Russian Navy "On Verge of Collapse"

There's the problem right there. You can't tell the difference between the US and the West. Contrary to popular belief, the rest of us are :
1) Entitled to our own opinions.
2) Perfectly capable of making our own minds up and our own decisions.

 

Maybe not the place,
Obama seems to be trying to placate Iran. But as the Ayatoola (whatever) was giving a speach regarding Nuke talks, the audience broke out in a "Death To America" chant.

wait for it...

The ayatolla was saying that the US seeks to divide nations in the ME...Which seems like it may be true. The ME was divided up after ww2 in order to create choas (maybe).

Not saying it was right or wrong, but this is where we are at now.
And this is how a lot of folk in the ME percieve us, perhaps why they don't like us.

 

Glad to hear it. Seems more and more countries in Europe are feeling a bit uneasy with current U.S. politics and starting to speak out. Germany most recent.

 

We say no to America all the time...you just never hear about it...oh and the US says no to us pretty regularly too : )

 

You seem to forget that most of the western Europe was very vocally against the U.S. during the second Iraq war. Western Europe isn't a puppet of U.S and people are quite capable to form their own opinions.

This is the key issue with Russia as Russian national propaganda aims for it's citizens to see enemies all around their country's borders. They want their citizens to believe that west led by U.S is a one big Satan who's only aim is to destroy Russia. Systematic smear campaigns towards bordering western countries or nations who wants to get closer to EU for example have been going on for at least couple of years now.

Regarding my country, it started as Russian authorities begun to claim that Russian families are oppressed here in Finland. Finnish authorities kidnap children from their Russian families etc. These claims have been so unbelievable that people here can't do anything but laugh out loud.

What they fail to see in Russia is that western Europe doesn't want get into any conflicts with them. Business opportunities with Russians are endless and that is something that is the main motivation to western European countries, at least to most of them. Not building hostilities between them.

 

I'm confused. Russian propaganda are drumming eastern Ukraine's right to fight against "Kiew neo-Nazis" and "fascism".

Meanwhile, International conference was held in St. Petersburg that aims to raise support for Moscow's interests in eastern Ukraine from EU. Surprisingly most of the hard core European neo-Nazi parties were invited and present in the conference including NPD from Germany, Greek Golden Dawn and Italian New Force. Marine LePen from National Front wasn't there, maybe because it was revealed last year that her party was financially supported by Putin's regime. Europe's far right elite meeting? I think it's fair to say so.

Also, there were also present eastern Ukrainian military commanders who has strong ties to Russian far right or "neo-Nazis".

So I'm confused. Who is "Neo-Nazi" after all and who supports them?????

http://www.i24news.tv/en/mobile#content/65095
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/st-petersburg-summit-european-far-right-parties-praise-traditional-values-putins-russia-1493131

 

#188
"I have been to Russia numerous time since Putim has been im power and I can tell tou first hand that what the Western media reports dealing with freedoms is NOT TRUE. No one is arrested for speaking out against Putin and there is no censorship of freedom of speech."

Could you comment about Pussy Riot, Mr S?
Maybe you are not aware of that bit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot

 

I'm confused too. It is false to name the Kiev forces "Neo-Nazis". Using a term from the past to explain contemporary events is confusing in it's roots. They should have named them properly: murderers in uniforms of "regular army". What is so noble in the state that uses "regular army" to attack part of own population? Since when western democracies support murderers?
Propaganda? Whose?

 

All depends on what side of the rebellion you are on...I am sure those in the South said as much about the United States during the American Civil War.

 

Damn yankees.

 

You see!

 

I would say since severall years, you need to learn about CIA (with support of other western secrets services) operations in eg. Southern and Middle American countries it seems. If you need info about that I can give you reading material So I guess the UKR issue is not really something special (except that it is at our doorsteps now)

Edit: Also a elected government in Iran was putsched away cause the US didn´t like their new oil policies...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup
The CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the notorious 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, in documents that also show how the British government tried to block the release of information about its own involvement in his overthrow.
On the 60th anniversary of an event often invoked by Iranians as evidence of western meddling, the US national security archive at George Washington University published a series of declassified CIA documents.
"The military coup that overthrew Mosaddeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government," reads a previously excised section of an internal CIA history titled The Battle for Iran.
The documents, published on the archive's website under freedom of information laws, describe in detail how the US – with British help – engineered the coup, codenamed TPAJAX by the CIA and Operation Boot by Britain's MI6.
Britain, and in particular Sir Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, latterly known as BP. But the UK needed US support. The Eisenhower administration in Washington was easily persuaded.

 

Well Germany maybe if you ask parts of the population and some politicians, but the puppets at the top don´t seem so "uneasy"...(they only reacted when Kiew regime was already loosing, you can read something in the Merkel - Ukraine thread about that)....

But for other European countries like eg. Italy, France, Spain....maybe Austria what you wrote seems true.

 

Mistral Amphibious Assault Ships for Russia: Deliveries Hanging on Ukrainian Ceasefire

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/russia-to-order-french-mistral-lhds-05749/

Dec 11/14: negotiating tactics. Russia’s official TASS news agency relays a statement from “a high-rank source in the Russian defense sector” bearing the studied vagueness that is a trademark of Russian communications:

“The Navy has put construction of Russia’s own amphibious assault ships on a long-term program of shipbuilding for up to 2050 and these plans have been endorsed by the Defense Ministry. The document envisions (the emergence of) these ships, many such ships actually.”

