert-military-aid/5409449
Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq | Seumas Milne
Pentagon acknowledges US ground forces supporting ISIS fight in Libya
From where do you get your notion that the US is not supporting ISIS? Your personal contacts within the Whine House?

What made you think Russia is really fighting ISIS?

You mean because I am not in Syria at this moment, correct? I guess that I have to say the answer to that is: Media Sources.
Russia Says It Will Conduct Strikes Despite Ceasefire
http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-ru...nt-america-protects-al-qaeda-and-isis/5483347
In the fight against ISIS, Russia ain’t taking no prisoners
Russia: We Used Iran Base to Launch Syria Airstrikes

What makes you think Russia is not really fighting ISIS? Your privy grapevine sources at the Pentagram?

Russia's military has been in Syria exactly one year since September. Why is it that ISIS still fully operational producing millions gallons of oil everyday? And they are strong as ever.

That's an odd thing to say.
Russia's Achievements in Anti-ISIL Campaign Ruin Washington's Reputation
Putin’s winning in Syria – but making a powerful new enemy
The Syria Situation: Russian Success, American Failure | Hippo Reads
Russia’s Success In Battling ISIS Has The US Scrambling To Play Catch-up
Putin's SUCCEEDING against ISIS: US officials FINALLY admit Russia's doing the RIGHT thing
Russian airstrike successes FINALLY shame US into ramping up attacks on ISIS

And why do you think Russia hasn't made any successes in Syria? Is your brother-in-law employed by the CIA and he's passing on secret information?

Comrade. What made you think I'm not aware of those links? You make it sound that it's tucked in somewhere in Gulag that you are the only one that has access. Putin is killing few ISIS but mostly civilians.
That is right Putin entered Syria September 2015 but they concentrated in killing civilians. So why is ISIS still producing oil by the millions of gallons then sell them to Syria? They should charge both of them with war crimes.

This link happened in last 48 hours.
Russia renews heavy bombing of Syria's Aleppo

Russian airstrikes in Syria killed 2,000 civilians in six months

There are no any proofs, Putin kills civilian. We living in 21st century, with electronic databases. If Putin really killed some civilian - you momentally receive a list with their names, because it's a real anti-Putin bomb and great proof of fact.
But there are still no any names of civilian, Putin killed. Only repeating "Putin kills civilian, it's true, there are 100500 civilian killed by Putin... By Putin personally... using chainsaw... and tentacles...."

 

[Sbiker]

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!

Russia don't want a war? Maybe tell your president Putin thug stop supporting Syria and Iran.
That is why they want to elect Trump a weak pussy will just hand Syria to Russia. Look at his position in Syria compared to his VP? Crap.
Your buddies here making a stupid assessment that Hillary is weak will not do damn thing....... The same time you are saying that Hillary will start a war.

Putin is stupid and don't know, how to stop it. Show them example, stopping to support ISIS

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

1). You didn't watch the video.
2). The ONLY danger to the world after the end of the Cold War was NATO (read USA) and what it has created ever since.
3). You don't know what the word ally means.

No, I only watch the videos if the person presents the evidence and I need to back up this evidence. If you want to take something from the video and use it as an example, fine, but I'm not going to click on every video.

No, NATO wasn't the only danger to the world. Under Clinton it wasn't that much of a danger. He wanted to do good, and in Kosovo he did good. In Somalia he wanted to change things there, but it went wrong. In Iraq he tried to keep Saddam in line. With Bush that all changed, the inherent problem of a Democracy like the US where policy can change one day to the next. The US has become the biggest threat to world security.

I do know what the word ally means, thank you very much.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But the law system has nothing to do with it here

Ladies and gentlemen! I present to you The Selective Anarchist!

Or maybe someone who just sees that this isn't to do with the system of law. You've not explained why you think it is the system of law that has anything to do with this topic.

 

[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?

Which conspiracy theory? Hillary gave humvees to ISIS. Media is part of cover up. ISIS is in Aleppo.

Sorry comrade...... 1 to 4 you have not proven anything to make your buddy Putin a good guy. Try again.

"You comrades are eating horse in ravine..." )) I'm not saying, Putin is a good guy... I seek only logic - and finding giant lacks... Putin is bad, but not because any of your arguments...

As for 1-4... It would be good for me to take at least one Humvee to go hunting... Where in world I can take at least one as easy, as ISIS?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Yeah, governments are bad, but details again

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...

But the law system has nothing to do with it here.

Kosovo left Serbia. Anyone with a fair mind would understand why. The Serbs treated the Kosovan Albanians like shit. Anyone who does that should lose the people and land. However the more powerful won't lose them.

Anyone looking at South Ossetia will see that it's the other way around. The US however didn't support South Ossetia much. What's the need? The Russians were supporting that.

As for hiding international crimes. No, I disagree. Why would the US need to hide them? They invaded Iraq? Previous examples show us that the US justifies any action and gets public support BEFORE they go in. The US with the Ukraine didn't do much at all. There was a little, but most Americans didn't care. And the US didn't go in. Russia did.

What? Law is a main principle in international politics. US used the law principle for a century, to get world domination... But if US want now to change game rule to brute force competition - so, don't ask anymore, who really wants war...

What do you know about Osetia and Georgia? I was there both, and also was in Abhasia. Georgians and Osetin - are gladly people, but saving mutual offenses for a centuries and dreaming about genocide. When NATO upkept Georgia, they tried to kill all civilians in Osetia - Russia just prevented it. So were with Crimea - your media didn't say about "Nazi train of death" to Crimea and nazi strike to Crimean bus group with a lot of deads...Or trying to perform terroristic acts by Ukraine special forces in Crimea... It a 100% similar situation, like Kosovo.

As for other Ukraine - there are no any Russian soldiers there... except a lot of volunteers... Putin cannot prevent them (if he try - we can elect another "Putin"...), the volunteers are learning to fight and receiving experience - to enlarge conscription reserv for Russia forces in future global war... ))

Nothing has changed much. The laws in respect to international law aren't that strong in the first place. Look at Iraq, the US basically made the law fit their desire, rather than the other way around.

Putin does the same thing, though cares less about the law. China just simply ignores it.

What military action did NATO take part in in South Ossetia? As far as I know there was none.

As for the Crimea, there was also no NATO troops or forces doing anything there, there was no killing of people by NATO troops. You sound like you're making stuff up now.