Of course if Russia does want to do it alone they’re more than a decade away from having working ships, and if the Kremlin was confident in their own shipbuilding capabilities, they would not have gone to France in the first place. Russia obviously can’t come with an overnight homegrown substitute, but this is consistent with the overall messaging from Russia that they care, but not that much, and that they can operate with eyes set on a long term horizon. It sounds like the Russian are hedging to save face in case France does cancel the Mistral contract.

 

Where was Putin? Seems like he has more time on taking Botox injections and spending hot nights with the young woman than concentrating on Russia´s actual situation. It seems he got one Big Botox injection right into the brains as well...

 

Yes indeed.

You can state that. I don't believe it and from what I can tell quite a few others don't either.

Not really. Personal experiences and eye witness accounts are in this regard one of the weaker forms of evidence. Contrary accounts have also been posted here. If you can't be bothered to read them then I don't see why I should spend much effort on your requests.

That's because you have yet to post any quality sources.

That's a bit of a distortion to say the least. I have contemplated the Russian side of things, and came to the conclusions that their actions in this case were reprehensable and in violation of multiple treaties and international law. Furthermore they have deliberately lied and confirmed the same by changing their stories on several occasions and in ones that are of critical import.

??? The position of the US in this matter is irrelevant. I've never said or even hinted at "everything" coming otu of Russia being a lie. Untrustworthy certainly but they can't help but get a few facts right. Nor do I want Russia to be the bad guy, indeed I find it very unfortunate that they are.

Your sources don't indicate that it was ever implemented and certainly not that it is currently implemented especially as "neocons" are not currently in charge of US foreign policy. So yes it is up to you to support your positoin.

You presented a source that does not support your position. That means it's not much of a source doesn't it.

If you aren't aware of US actions being strongly influenced (i.e. moderated) by other countries in the last couple of decades then there's little for us to discuss.

It's better than when the Soviets were around. Very simply the impact of how things would affect the Soviets played a huge part in US foreign policy decisions. Since the fall of the Soviets the US has been less suportive of anticomunists of "questionable" nature.

Indeed US nuclear doctrine was changed but the allowance for first use was only under certain circumstances which didn't fit the events in the Crimea. It was also quite clear that the US wasn't going to use Nukes there or even consdiering it. Putin was simply trying to excuse his saber rattling.

 

It's quite intersting to compare this article to the actual gallup poll at:
http://www.bbg.gov/wp-content/media/2014/06/Ukraine-slide-deck.pdf
First of all only two polls are mentioned the gallup one and a German one. While the "poll after Poll" comment implies more than two. Then there's fact that the actual poll doesn't support some of the statements in the article. For instance it states:

Yet I can find no mention in the Gallup poll of Tatars. Furthermore only 500 people in the Crimea were interviewed and no mention was made of the selection criteria. Nor was it mentioned what efforts were made to insure that the respondents didn't feel they were under compulsion to support the Russian position. Certainly the NPR piece on the Tatars suggested that comunity considered themselves under close observation and at risk.

The Gallup poll does present results from other regions of the Ukraine, they are far less supportive of Russian efforts.

If that were true then the Russians shouldn't have intervened in Crimea as it was part of the Ukraine. If it is Russia for the Russians it should also be Ukraine for the Ukrainians. Crimean independence or incorporation into Russia should first have been addressed by the Ukrainians and the Crimeans. Furhter more Russian actions were in violation of treaties signed both with the Ukraine and with the US and other powers and indeed in violation of their obligations as a member of the UN. That rather makes the opionions of the treaty parties relevant.

Why do you feel it's one they must face? In any case it's highly unlikely that it will reflect well on the Soviet Union or Russia or the Russian sponsored Ukrainians.

I won't dispute either of these assertations.

Are you trying to confirm the first sentence in the previous quote? If not what are you talking about?

It's standard practice when a portion of the population rises in revolt against the legitimate authoraties. It's even more common when many of those fighting aren't part of their "own population" but are actually invaders from a neighboring country.

The Ukrainian army hardly deserves the term murderers. Indeed the seperatist and their Russian support are the ones that could justifyably be considered such. They were the ones that turned to violence in contrevention to national and international law. Russian propaganda not withstanding.

 

Sure. Members of the Pussy Riot came up with a brilliant idea. To protest and push their agenda in one of the holiest places in Russia. After running into the church they interrupted a procession by yelling numerous slogans aimed at Putin. They were arrested and charged with hooliganism just as they would have been had they tried this at the Vatican, Notre Dame Basilica in Quebec or a church down the street from my house.....

While their imprisonment may have a been a bit harsh but their fate was decided by the courts NOT the Kremlin.

No one paid any attention to Pussy Riot prior to this stunt. The holiest church in Russia (IMO) is not a place to stage such a protest. Many in Russia were offended and outraged at what Pussy Riot had done....Had they done this anywhere else they would have probably been fine.

 

Note the contradictions between that and what is reported in the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_Russia
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17840134
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/10/freedom-russian-press-scrutiny
http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2014/03/20/russia-puts-muzzle-independent-media
Those were just a few turned up in a quick search and they don't exactly present a glowing picture of freedome of speech or the press in Russia. Indeed quite the opposite.

 

Yeah, Pussy Riot tried very hard to be offensive. They showed no class.

But, it looks like the punishment went far beyond the crime. (that happens here sometimes too, btw)
One explanation may be that they were being punished for their views about Mr P, his governance, and their (Pussy Riot's) outspokeness (is that a word).